IHT Rendezvous: Dutch Arts Groups Shut Down as Funding Vanishes

AMSTERDAM — In the 1980s and ’90s, the Netherlands had a reputation as a kind of paradise for artists. Graduates of fine arts academies could receive long-term grants and special housing subsidies to support them so they wouldn’t have to get day jobs. Edgy theater groups and small contemporary classical ensembles were fully financed to create innovative and experimental work. The government even bought art directly from artists who weren’t particularly commercial, maintaining it in large storage facilities, simply to support artistic production.

That all started to change during the first decade of this century as lawmakers in the Netherlands became more conservative and budgets began to shrink. After the financial crisis hit Holland in 2008, the controversy about spending on the arts began to mount, reaching a fever pitch in 2011 and 2012, as the conservative-led coalition government took aim at culture.

As I wrote today in an article for the IHT, about two dozen cultural organizations across the Netherlands are shutting their doors as dramatic cuts to the nation’s arts budgets have begun to take effect. Dance companies, orchestras, musical heritage foundations and nonprofit art galleries, some of which have been operating for decades, are closing down.

Among the victims of the first round of cuts have been the Theater Institute Netherlands, which houses the nation’s theater museum, the acclaimed contemporary dance ensemble Dansgroep Amsterdam, and the Radio Chamber Philharmonic, a classical orchestra whose performances have been broadcast since the end of World War II.

Starting on Jan. 1 this year, federal financing for the arts dropped by 22 percent, while regional, provincial and local governments cut anywhere from 10 to 20 percent from their arts budgets, resulting in an overall loss of about €470 million in subsidies to the culture sector as a whole. Most of the country’s established institutions, like the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum, are faring with slightly lower budgets, but some others have seen their subsidies vanish overnight.

“You will see that most of the institutions that will collapse or that will fall out of the system are the mid-sized or smaller ones,” said Jeroen Bartlese, secretary general of the Raad voor Cultuur, or Dutch Culture Council. “There will be fewer performances, there will be less things to see, culture will be less diverse. The Netherlands has been known as internationally as being a haven, a good place for talents to experiment, to show off, to learn and to develop their talent. I certainly hope that won’t go away, and maybe it won’t because you don’t break down a tradition that easily, but at the moment there are quite a few organizations that fall away, and that is concerning.”

Although the conservative-led government was replaced with a more moderate Dutch parliament in September, the cuts to the cultural sector have not been rolled back. And the rhetoric that was used to justify the slicing has had a demoralizing effect as well.

“The Rutte government painted artists as elitist, parasitic, sophisticated beggars, living off state subsidies, basically procrastinating,” said Ann Demeester, director of De Appel art center in Amsterdam.

Efforts to find alternative and private sources of funding for the arts have begun, but it’s unlikely that such funding will come in time to save many of the groups that have lost their subsidies already this year.

“The way it was done was just too big and too quick, which may have led to the disappearance, and the end, of some institutions,” Mr. Bartlese said. “More than was necessary, if it had been phased in properly.”

How should the country’s arts groups go about rebuilding themselves? Will they be able to find private sources of funding to fill in the gaps? Are there other regions where arts organizations have found ways to generate needed funding that can serve as models for those in the Netherlands?

Read More..

The Caucus: LaHood to Leave Transportation Department

Ray LaHood, the former Republican congressman from Illinois who has run the nation’s Transportation Department under President Obama, will not serve a second term, he told department employees in a letter on Tuesday.

“I’ve told President Obama, and I’ve told many of you, that this is the best job I’ve ever had. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to work with all of you,” Mr. LaHood wrote. He cited the department’s efforts to curb distracted driving and to increase the efficiency of automobiles by raising emissions standards.

As transportation secretary, Mr. LaHood was at the center of efforts to reduce fatigue among pilots and called for greater investment in high-speed rail. He also pushed for large fines against Toyota for safety problems and for a new transportation bill in Congress.

