SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (3403)7/29/2002 1:30:35 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Sun Jul 28, 9:15 AM ET
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The New York Times

In recent months some of the wealthiest older Americans have been buying huge life insurance policies on themselves. Curiously, these people have shopped not for the cheapest rates but for the highest rates they can find. In some cases, they delightedly pay 10 times the lowest rates for that insurance.

Why would anyone willingly pay so much?

Taxes.

Through a technique invented by a lawyer in New York and a chemical engineer in California, each dollar spent on this insurance can typically eliminate $9 in taxes. Spend $10 million on this insurance, avoid $90 million or more in income, gift, generation-skipping and estate taxes.

"I'm not saying this is the best thing since sliced bread, but it's really good for pushing wealth forward tax free," said Jonathan G. Blattmachr, the New York lawyer who heads the estate tax department at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy and who explained the plan in a half-dozen interviews.

The technique is legal, blessed by the I.R.S. in 1996. But some leading tax lawyers, as well as some accountants and insurance agents, say it shouldn't be. They say it effectively disguises a gift to one's heirs that should be taxed like any other gift. They also say it is but one example of how a tax exemption on life insurance that was approved by Congress in 1913 to help widows and orphans has been stretched to benefit the very richest Americans.

Several thousand of these jumbo policies have been sold, according to agents who sell them, all under confidentiality agreements with the buyers and their advisors. One member of the Rockefeller family took out a policy, according to people who have seen documents in the deal.

The several billion dollars of this insurance already sold, much of it in the last 18 months, means that tens of billions of taxes will not flow into federal and state government coffers in the coming decade or so.

In recent months, policies with first-year premiums alone of $4.4 million, $10 million, $15 million, $25 million, $32 million and $40 million have been sold by New York Life Insurance, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance and other underwriters, according to insurance agents, accountants and tax lawyers who have worked on these deals.

The agents selling the policies find them hard to resist ? they can earn millions of dollars for selling just one such policy.

The technique works this way. An older person ? typically someone who does not expect to live long and who has at least $10 million and usually much more ? wants to avoid estate taxes, which are 50 percent with such fortunes.

Under tax law, money from a life insurance policy goes at death to heirs tax free. The premium paid on that life insurance is considered a gift to those heirs. Any annual premium that exceeds $11,000 is therefore subject to the gift tax of 50 percent. Only the wealthiest Americans pay such large premiums and are subject to this tax.

The new technique sidesteps the gift tax in a two-step process. First, the person who is buying the policy reports on his tax return only a small part of what he really paid in premiums.

Wouldn't the I.R.S. say that is cheating? No. It's perfectly legal. The reason is that insurance companies offer many different rates for the same policy. And the buyer is allowed to declare on his tax return the insurance company's lowest premium for that amount of insurance, even if that person could never qualify for that rate because of his age and health, and even if no one has actually ever been sold a policy at that rate.

A low premium means a low gift tax. But in fact the buyer has really paid the very highest premium offered by that insurer for that amount of insurance. The insurer then invests the difference between the highest premium and the lowest premium. That investment grows tax free, paying for future premiums on the policy. At death, the entire face value of the policy is paid tax free to heirs.

In an example cited by one agent, a customer paid a $550,000 premium for the first year alone, the highest price offered by the insurance company, for a policy that was also offered at $50,000, the lowest price. So $550,000 can be passed on to heirs tax free. Yet the gift tax is only $25,000 ? 50 percent of the lowest premium, instead of $275,000, which is 50 percent of the highest premium.

The I.R.S. would not comment officially. But an I.R.S. official who specializes in insurance matters said he had not heard that so many people were exploiting this loophole. He could not say whether the issue would be re-examined.

The deal gets better because of a second step. Even that $25,000 tax can be avoided by shifting the gift-tax obligation to the spouse through a trust. In 1982, Congress made all transfers between spouses tax free, so the gift tax disappears.

If the policy holder continues to pay huge premiums year after year, he can pass along much or all of his fortune tax free if he lives long enough. Michael D. Brown of Spectrum Consulting in Irvine, Calif., said, many clients in their 50's and 60's, working with other agents, are now trying to do just that.

By far the biggest deals have been made by two insurance agents who work together, Mr. Brown, a former chemical engineer, and Louis P. Kreisberg of the Executive Compensation Group in Manhattan.

