Detroit Car Sales Climb Again

General Motors reported a 7 percent gain in auto sales in the United States in February, beating several analyst estimates on the strength of its crossover models and pickup trucks, while Detroit rival Ford Motor Co. posted a slightly weaker-than-expected 9.0 percent gain.

G.M. sold 224,314 cars and trucks last month. Sales of its Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks jumped nearly 30 percent, while its Chevrolet Equinox midsize crossover rose 16 percent.

G.M., the largest Detroit automaker, also predicted that the overall auto industry’s sales rate this month would be 15.5 million, better than the 15.1 million sales rate expected by economists polled by Thomson Reuters.

Ford said its American auto sales rose to 195,822 cars and trucks in February. The No. 2 automaker reported a 21 percent gain in sales of its crossover and sport-utility vehicles while its F-Series trucks saw a 15.3 percent gain.

But Ford’s car sales rose 6.4 percent, hurt by a 11 percent drop in the Focus compact car and a 9 percent drop in the Fiesta subcompact. Trucks overall, including the E-Series and heavy trucks, rose 3.6 percent during the month.

Chrysler Group, the third-largest Detroit automaker, said its United States sales rose 4 percent to 139,015 in February, slightly less than some analysts expected. Volkswagen’s American unit posted a 2.9 percent increase to 31,456 vehicle sales.

Auto sales each month are an early indicator of the consumer spending. Industry sales in February were expected to show a fourth straight month of seasonally adjusted annualized sales above 15 million vehicles, for the first time since early 2008, a sign of a sustained recovery after the recession.

Chrysler estimated the month will finish at 15.5 million, including medium and heavy trucks, which typically add 300,000 vehicles to the monthly sales rate.

Read More..

IHT Rendezvous: Q and A: Keeping ‘A Chorus Line’ in Step

LONDON — For a musical that’s all about dancers, there’s not a huge amount of dancing in “A Chorus Line,” which opened last week at the London Palladium — the first West End revival of the musical since it opened here in 1976, a year after its smash-hit debut on Broadway.

But the most dance-intensive moments are fundamental to our very idea of “A Chorus Line”: the “Aaaah-5-6-7-8!” that unleashes the explosion of movement with which the musical opens, and the slow sideways-moving line of gold-clad top-hatted dancers with which it closes. In between those moments is the meat of the show; the passage from anonymity as the dancers begin the audition, to individuality as they tell their stories — and then back again, to an impersonal line of identically dressed, identically moving performers.

On opening night at the Palladium, the audience greeted those first moments with a roaring cheer, a salute to the love-story that “A Chorus Line” tells — not between its characters, but between them and showbiz. The choreography may look stylized, but it doesn’t really matter. Watching, we are both in 1975 (as the opening projection tells us) and in 2013; leotard and dance styles might have changed, but the desire to be on Broadway has not.

Michael Bennett, who conceived of the show, choreographed and directed it, died in 1987, and it is his co-choreographer, Bob Avian, who has been responsible for directing the major “Chorus Line” revivals since.

So how much does the dance (and the dancing) matter in “A Chorus Line”? Two days after the London opening — greeted by a positive storm of approval by the critics — Mr. Avian flew to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for a well-earned rest after several months of putting the musical together in London. Speaking by telephone, he discussed the choreography, his approach to staging the work, and why “A Chorus Line” still speaks to a contemporary audience.

Q.

How did you and Michael Bennett approach the choreography? Is the opening number really the kind of routine you would have asked an audition group to do?

A.

Michael and I were a good team, because he was a jazz dancer, and my training was classical. Between us we came up with a lot of choreography that was more integrated. A lot of it was based on dance crazes of the time — disco, the toe-heel-heel, the body shifts that go along with that. We pulled on elements of popular dancing as we were doing it; we were children of our times, dance-wise. There’s actually not much contemporary dance in there; there is ballet, typical broadway and tap. The only jazz combos are in the opening sequence and the montage sections.

Q.

Did you initially think it would be more of a dance show?

A.

Well, it was a very slow process and I’m not sure we had an idea of how it would be. We had the original tapes of the stories from our dancers and once we decided to put those stories in the framework of an audition, we were able to construct the piece. But it took us a very long time. We did four workshops, which no one did in those days — we were the first ones ever to do it. The montage, which is 22 minutes, took us six weeks. You wouldn’t be able to do that today, it would be too expensive.

Q.

Is the routine we see at the beginning a realistic idea of what you might see at a Broadway audition today?

A.