“We have made great progress in improving the safety of our transit systems, pipelines, and highways, and in reducing roadway fatalities to historic lows,” he said. “We have strengthened consumer protections with new regulations on buses, trucks, and airlines.”

Mr. LaHood’s decision makes him the latest in a series of members of the president’s original cabinet to announce their departure in the last several weeks.

In a statement, Mr. Obama praised Mr. LaHood, the last remaining Republican from the president’s first-term cabinet, as a public servant who has been more interested in practical solutions than in partisan politics.

“Years ago, we were drawn together by a shared belief that those of us in public service owe an allegiance not to party or faction, but to the people we were elected to represent,” the president wrote. “And Ray has never wavered in that belief.”

Several people have been mentioned as possible replacements for Mr. LaHood at the Transportation Department. Among them: Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles; Ed Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania; Debbie Hersman, the chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board; and Jennifer Granholm, the former Democratic governor of Michigan.


Follow Michael D. Shear on Twitter at @shearm.


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 29, 2013

Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this post said that Mr. LaHood was the sole Republican to serve in Mr. Obama's first-term cabinet. Robert Gates, a Republican who served as defense secretary under President George W. Bush, was re-appointed by Mr. Obama.

Read More..

Well: Ask Well: Long-Term Use of Nicotine Gum

In small doses, like those contained in the gum, nicotine is generally considered safe. But it does have stimulant properties that can raise blood pressure, increase heart rate and constrict blood vessels. One large report from 2010 found that compared to people given a placebo, those who used nicotine replacement therapies had a higher risk of heart palpitations and chest pains.

That’s one reason that nicotine gum should, ideally, be used for no more than four to six months, said Lauren Indorf, a nurse practitioner with the Cleveland Clinic’s Tobacco Treatment Center. Yet up to 10 percent of people use it for longer periods, in some cases for a decade or more she said.

Some research has raised speculation that long-term use of nicotine might also raise the risk of cancer, though it has mostly involved laboratory and animal research, and there have not been any long-term randomized studies specifically addressing this question in people. One recent report that reviewed the evidence on nicotine replacement therapy and cancer concluded that, “the risk, if any, seems small compared with continued smoking.”

Ultimately, the biggest problem with using nicotine gum for long periods is that the longer you stay on it, the longer you remain dependent on nicotine, and thus the greater your odds of a smoking relapse, said Ms. Indorf. “What if the gum is not available one day?” she said. “Your body is still relying on nicotine.”

If you find yourself using it for longer than six months, it may be time to consider switching to sugar-free gum or even another replacement therapy, like the patch or nasal spray.

“Getting people on a different regimen helps them break the gum habit and can help taper them off nicotine,” Ms. Indorf said.

Read More..

Well: Ask Well: Long-Term Use of Nicotine Gum

In small doses, like those contained in the gum, nicotine is generally considered safe. But it does have stimulant properties that can raise blood pressure, increase heart rate and constrict blood vessels. One large report from 2010 found that compared to people given a placebo, those who used nicotine replacement therapies had a higher risk of heart palpitations and chest pains.

That’s one reason that nicotine gum should, ideally, be used for no more than four to six months, said Lauren Indorf, a nurse practitioner with the Cleveland Clinic’s Tobacco Treatment Center. Yet up to 10 percent of people use it for longer periods, in some cases for a decade or more she said.

Some research has raised speculation that long-term use of nicotine might also raise the risk of cancer, though it has mostly involved laboratory and animal research, and there have not been any long-term randomized studies specifically addressing this question in people. One recent report that reviewed the evidence on nicotine replacement therapy and cancer concluded that, “the risk, if any, seems small compared with continued smoking.”

Ultimately, the biggest problem with using nicotine gum for long periods is that the longer you stay on it, the longer you remain dependent on nicotine, and thus the greater your odds of a smoking relapse, said Ms. Indorf. “What if the gum is not available one day?” she said. “Your body is still relying on nicotine.”