The technique was devised in 1995 by Mr. Blattmachr and Mr. Brown. Mr. Blattmachr has since expanded his idea and other estate tax lawyers have copied his methods.

"In 1995 I was told that this was the stupidest idea ever by a guy who is now collecting millions in commissions from selling" such insurance, Mr. Blattmachr said.

Among his peers Mr. Blattmachr is renowned for his creativity in finding ways to pass down fortunes without paying taxes and without breaking the law.

He is a busy man. Recently he set off to counsel clients in eight cities over three days ? a trip made possible by a client who provided him with a private jet. Afterward he spent the weekend fishing with his brother, Douglas, whose company, Alaska Trust, helps wealthy Americans set up perpetual trusts, some of them using Mr. Blattmachr's insurance plan.

One buyer of an insurance plan like Mr. Blattmachr's paid $32 million in the first year for a policy that will pay $127 million tax free to the grandchildren, according to a lawyer who worked on the deal and spoke on condition of not being identified. No gift taxes were paid.

Sales of such insurance soared after the Internal Revenue Service ( news - web sites) announced 18 months ago that it was considering restrictions on similar techniques, which are known as split-dollar plans.

In Alaska, premiums for such insurance totaled just $1.1 million in 1999, but ballooned to more than $80 million last year, state records show.

This month, when the I.R.S. issued its proposed restrictions, it did nothing to stop Mr. Blattmachr's plan.

Indeed, the proposed I.R.S. rules can be read as strengthening the validity of his plan, Mr. Blattmachr and some other estate tax lawyers say.

Mr. Brown said that in some cases, when the policy holder dies quickly, both the government and the heirs come out winners, at the expense of the insurance company.

"This is a good deal because both the government and the heirs get 90 percent of what they could have gotten," he said.

He added: "We think it is good policy to allow this because it discourages games like renouncing your citizenship or investing offshore."

But many estate tax lawyers and insurance experts think that because Mr. Blattmachr's plan is similar to the plans the I.R.S. moved to stop on July 3, it should be ended as well.

While the I.R.S. in 1996 approved the outlines of the Blattmachr plan, these opponents argue that the plan as sold by agents like Mr. Brown and Mr. Kreisberg stretches that ruling so far that it no longer provides protection in an I.R.S. audit.

Some of them say it is the huge fees involved that are blinding their competitors to aspects of the Blattmachr plan that make it vulnerable to being banned as an abusive tax shelter.

Commissions for the insurance agents run between 70 percent and 200 percent of the first-year premium when it is $1 million or so, while on the jumbo policies commissions are typically 9 percent to 11 percent, or up to $4.4 million on a policy with a $40 million first-year premium, Mr. Kreisberg said.

He acknowledged that many peers in the estate tax world say that he earned $100 million in gross commissions last year, but said, "I wish it were half that." Mr. Kreisberg did not dispute a statement by someone with knowledge of payment records that his small firm's commissions this year have already reached $20 million.

Lawyers who opine on the validity of the deals can also earn big fees. Mr. Blattmachr gets $100,000 for his basic opinion letter and is reported to have charged as much as $250,000.

Sanford J. Schlesinger of the law firm Kaye Scholer said he passed up a chance to collect a six-figure fee for advising on one of these deals because he thinks the deals should not pass muster with the I.R.S. "My mother taught me that if something seems too good to be true, it isn't true," he said.

Other leading estate tax lawyers, as well as some accountants and insurance agents, say Mr. Blattmachr's insurance technique should fail because it is wholly outside the intent of Congress in giving tax breaks for life insurance, the I.R.S. ruling on the plan notwithstanding.

"If the I.R.S. understood this they would say that it relies on a disguised gift ? and if you have to pay gift taxes, then Jonathan's insurance deal does not work," said an estate partner at a tax firm in New York, who like others, said they could not be identified because they have signed confidentiality agreements that are part of all such insurance deals.

Another legal expert said paying 10 times too much for insurance in a plan like this reminds him of a matriarch selling the family business to her granddaughter for $10 million when it was actually worth 10 times that amount. "The I.R.S. wouldn't let a family get away with selling the business for a dime on the dollar," this lawyer said, "and they should not allow it to work in reverse through insurance."



To: Mannie who wrote (3403)7/29/2002 9:50:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Gimme Shelter: Is the Exodus From Stock Funds Just Starting?