A dance call is still pretty much the same. When we have an open call, you might get 700 people. We divide them into groups of 10 and make them all do double pirouettes — you can immediately see people’s training. We keep 2 or 3 people from each group, then we teach them the opening combination, a shortened version, then the full one, then the ballet combination. You get a feel for their jazz style, and the ballet combination is very revealing in terms of technique.

Q.

Are you strict about remaining faithful to the original choreography? Do you adapt to different dancers or, perhaps, a more contemporary style of dancing today?

A.

The ensemble stuff is set in stone, but with the solo work, we are very open. For Cassie’s dance, for instance, we try to pull on the strengths of the dancer performing the role. If she has a great extension, or very supple back, we make tons of adjustments along the way. In structure it’s still the same, because it’s about the music and the storytelling — it’s about narcissism, about the need to have her gifts recognized.

In the individual stuff, the staging of the songs, I make adjustments all the time. At the beginning of the rehearsal process, I just let them do the number and see what they will bring to it. In that way, I suppose it becomes more contemporary because they are performers of today.

Q.

Have the technical capacities of dancers changed since you first staged the musical in 1975?

A.

Undoubtedly. The quality of the dancing is much higher than it was when we made it. Also, then you still had a singing chorus, or a dancing chorus; it was hard to get people who could do everything really well, and now that is the norm.

It’s still hard to get a woman who can do Cassie’s big song-and-dance solo; we’ve had performers who are great dancers, but can’t really sing it. It’s a very difficult song and you need a lot of stamina. But every time I return to the show, the caliber is higher in general.

Q.

Is there a difference between the U.S. and the U.K in the quality of musical theater performers, given that there is more of a conventional theater tradition here?

A.

Not essentially. They were perhaps a little behind America in the past, but that’s mostly to do with the fact that we pull from a population that is so much bigger — it’s a numbers thing. But now they have the same all-around training, and they are fully the equals of U.S. performers. In fact, I think this London cast is the finest company we’ve had in 35 years. Every time I do “Chorus Line,” I think, not again! But this was all pleasure.

Q.

The audience was beyond rapturous at the performance I attended. Why do you think people identify so strongly with “A Chorus Line”?

A.

I think it speaks to everyone because it’s really about people on an assembly line. They are not stars, and they aren’t trying to be stars — they are trying to succeed in essentially a humble way. And the musical talks about things that weren’t discussed on Broadway before: homosexuality, plastic surgery, angry or troubled or loving relationships with parents. Even though much has changed socially since we made it, those issues don’t go away.

Read More..

Phys Ed: What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

One reason so many American women are overweight may be that we are vacuuming and doing laundry less often, according to a new study that, while scrupulously even-handed, is likely to stir controversy and emotions.

The study, published this month in PLoS One, is a follow-up to an influential 2011 report which used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to determine that, during the past 50 years, most American workers began sitting down on the job. Physical activity at work, such as walking or lifting, almost vanished, according to the data, with workers now spending most of their time seated before a computer or talking on the phone. Consequently, the authors found, the average American worker was burning almost 150 fewer calories daily at work than his or her employed parents had, a change that had materially contributed to the rise in obesity during the same time frame, especially among men, the authors concluded.

But that study, while fascinating, was narrow, focusing only on people with formal jobs. It overlooked a large segment of the population, namely a lot of women.

“Fifty years ago, a majority of women did not work outside of the home,” said Edward Archer, a research fellow with the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and lead author of the new study.

So, in collaboration with many of the authors of the earlier study of occupational physical activity, Dr. Archer set out to find data about how women had once spent their hours at home and whether and how their patterns of movement had changed over the years.

He found the information he needed in the American Heritage Time Use Study, a remarkable archive of “time-use diaries” provided by thousands of women beginning in 1965. Because Dr. Archer wished to examine how women in a variety of circumstances spent their time around the house, he gathered diaries from both working and non-employed women, starting with those in 1965 and extending through 2010.

He and his colleagues then pulled data from the diaries about how many hours the women were spending in various activities, how many calories they likely were expending in each of those tasks, and how the activities and associated energy expenditures changed over the years.

As it turned out, their findings broadly echoed those of the occupational time-use study. Women, they found, once had been quite physically active around the house, spending, in 1965, an average of 25.7 hours a week cleaning, cooking and doing laundry. Those activities, whatever their social freight, required the expenditure of considerable energy. (The authors did not include child care time in their calculations, since the women’s diary entries related to child care were inconsistent and often overlapped those of other activities.) In general at that time, working women devoted somewhat fewer hours to housework, while those not employed outside the home spent more.