If you find yourself using it for longer than six months, it may be time to consider switching to sugar-free gum or even another replacement therapy, like the patch or nasal spray.

“Getting people on a different regimen helps them break the gum habit and can help taper them off nicotine,” Ms. Indorf said.

Read More..

Streaming Shakes Up Music Industry’s Model for Royalties


Jim Wilson/The New York Times


Zoe Keating published on her blog the details of what she made in royalties from the Web streaming of her music. It wasn’t a lot.







Like plenty of music fans, Sam Broe jumped at the chance to join Spotify two summers ago, and he hasn’t looked back.




Spotify, which began streaming music in Sweden in 2008, lets users choose from millions of songs over the Internet free or by subscription, and is increasingly seen as representing the future of music consumption. Mr. Broe, a 26-year-old from Brooklyn, said that having all that music at his fingertips helped him trim his monthly music budget from $30 to the $10 fee he pays for Spotify’s premium service.


“The only time I download anything on iTunes is in the rare case that I can’t find it on Spotify,” he said.


A decade after Apple revolutionized the music world with its iTunes store, the music industry is undergoing another, even more radical, digital transformation as listeners begin to move from CDs and downloads to streaming services like Spotify, Pandora and YouTube.


As purveyors of legally licensed music, they have been largely welcomed by an industry still buffeted by piracy. But as the companies behind these digital services swell into multibillion-dollar enterprises, the relative trickle of money that has made its way to artists is causing anxiety at every level of the business.


Late last year, Zoe Keating, an independent musician from Northern California, provided an unusually detailed case in point. In voluminous spreadsheets posted to her Tumblr blog, she revealed the royalties she gets from various services, down to the ten-thousandth of a cent.


Even for an under-the-radar artist like Ms. Keating, who describes her style as “avant cello,” the numbers painted a stark picture of what it is like to be a working musician these days. After her songs had been played more than 1.5 million times on Pandora over six months, she earned $1,652.74. On Spotify, 131,000 plays last year netted just $547.71, or an average of 0.42 cent a play.


“In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music,” Ms. Keating said.


The way streaming services pay royalties represents a major shift in the economic gears that have been underlying the industry for decades.


From 78 r.p.m. records to the age of iTunes, artists’ record royalties have been counted as a percentage of a sale price. On a 99-cent download, a typical artist may earn 7 to 10 cents after deductions for the retailer, the record company and the songwriter, music executives say. One industry joke calls the flow of these royalties a “river of nickels.”


In the new economics of streaming music, however, the river of nickels looks more like a torrent of micropennies.


Spotify, Pandora and others like them pay fractions of a cent to record companies and publishers each time a song is played, some portion of which goes to performers and songwriters as royalties. Unlike the royalties from a sale, these payments accrue every time a listener clicks on a song, year after year.


The question dogging the music industry is whether these micropayments can add up to anything substantial.


“No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few,” said Hartwig Masuch, chief executive of BMG Rights Management.


Spotify has 20 million users in 17 countries, with five million of them paying $5 to $10 a month to eliminate the ads seen by freeloaders.


In a recent interview, Sean Parker, a board member, said he believed Spotify would eventually attract enough subscribers to help return the music industry to its former glory — that is, to the days before Mr. Parker’s first major enterprise, Napster, came along.


“I believe that Spotify is the company that will make it succeed,” said Mr. Parker, who is also a former president of Facebook. “It’s the right model if you want to build the pot of money back up to where it was in the late ’90s, when the industry was at its peak. This is the only model that’s going to get you there.”


Read More..

Ukrainian General Given Life Sentence in Killing of Journalist





MOSCOW — A Ukrainian court sentenced a former security official to life in prison on Tuesday for the death of Georgy Gongadze, a journalist whose mysterious death in 2002 provoked an international outcry and helped set off protests against the president at the time, Leonid D. Kuchma.