By IAN MCDONALD
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Fund Nation is fed up with their sagging stock funds and their migration to safer ground like bond funds might be just beginning.

June redemptions from U.S. stock funds outpaced investments by about $14 billion, according to a report from Boston fund consultancy Financial Research Corp. At the same time, bond funds netted more than $10 billion. The stock-fleeing pattern echoed an earlier estimate from New York fund-tracker Lipper. The final June figures are due Tuesday from the Investment Company Institute, the fund industry's largest trade group.

The exodus from stock funds isn't surprising given that flows tend to follow performance.

The Standard & Poor's 500 is down about 45% from its 2000 peak and now averages just under a 1% annual loss over the past five years compared to a 6.1% annualized gain for the average U.S. bond fund, according to Chicago researcher Morningstar Inc. Given the S&P's 15% plummet since June 30, it seems more money is set to gush from stock funds. Net outflows from stock funds totaled more than $12 billion, the highest of any week this year, according to firms reporting their cash flows to AMG Data Services, based in Arcata, Calif.

Redemptions might also be spurred by the diminished odds that selling stock-fund shares would trigger a capital gains tax bill. More than 60% of the $3.4 trillion invested in mutual funds at the end of 2001 was held in non-retirement accounts, according to data from the Investment Company Institute, where tax ramifications are usually an issue

"I do think June was a sign of things to come," says Chris Brown, director of research at Financial Research. "One of the things that helped keep investors in these funds was that they still had some significant capital gains. Those are pretty much gone now. That could create more outflows now. It's ugly."

Some observers worry that the redemption trend is another example of performance-chasing, the asset-whittling strategy of buying whatever funds have performed best (or lost the least) over the past few quarters. And that continued stock-fund outflows will force fund managers' sell shares to cash out exiting investors -- creating a vicious cycle where selling begets more selling and intensifies the downdraft in stock prices.

"If performance goes down money goes away, which is a pity because it leads people to buy high and sell low" says Phil Edwards, a managing director with Standard & Poor's global funds research unit. "When a fund sees high redemptions [the manager] has to sell stock to meet redemptions. That can be painful and this probably won't be over until that happens."

In recent months stock-pickers have said privately that today's bear market might not end until a wave of Main St. investors give up on stock funds in general and tech-sick growth funds in particular.

"Tech will probably go down more because I haven't seen capitulation yet. People aren't sick enough yet," said Bill Schaff, manager of the $35.6 million Berger Information Technology Fund in a July 3 interview with The Wall Street Journal Online. "I'd say 10% to 15% down from here is a reasonable value. Then you could have redemptions from growth funds and it becomes a supply-demand issue for stocks."

For their part, most observers say redemptions are far from the point where they would weigh on the market. June's $14 billion estimated outflow, for instance, represents only about 0.4% of stock-fund's total assets. The average stock fund has more than 5% of its assets in cash, according to ICI data, which should give most managers ample reserves.

Still, there are clear indications that investors' patience with and confidence in the stock market have eroded. June and last September were the only two months on record where no pure U.S. stock fund categories ranked in the top-ten sellers since FRC started tracking flows in 1993. And by FRC's tally, ten of the nation's twenty largest fund firms were in net redemptions through the first six months of this year.

Among those heavyweights, redemptions from Denver-based Janus have been highest and most significant relative to their asset base at the start of this year. The firm's retail stock and bond funds were in net outflows to the tune of just under $7.2 billion through June 30. That outflow represents 6.4% of Janus' retail stock and bond fund assets at the start of this year, according to FRC.

The firm's emphasis on the growth style led to steep gains in the late 1990s and steep sales that force them to close eight popular funds to new investors. During an earnings conference call Thursday executives of Stilwell Financial, Janus' parent, noted the outflows but said they weren't "massive," adding that the firm's Adviser and foreign-sold funds were in net inflows.

Overall Janus' retail stock and bond fund assets have slipped from $135 billion on June 30, 2001 to just under $89 billion at the start of this month. This year's top-selling firms are index-fund titan Vanguard Group, all-weather stock-fund manager American Funds and bond-heavy outfit PIMCO whose $56.9 billion PIMCO Total Return Fund, an intermediate-term bond fund, is the nation's top-seller this year, netting more than $7.8 billion through June 30, according to FRC.