Forty-five years later, in 2010, things had changed dramatically. By then, the time-use diaries showed, women were spending an average of 13.3 hours per week on housework.

More striking, the diary entries showed, women at home were now spending far more hours sitting in front of a screen. In 1965, women typically had spent about eight hours a week sitting and watching television. (Home computers weren’t invented yet.)

By 2010, those hours had more than doubled, to 16.5 hours per week. In essence, women had exchanged time spent in active pursuits, like vacuuming, for time spent being sedentary.

In the process, they had also greatly reduced the number of calories that they typically expended during their hours at home. According to the authors’ calculations, American women not employed outside the home were burning about 360 fewer calories every day in 2010 than they had in 1965, with working women burning about 132 fewer calories at home each day in 2010 than in 1965.

“Those are large reductions in energy expenditure,” Dr. Archer said, and would result, over the years, in significant weight gain without reductions in caloric intake.

What his study suggests, Dr. Archer continued, is that “we need to start finding ways to incorporate movement back into” the hours spent at home.

This does not mean, he said, that women — or men — should be doing more housework. For one thing, the effort involved is such activities today is less than it once was. Using modern, gliding vacuum cleaners is less taxing than struggling with the clunky, heavy machines once available, and thank goodness for that.

Nor is more time spent helping around the house a guarantee of more activity, over all. A telling 2012 study of television viewing habits found that when men increased the number of hours they spent on housework, they also greatly increased the hours they spent sitting in front of the TV, presumably because it was there and beckoning.

Instead, Dr. Archer said, we should start consciously tracking what we do when we are at home and try to reduce the amount of time spent sitting. “Walk to the mailbox,” he said. Chop vegetables in the kitchen. Play ball with your, or a neighbor’s, dog. Chivvy your spouse into helping you fold sheets. “The data clearly shows,” Dr. Archer said, that even at home, we need to be in motion.

Read More..

DealBook: For S.E.C., a Setback in Bid for More Time in Fraud Cases

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a swift and decisive rejection of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s argument that it should operate under a more forgiving statute of limitations in pursuing penalties in fraud cases.

As a result of the decision, the agency will have to find a long-term solution to give itself more time to investigate cases.

In Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the unanimous decision rejecting the S.E.C.’s argument that a federal statute that limits the government’s authority to pursue civil penalties should commence when a fraud is discovered, not when it occurred.

The S.E.C. was hoping that the court would apply what is known as the “discovery rule.” In 2010, the Supreme Court endorsed this rule in a private securities fraud class-action suit, Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, stating “that something different was needed in the case of fraud, where a defendant’s deceptive conduct may prevent a plaintiff from even knowing that he or she has been defrauded.”

The discovery rule is an exception to the protection afforded by a statute of limitations, which puts an endpoint on potential legal liability for conduct. Unlike most cases, when fraud is involved, it may not be apparent to the victims that they were harmed because the primary goal of deceptive conduct is to keep it from being exposed.

In the Gabelli case, the S.E.C. filed fraud charges in 2008 against the mutual fund manager Marc Gabelli and a colleague, Bruce Alpert, saying they had violated the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 for permitting an investor to engage in market timing. Ten years ago, a major scandal erupted when it came to light that some advisers had permitted select investors to buy shares at favorable prices to take advantage of pricing disparities in the securities held by mutual funds.

In its complaint, the S.E.C. sought civil monetary penalties based on market timing that it claimed had taken place from 1999 to 2002, and resulted in the preferred investor purportedly reaping significant profits while ordinary investors suffered large losses. The defendants denied the charges and filed a motion to dismiss the case because it was not brought in time.

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2462, provides that “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.” The provision dates to 1839, and applies to any government agency.

A decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan allowed the case to proceed by applying the discovery rule to a governmental action. Coincidentally, that decision was written by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who despite being an occasional thorn in the S.E.C.’s side, accepted the agency’s argument to avoid a strict application of the five-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court, however, saw things differently. This week, it issued its opinion less than two months after it heard oral argument in the case in January, a clear sign the justices found no merit in the S.E.C.’s contention that the agency should be treated the same as private plaintiffs in trying to get around the statute of limitations.

According to the Supreme Court, victims in securities fraud cases should have a longer period to file a claim – from when the fraud was discovered. “Most of us do not live in a state of constant investigation,” the court wrote. “Absent any reason to think we have been injured, we do not typically spend our days looking for evidence that we were lied to or defrauded.”