The former security official, Gen. Oleksei Pukach, who once headed a surveillance department for Ukraine’s Interior Ministry, testified that he had not intended to kill Mr. Gongadze, but strangled him with a belt accidentally in the course of an interrogation. He is the highest-ranking official to be convicted in Mr. Gongadze’s death.


Mr. Gongadze went missing in 2000 and his body was found two months later, beheaded, in a forest 75 miles from Kiev, the capital. He had infuriated the president, Mr. Kuchma, with muckraking publications in Ukrainskaya Pravda, an Internet newspaper he had founded.


Suspicions of official involvement grew with the release of covert recordings made by one of Mr. Kuchma’s bodyguards, in which the a man who sounded like the president spoke of Mr. Gongadze, telling a subordinate to “throw him out, give him to the Chechens.”


The killing came to epitomize the role that crime had come to play in Ukrainian politics and provoked a wave of demonstrations that some describe as the first manifestation of the 2004 Orange Revolution.


Three former police officers who stood trial over Mr. Gongadze’s death said that he had climbed into what he believed to be a taxi and was taken to a location outside Kiev, where he was beaten and strangled, doused with gasoline and burned.


General Pukach said he had been trying to force Mr. Gongadze to confess to espionage, something Mr. Gongadze refused to do, though he did admit accepting $400,000 from Western diplomats for passing on information.


Volodymyr Shilov, a prosecutor, said that General Pukach had testified that he was carrying out an order, but would not say what the order was or who issued it, according to the Interfax news agency. But just before guards took him away on Tuesday, General Pukach gave a revealing response to journalists who asked him to comment on the verdict, telling them to direct their questions to Mr. Kuchma and his chief of staff, Volodymyr Lytvyn.


“Ask Kuchma and Lytvyn, they’ll tell you everything,” he said, according to Interfax. “I told everything during the investigation and trial. So ask Lytvyn and Kuchma about their motives and intentions.”


The trial was mostly closed to journalists, who were allowed to be present only for the verdict and sentencing. But a lawyer representing Mr. Gongadze’s widow complained that the investigation and trial were flawed and inconsistent, overlooking evidence that General Pukach had intended to kill Mr. Gongadze.


“He spoke clearly about receiving an order to kill burn and bury him, and he was prepared for this,” said the lawyer, Valentyna Telychenko, in comments broadcast on television. “He brought a shovel and a canister of gasoline, meaning his actions were directed toward murder, and nothing else.”


General Pukach testified that he had been ordered to conduct surveillance by Ukraine’s interior minister — a man who was found dead in 2005, hours before he was to be questioned by prosecutors in the matter. Officials called it a suicide, though Ukrainian news agencies said he had suffered two gunshot wounds.


Read More..

Media Decoder Blog: Dodgers, Signing Lucrative TV Deal, Plan to Start Regional Sports Network

The owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers said Monday that they intended to start a regional sports network in southern California, confirming weeks of reports about the team’s plans.

The network, to be named SportsNet LA, will be backed by Time Warner Cable, one of the main television distributors in the region, with a commitment of $7 billion to $8 billion over the next 25 years. The price tag, though not made public by the parties, was confirmed by a person with direct knowledge of the deal. Analysts said it was the most lucrative television deal for a single team in sports history.

Time Warner Cable will carry the Dodgers network and will be in charge of convincing others to carry it, as well. In exchange, Time Warner Cable will keep all the advertising revenue that it sells for the network. The Dodgers owners said in a news release on Monday that SportsNet LA would carry all the team’s games and “comprehensive behind-the-scenes Dodger programming.”

The multibillion-dollar deal with the Dodgers seemingly flies in the face of Time Warner Cable’s public statements about tamping down on the rising costs of programming. SportsNet LA is likely to amount to $4 to $5 a month per subscriber in southern California, and some of that cost will be passed on subscribers through their monthly cable bills, with Time Warner Cable also absorbing some of the cost.