On Friday The Wall Street Journal highlighted the risks entailed with piling into bond funds today and over the past two weeks The Wall Street Journal Online has explored ways to assess your finances now and why long-term investors might consider buying stocks now.

Rumblings
How strongly are investors shunning stocks?

"At the moment it seems no matter how low interest rates are [for bonds and savings accounts] people aren't willing to own equities," said Jim Schmidt, manager of the $2.9 billion John Hancock Financial Industries Fund. Mr. Schmidt spoke at length with The Wall Street Journal Online in an interview published Friday. "You get the feeling that you could offer 0% interest on a savings account and people would still put money there because at least they'd get their money back. I don't think that will last though."

Cash is King, Sort of
Last month we noted that Scott Schoelzel's $11.4 billion Janus Twenty Fund sharply trailed the $638 million Janus Adviser Capital Appreciation Fund and the $631 million Janus Aspen Capital Appreciation Fund, two similar growth funds he also manages. The reason for the Twenty fund's troubles appears to be its girth. But the fund's outsize 28% cash stake on June 30 seems to be helping Mr. Schoelzel lose less ground than other large-cap growth managers. The fund's 27% loss since Jan. 1 actually tops 80% of its peers. That said, his other two funds are down 16% and 18%, respectively, over the same stretch.

And Another Thing
Who says the Internet didn't change everything? Enron shares might be worthless, but one of the company's stock certificates is selling for just under $15 on eBay.



To: Mannie who wrote (3403)7/29/2002 10:13:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush's Credibility Gap


By Sebastian Mallaby
Editorial
The Washington Post
Monday, July 29, 2002

On the country-club right of American politics, you've got crony capitalists who want to stroke their business friends. On the resentful left, meanwhile, you've got people who think everything to do with markets is suspect. While the post-Enron audit reform package was looking vulnerable in Congress, the corporate cronies were the bad guys. But reform has triumphed, and the pendulum has swung. Soon anti-market populism may be the larger danger -- and the Bush economics team, unfortunately, won't be well positioned to fight back.

Last Thursday John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president, railed against "the corporate crime wave that is sweeping our country." He denounced "profiteers" and then gave as examples not only Enron but Microsoft. This incautious rhetoric is echoed by Robert Kuttner: "Laissez-faire itself is the ultimate corporate fraud," he writes in the latest edition of the American Prospect. Wait until we get closer to the November elections: a prize for the first reader who spots someone calling for the nationalization of the banks.

The anti-market left could remain within the bounds of reason if it chose its targets carefully. Auditors do need tougher oversight, and drug firms have driven up the costs of medicine by dubious marketing and legal ploys. But a lot of other superficially plausible anti-market arguments are nonsense.

Since last year's California blackouts, for example, it's been tempting to suggest that electricity deregulation is misguided. This is rubbish: Competitive electricity markets, if designed properly, can save consumers millions. Likewise, mass telecom bankruptcies might seem to "prove" that telephone deregulation is destructive. Again, nonsense: Deregulation has created a torrent of wireless services and spiffy broadband infrastructure, even if investors lost their shirts. Equally, Sept. 11 has convinced us that the private sector can't guarantee security on airlines and other infrastructure. But the idea of guaranteed security is illusory, and government workers may not prove much better than private ones.

If anti-market populism gains momentum, we'll need leaders with the credibility to fight back. That means people who can make the pro-market argument without being accused of shilling for business cronies or of knee-jerk anti-government instincts. Both parties have such leaders. The Clinton economic team embraced expanded government in areas such as health care, but it frequently rejected dumb anti-market policies. In the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain is a scourge of cronyistic lobbies, which makes him all the more credible as a staunch pro-market advocate.

If you search carefully, the Bush administration has credible people too. There is Robert Zoellick, the energetic trade representative, who links his tariff-cutting mission to the struggle against global poverty and who was happy to expand government programs for laid-off workers in order to get trade promotion authority through Congress. Then there is John Graham, the excellent overseer of regulation at the Office of Management and Budget, who insists that regulation be rolled back if its costs outweigh its benefits, but who also recommends that regulation be extended in areas where that makes sense.

Or take Pat Wood, Bush's top energy regulator. Despite California's blackouts, Wood is rolling out new ideas to advance competitive energy markets. But Wood also believes that markets can't work without government vigilance, so he's created a new office of market oversight at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. His fellow commissioner, Republican Nora Brownell, is a wonderful mix of pro-market and anti-crony. "We can no longer be dominated by the agenda of one or two companies at the expense of the rest of the country," she says.