But Time Warner Cable says that doing business directly with the Dodgers cuts out the middleman, in this case Fox Sports, which was also bidding for rights to the Dodgers games. The company said the same thing when it outbid Fox to carry Los Angeles Lakers games in 2011, a 20-year deal valued at $3 billion.

“This deal, like our Lakers’ deal, furthers our efforts to attain greater certainty and control over local and regional sports programming costs,” David Rone, the president of Time Warner Cable Sports, said of the Dodgers agreement in a statement.

Fox Sports, owned by the News Corporation, disputes this notion, in part because its bid for the Dodgers was significantly less than Time Warner Cable’s bid. Dodgers games will continue to be televised on Fox Sports’ Prime Ticket network until the new network starts in 2014.

A group led by Magic Johnson and financed by Guggenheim Partners bought the Dodgers last year in a deal valued at $2.3 billion. “We concluded last year that the best way to give our fans what they want — more content and more Dodger baseball — was to launch our own network,” Mark Walter, the founder of Guggenheim Partners and the chairman of the Dodgers franchise, said in a statement.

The network will be operated by American Media Productions, a subsidiary of the Dodgers ownership group. “The creation of AMP will provide substantial financial resources over the coming years for the Dodgers to build on their storied legacy and bring a World Championship home to Los Angeles,” Mr. Walter said.

The financial terms of the arrangement were not released. The arrangement will require the approval of Major League Baseball.

Assessing the impending deal last week, the Nomura analyst Michael Nathanson said Time Warner Cable should “be careful what they wish for.” In a note to investors, he pointed out that the News Corporation is likely to use the high rates for the Lakers and Dodgers channels as negotiating leverage for other regional sports networks. News Corp. recently acquired 49 percent of YES, the Yankees channel in New York, and full ownership of a channel that carries the Cleveland Indians in Ohio. Time Warner Cable is a major distributor in New York and Ohio.

Mr. Nathanson said Los Angeles, which will have six regional sports networks once the Dodgers network starts, is “experiencing significant price inflation.” It’s too soon to know, he said, “whether these levels of investments will prove to be justified many years down the road or if we have reached the top of the sports-rights bubble.”

Read More..

Recipes for Health: Gluten-Free Banana Chocolate Muffins


Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times







My son Liam still doesn’t know that the muffins he has been devouring all week are gluten-free. I am a big believer that there is no need to forego gluten unless you are truly gluten intolerant; indeed, nutritionists are concerned that a gluten-free diet can be lacking in essential nutrients and digestive enzymes. But I have a sister who is gluten intolerant, so this year I finally made some forays into gluten-free baking in preparation for her annual visit. When she comes I make sure to pick up plenty of gluten-free pasta and bread for her, and we go to holiday parties armed with gluten-free crackers so she doesn’t have to forego hors d’oeuvres.




This year I decided to experiment with gluten-free pastries. I substituted a commercial gluten-free flour mix for all-purpose flour in a pâte sablée recipe and the resulting cookies and tart shells had a wonderful texture – no threat of toughening the dough by working the gluten too much. But I wasn’t crazy about the flavor because the commercial mix I used had a fair amount of bean flour in it and it tasted too strong.


So I put together my own gluten-free flour mix, one without bean flour, and turned to America’s favorite Gluten-Free Girl, Shauna James Ahem for guidance. I was already thinking about making muffins and I wanted a mix that could replace the whole wheat flour I usually use in conjunction with other grains or flours. Her formula for a whole-grain flour mix is simple – 70 percent ground gluten-free grain like rice flour, millet flour, buckwheat flour or teff (the list on her site is a long one) and 30 percent starch like potato starch, cornstarch or arrowroot. For this week’s recipes, I used what I had, which was brown rice flour, potato starch and cornstarch – 20 percent potato starch and 10 percent cornstarch -- and that’s the basis for the nutritional analyses of this week’s recipes. I used this mix in conjunction with a gluten-free meal or flour, so the amount of pure starch in the batters is much less than 30 percent.