But the core people on the Bush economics team have failed to project a convincing pro-market pragmatism. They talk of extending their tax cuts despite the nation's fiscal deterioration, leaving the rest of us to guess whether they are motivated primarily by knee-jerk tax-cut ideology or primarily by the urge to enrich their plutocrat cronies. Equally, they failed during the past month to embrace the Senate's proposals on audit reform, leaving us to guess whether they were prisoners of their own anti-government instincts or constrained by their desire not to alienate their corporate friends.

You could say that, given Harken and Halliburton, the Bush team could never pose as exponents of free-market capitalism as opposed to the cronyist variety. That's not fair; politicians can live down their histories if they demonstrate by their policies that they want to do the right thing.

The real problem with the Bush administration is that its policies are not pragmatic, with the result that it has lost credibility not only in financial markets but also as a defender of sensible market thinking. Now when leftists attack deregulation, nobody will believe the Bush defense of it. That could turn out to be a problem if we are entering a period of anti-market populism.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: Mannie who wrote (3403)7/30/2002 1:27:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bruce Springsteen tries to capture the mood of the nation...

THE MISSING
by ALAN LIGHT
The New Yorker
On his new album, Bruce Springsteen tries to capture the mood of the nation.
Issue of 2002-08-05

newyorker.com

If there was ever a moment for Bruce Springsteen to take back his place at rock's center stage, this would be it. His last album of new work, "The Ghost of Tom Joad," came out seven years ago, in 1995. After that—despite an extensive world tour in 1999 and 2000—he struggled to find a subject or a sound compelling enough to build an album around. Then came the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. In the months that followed, Springsteen wrote and recorded thirteen new songs; they have now been released, along with two tracks that were written earlier, as an album called "The Rising." This seems to set the stage for a familiar scenario: the rock veteran's triumphant return to relevance, form, and, ultimately, Grammy recognition (see Bob Dylan, Santana, and U2). But instead of writing the album that would undoubtedly have put him back in the spotlight—a "Born in the U.S.A." for the new era—Springsteen came up with something riskier and more surprising, something more than the country's archetypal living rock star fulfilling his obligation as America's rock-and-roll conscience.

From the start, Springsteen's songs have reflected a tension between his obsessive love of rock and his respect for the simple, direct power of folk music, leading to both the majestic scope of "Born to Run" and the quiet intensity and Woody Guthrie-inspired moralism of "Nebraska" and "The Ghost of Tom Joad." Anthemic, operatic epics like "Thunder Road" and "Jungleland" seemed, in their expansiveness, to invoke the complete history of rock and roll, and helped him break through to a mass audience. And songs like "The River" and "Badlands" achieved a near-perfect balance between despair and defiance, drawing as much on John Steinbeck and John Ford as on Chuck Berry. After "Born in the U.S.A." (1984) sold fifteen million copies and established Springsteen as a pumped-up, dressed-down, blue-collar megastar, he pulled back, turning to honed parables of immigrant experience and small-town American life set against intimate musical backdrops. Today, he is among the world's greatest rock icons, but he has had only one album reach No. 1 on the charts since "Tunnel of Love" (1987), and it was a greatest-hits album released in 1995.

"The Rising" sounds like nothing Springsteen has ever done before. Although this is his first studio album in eighteen years to draw on the full power of the E Street Band, its producer, Brendan O'Brien, didn't go for a live, classic-rock-band approach. Instead, Springsteen sings over dense, constructed blocks of sound, heavy on strings and stacked guitars, light on Clarence (Big Man) Clemons barroom sax solos. His voice seldom rises to that strained, fever pitch familiar from his arena concerts. The lovely, gentle sway of "You're Missing" is one of the most delicate tracks he's ever recorded, whereas the Middle Eastern texture and slashing guitar of "Worlds Apart" bring to mind Sting or Peter Gabriel. Even "Mary's Place," the one song on the album that sounds like a classic E Street "Rosalita"-style barn burner, never reaches the rave-up heights we expect. The song, which describes a gathering at a party or a bar, comes to a break about two-thirds of the way in, and turns into a chorus singing "Turn it up!" This is the part in a Springsteen song when the music should lift off irresistibly—but nothing happens. The chorus repeats for a few more minutes and then fades out, as if Springsteen just can't find a way to give in to joyous rock-and-roll release.