When you bake anything it is much simpler and results are more consistent if you use grams and scale your ingredients. This is especially true with gluten-free baking, since you are working with grain and starch formulas. Digital scales are not expensive and I urge you to switch over to this method if you like to bake. I have given approximate cup measures so the recipes will work both ways, but scaling is more accurate.


Gluten-Free Banana Chocolate Muffins


These dark chocolate muffins taste more extravagant than they are. Cacao – raw chocolate -- is considered by many to be a “super food.” It is high in antioxidants and an excellent source of magnesium, iron, chromium, manganese, zinc, and copper. It is also a good source of omega-6 fatty acids and vitamin C.


75 grams (approximately 1/2 cup) buckwheat flour


75 grams (approximately 3/4 cup) almond powder (also known as almond flour)


140 grams (approximately 1 cup) whole grain or all-purpose gluten-free flour mix*


32 grams (approximately 6 tablespoons) dark cocoa powder


10 grams (2 teaspoons) baking powder


5 grams (1 teaspoon) baking soda


3.5 grams (rounded 1/2 teaspoon) salt


100 grams (approximately 1/2 cup) raw brown sugar or packed light brown sugar


2 eggs


75 grams (1/3 cup) canola or grape seed oil


120 grams (1/2 cup) plain low-fat yogurt or buttermilk


5 grams (1 teaspoon) vanilla extract


330 grams ripe bananas (peeled weight), about 3 medium, mashed (1 1/4 cups)


115 grams (about 2/3 cup) semi-sweet or bittersweet chocolate chips or chopped bittersweet chocolate


*For the gluten-free flour mix I used 98 grams (about 2/3 cup) rice flour and 42 grams -- about 1/3 cup -- of a mix of cornstarch and potato starch)


1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Oil or butter muffin tins. Sift the dry ingredients into a large bowl. Pour in any bits that remain in the sifter.


2. In another large bowl or in the bowl of a standing mixer fitted with the whip attachment beat together the oil and sugar until creamy. Beat in the eggs and beat until incorporated, then beat in the yogurt or buttermilk, the vanilla and the mashed bananas. Add the dry ingredients and mix at low speed or whisk gently until combined. If using a mixer, scrape down the sides of the bowl and the beaters. Fold in the chocolate chips.


3. Using a spoon or ice cream scoop, fill muffin cups to the top. Place in the oven and bake 30 minutes, until a muffin springs back lightly when touched. Remove from the heat and if the muffins come out of the tins easily, remove from the tins and place on a rack. I like these best served warm, but if they don’t release easily allow them to cool, then remove from the tins.


Yield: 16 muffins (1/3 cup capacity)


Advance preparation: These keep for a couple of days out of the refrigerator, for a few more days in the refrigerator, and for a few months in the freezer.


Nutritional information per serving: 217 calories; 10 grams fat; 2 grams saturated fat; 2 grams polyunsaturated fat; 3 grams monounsaturated fat; 24 milligrams cholesterol; 29 grams carbohydrates; 2 grams dietary fiber; 251 milligrams sodium; 4 grams protein


Martha Rose Shulman is the author of “The Very Best of Recipes for Health.”


Read More..

Recipes for Health: Gluten-Free Banana Chocolate Muffins


Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times







My son Liam still doesn’t know that the muffins he has been devouring all week are gluten-free. I am a big believer that there is no need to forego gluten unless you are truly gluten intolerant; indeed, nutritionists are concerned that a gluten-free diet can be lacking in essential nutrients and digestive enzymes. But I have a sister who is gluten intolerant, so this year I finally made some forays into gluten-free baking in preparation for her annual visit. When she comes I make sure to pick up plenty of gluten-free pasta and bread for her, and we go to holiday parties armed with gluten-free crackers so she doesn’t have to forego hors d’oeuvres.




This year I decided to experiment with gluten-free pastries. I substituted a commercial gluten-free flour mix for all-purpose flour in a pâte sablée recipe and the resulting cookies and tart shells had a wonderful texture – no threat of toughening the dough by working the gluten too much. But I wasn’t crazy about the flavor because the commercial mix I used had a fair amount of bean flour in it and it tasted too strong.


So I put together my own gluten-free flour mix, one without bean flour, and turned to America’s favorite Gluten-Free Girl, Shauna James Ahem for guidance. I was already thinking about making muffins and I wanted a mix that could replace the whole wheat flour I usually use in conjunction with other grains or flours. Her formula for a whole-grain flour mix is simple – 70 percent ground gluten-free grain like rice flour, millet flour, buckwheat flour or teff (the list on her site is a long one) and 30 percent starch like potato starch, cornstarch or arrowroot. For this week’s recipes, I used what I had, which was brown rice flour, potato starch and cornstarch – 20 percent potato starch and 10 percent cornstarch -- and that’s the basis for the nutritional analyses of this week’s recipes. I used this mix in conjunction with a gluten-free meal or flour, so the amount of pure starch in the batters is much less than 30 percent.


When you bake anything it is much simpler and results are more consistent if you use grams and scale your ingredients. This is especially true with gluten-free baking, since you are working with grain and starch formulas. Digital scales are not expensive and I urge you to switch over to this method if you like to bake. I have given approximate cup measures so the recipes will work both ways, but scaling is more accurate.


Gluten-Free Banana Chocolate Muffins


These dark chocolate muffins taste more extravagant than they are. Cacao – raw chocolate -- is considered by many to be a “super food.” It is high in antioxidants and an excellent source of magnesium, iron, chromium, manganese, zinc, and copper. It is also a good source of omega-6 fatty acids and vitamin C.


75 grams (approximately 1/2 cup) buckwheat flour


75 grams (approximately 3/4 cup) almond powder (also known as almond flour)


140 grams (approximately 1 cup) whole grain or all-purpose gluten-free flour mix*


32 grams (approximately 6 tablespoons) dark cocoa powder


10 grams (2 teaspoons) baking powder


5 grams (1 teaspoon) baking soda


3.5 grams (rounded 1/2 teaspoon) salt


100 grams (approximately 1/2 cup) raw brown sugar or packed light brown sugar


2 eggs


75 grams (1/3 cup) canola or grape seed oil


120 grams (1/2 cup) plain low-fat yogurt or buttermilk


5 grams (1 teaspoon) vanilla extract


330 grams ripe bananas (peeled weight), about 3 medium, mashed (1 1/4 cups)


115 grams (about 2/3 cup) semi-sweet or bittersweet chocolate chips or chopped bittersweet chocolate


*For the gluten-free flour mix I used 98 grams (about 2/3 cup) rice flour and 42 grams -- about 1/3 cup -- of a mix of cornstarch and potato starch)


1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Oil or butter muffin tins. Sift the dry ingredients into a large bowl. Pour in any bits that remain in the sifter.


2. In another large bowl or in the bowl of a standing mixer fitted with the whip attachment beat together the oil and sugar until creamy. Beat in the eggs and beat until incorporated, then beat in the yogurt or buttermilk, the vanilla and the mashed bananas. Add the dry ingredients and mix at low speed or whisk gently until combined. If using a mixer, scrape down the sides of the bowl and the beaters. Fold in the chocolate chips.


3. Using a spoon or ice cream scoop, fill muffin cups to the top. Place in the oven and bake 30 minutes, until a muffin springs back lightly when touched. Remove from the heat and if the muffins come out of the tins easily, remove from the tins and place on a rack. I like these best served warm, but if they don’t release easily allow them to cool, then remove from the tins.


Yield: 16 muffins (1/3 cup capacity)


Advance preparation: These keep for a couple of days out of the refrigerator, for a few more days in the refrigerator, and for a few months in the freezer.