The lyrics are even more atypical than the sound. All the signature Springsteen narrative and detail has been stripped out: there is not a single Joe Roberts or Bill Horton wrestling with his conflicts, no Crazy Janey or Magic Rat, no working on the highway or racing in the street. The language is bare, almost generic; words and images repeat from song to song. The five songs that most explicitly evoke the attacks—"Into the Fire," "Empty Sky," "You're Missing," "The Rising," and "My City of Ruins"—reduce the events to an anonymous domestic fragment ("Just an empty impression / In the bed where you used to be," or "Coffee cup's on the counter, jacket's on the chair / Paper's on the doorstep, but you're not there"). Rather than tell individual stories as allegories of a broader social condition (the way the characters on "Born in the U.S.A." and "Nebraska" chronicled the fallout from Reaganomics), Springsteen seems to be striving for something universal to capture the mood of the whole nation. Language that strives for universality can often lapse into imprecision, though, and in some cases Springsteen's decision to avoid fully fleshed-out stories plays away from his greatest strength: without his finely observed narratives, bouncy, doo-wop flavored cuts like "Waitin' on a Sunny Day" and "Let's Be Friends (Skin to Skin)" seem lightweight—pleasant, if minor, lookin'-for-love songs with dark undercurrents.

But, more often than not, Springsteen achieves moments of understated eloquence and grace. Sudden flashes of elevated symbolism recall the mystic vocabulary of early albums ("On the plains of Jordan, I cut my bow from the wood / Of this tree of evil, of this tree of good," he sings on "Empty Sky"); the dual mythologies of religion and rock and roll have long run together in Springsteen's work. On his last tour, he promised concertgoers "a rock-and-roll baptism." But now the language of faith and redemption seems to have assumed a more sober meaning for him; "Fire," "Ruins," and the title track all culminate in rousing, life-affirming prayer.

"The Rising" contains none of the political engagement we might have expected to find on a Bruce Springsteen 9/11 album. In fact, this is ultimately an album about love. "The Fuse" and "Let's Be Friends (Skin to Skin)" have a sexual heat that has mostly been absent from Springsteen's work. On songs such as "Worlds Apart" and "Lonesome Day," which address the limitations of relationships, we see more fully how the world after September 11th has lent an urgency to themes of independence that have often been present in Springsteen's writing. "You're afraid to love something so much, you're afraid to be in that love," Springsteen said in 1992, describing the tensions in his offstage life that surfaced on the albums "Lucky Town" and "Human Touch." "Because a world of fear leaps upon you, particularly in the world that we live in. . . . My specialty was keeping my distance, so that if I lost something, it wouldn't hurt that much."

Despite the new sonic and lyrical direction of "The Rising," there is no mistaking its resonances with Springsteen's earlier work. The indelible connection between grief and joy—an ongoing preoccupation of Springsteen's—lies behind every one of the songs, including those written before the attacks. ("My City of Ruins," which Springsteen performed during the "Tribute to Heroes" telethon on September 21st, was actually inspired by the disrepair of Asbury Park.) Springsteen has said that the narrator of the first verse in the spare, haunting "Paradise" is a female suicide bomber, but it's easy to miss that. What's clear is the song's sense of yearning for human connection, and a wish to "get to that place where we really wanna go," which Springsteen has been singing about since "Born to Run." "Worlds Apart" may refer to "Allah's blessed rain" and have a chanting chorus, sung by the Pakistani qawwali singer Asif Ali Khan and his group, but the troubled couple it describes could come straight off "Tunnel of Love."

All the songs on "The Rising" reach a point where the singer warily considers a future of being alone, and concludes, as Springsteen has again and again over the years, that perseverance is the greatest heroism. This album reflects a new sense of what it's like to live with mortality—after all, Springsteen, at fifty-two, is no longer young. But for him music has always been about survival, not victimhood. Twenty-two years ago, the night after John Lennon was murdered, Springsteen took the stage in Philadelphia. "It's a hard world that makes you live with things that are unlivable," he said. "And it's hard to come out here and play tonight, but there's nothing else to do."



To: Mannie who wrote (3403)7/30/2002 3:18:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Here's an interesting post that looks at who in Washington may have really served our country honorably in the military...

Message 17813583