Nutritional information per serving: 217 calories; 10 grams fat; 2 grams saturated fat; 2 grams polyunsaturated fat; 3 grams monounsaturated fat; 24 milligrams cholesterol; 29 grams carbohydrates; 2 grams dietary fiber; 251 milligrams sodium; 4 grams protein


Martha Rose Shulman is the author of “The Very Best of Recipes for Health.”


Read More..

Bits Blog: A Right to Unlock Cellphones Fades Away

Your right to unlock your cellphone is about to expire. Cellphone carriers say this is for your own good — and theirs.

Unlocking a cellphone enables it to work on a wireless carrier other than the one you bought it from. If an AT&T iPhone were unlocked, for example, it could be used on T-Mobile USA’s network. In October, the Library of Congress decided to invalidate a copyright exemption for unlocking cellphones. This exemption expires Saturday, making the act of unlocking a cellphone potentially illegal, unless it is authorized by a carrier.

What does that mean, exactly? It’s not like police officers will come knocking on your door if you decide to unlock your cellphone. More realistically, consumers might receive warnings from carriers if they are discovered to have unlocked a device. Businesses that resell used cellphones might be threatened, too.

“As with any of these copyright things, it’s a club for threatening people,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit company that focuses on information policy. “The law is very broad, and if you want to go after somebody, it’s one of these where there are a lot of ways in which this could play out.”

For years, technology companies have fought to add terms and regulations to products to protect their businesses. For example, Apple in 2008 fought a small company named Psystar that was selling generic PCs that ran the Mac operating system. In its lawsuit, Apple said Psystar had violated trademark agreements by selling non-Apple hardware that ran modified versions of Mac OS X. Apple had cited the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, an anti-hacking provision.

The copyright act is also at the center of the provision about unlocking cellphones. In 2006 and again in 2010, the Library of Congress approved an exemption to the act that allowed the circumvention of technology that confined wireless handsets to different networks. Carriers fought to remove this exemption, and the Library of Congress chose not to renew it in October.

CTIA, the wireless industry trade group, had also pushed for the exemption to be removed. Michael Altschul, senior vice president of CTIA, said in an interview that prohibiting people from unlocking their cellphones helped protect carriers’ investments in the subsidies that they provide for handsets. If a customer bought an iPhone on contract for a carrier-discounted price of $200, for example, he could use third-party software to unlock the device and sell it at a higher price. Disallowing that helps to prevent this kind of abuse, which makes carrier subsidies a sustainable practice, Mr. Altschul said.

“It’s allowing that business practice to go forward at a time when the price of devices continues to grow,” Mr. Altschul said.

He added that by not allowing people to unlock phones, carriers will also be making it harder for “gray market” businesses to launder and sell stolen cellphones. This protects consumers, he said, because the software used to unlock phones might contain malicious code that steals personal information.

Some consumer advocacy groups have a different point of view. Mitch Stoltz, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit company, said the copyright act, which was designed to make it illegal to circumvent protections for copyrighted works, had repeatedly been misused by technology companies to protect their businesses. He said the removal of the exemption for unlocking cellphones might discourage people from wanting to sell their own phone to another person after they have bought a new one.

“This probably is going to cause a lot more phones to end up in landfills,” Mr. Stoltz said. “If it’s locked, it’s pretty difficult to even resell a handset.”

Consumers can buy phones unlocked at full price. Or they can get their phones unlocked if their carriers permit it. AT&T, for example, will unlock an iPhone at a customer’s request if his contract is up and his account is in good standing.

Mr. Feld of Public Knowledge compared this to paying someone to unlock a closet.

“It’s like if I took your stuff and locked it in a closet and said you are not allowed to break the lock,” Mr. Feld said. “And breaking the lock — I’ve put your stuff in this closet, but you can’t get it unless you pay me for access to it — that’s what this is the equivalent of.”

Read More..