Chief Justice Roberts explained that “the S.E.C. as enforcer is a far cry from the defrauded victim the discovery rule evolved to protect.” One of the reasons the agency exists is to detect and penalize violations, with tools that the ordinary investor simply does not have, like the authority to compel testimony and the production of documents. The message is simple. When it’s your job to investigate fraud, you cannot argue that your failure to do so is a justification for not meeting a statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court’s decision puts increased pressure on the S.E.C. to pursue its investigations with greater alacrity and not let them gather dust, which can occur as a result of staff turnover or other pressing issues. The market timing case is a good example of how an investigation might get lost in the shuffle as corporate accounting frauds at large companies like Enron and WorldCom, which also came to light in 2002, strained the S.E.C.’s investigative resources.

There are a couple of options to deal with this issue in the long run, apart from a substantial increase in the agency’s budget – an unlikely prospect in the face of the looming federal budget sequestration deadline.

The S.E.C. can obtain an agreement to stop the statute of limitations, known as tolling, from those it is investigating, something it has done in the past. For example, in its insider trading and securities fraud case against Samuel E. Wyly, his now deceased brother, Charles J. Wyly Jr., and two other defendants, the S.E.C. got an agreement that let it pursue claims beyond the normal five-year limitations period.

A permanent solution would be to seek legislation from Congress that would give the S.E.C. a longer window to complete its investigations. The statute of limitations is not a constitutional protection, so Congress can amend it as it sees fit, which it has done in other areas involving fraud.

The limitations period for banking crimes, for example, was extended to 10 years during the savings and loan crisis because of the crush of cases that made it difficult to finish investigations in the five-year window to initiate criminal prosecutions. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 added mail and wire fraud affecting a financial institution to the list of crimes that get the benefit of the 10-year limitations period, again because of fear that cases would be lost because of the number of investigations taking place after the financial crisis.

The issue of the statute of limitations may even come up at the confirmation hearings of Mary Jo White, who has been nominated to be chairwoman of the S.E.C. That could be an early indicator of whether she would be willing to push for relief from the effect of the Gabelli opinion to help out the enforcement division.

In the short run, the Supreme Court’s decision will cause defendants in government enforcement actions to examine whether they might be able to take advantage of the five-year limitations period. Given how slowly the government has been known to move on occasion, it may be that some cases will fall by the wayside because of the Gabelli decision.

---

Read More..

India Ink: Image of the Day: Feb. 27

Read More..

Pistorius representatives name substance found

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Oscar Pistorius' representatives have named the substance found in his bedroom after the shooting death of his girlfriend as Testis compositum, and say it is an herbal remedy used "in aid of muscle recovery."

A product called Testis compositum is also marketed as a sexual enhancer, good for lack of stamina. Some online retailers advertise oral and injectable forms as testosterone boosters.

South African police say they found needles in Pistorius' bedroom along with the substance, which they initially named as testosterone. Prosecutors later withdrew that statement identifying the substance and said it had been sent for laboratory tests.

Pistorius family spokesperson Lunice Johnston said in an email to The Associated Press on Wednesday that the athlete's lawyers confirmed that the substance is Testis compositum.

Read More..

Global Health: After Measles Success, Rwanda to Get Rubella Vaccine

Rwanda has been so successful at fighting measles that next month it will be the first country to get donor support to move to the next stage — fighting rubella too.

On March 11, it will hold a nationwide three-day vaccination campaign with a combined measles-rubella vaccine, hoping to reach nearly five million children up to age 14. It will then integrate the dual vaccine into its national health service.

Rwanda can do so “because they’ve done such a good job on measles,” said Christine McNab, a spokeswoman for the Measles and Rubella Initiative. M.R.I. helped pay for previous vaccination campaigns in the country and the GAVI Alliance is helping financing the upcoming one.

Rubella, also called German measles, causes a rash that is very similar to the measles rash, making it hard for health workers to tell the difference.

Rubella is generally mild, even in children, but in pregnant women, it can kill the fetus or cause serious birth defects, including blindness, deafness, mental retardation and chronic heart damage.

Ms. McNab said that Rwanda had proved that it can suppress measles and identify rubella, and it would benefit from the newer, more expensive vaccine.

The dual vaccine costs twice as much — 52 cents a dose at Unicef prices, compared with 24 cents for measles alone. (The MMR vaccine that American children get, which also contains a vaccine against mumps, costs Unicef $1.)

More than 90 percent of Rwandan children now are vaccinated twice against measles, and cases have been near zero since 2007.

The tiny country, which was convulsed by Hutu-Tutsi genocide in 1994, is now leading the way in Africa in delivering medical care to its citizens, Ms. McNab said. Three years ago, it was the first African country to introduce shots against human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer.

In wealthy countries, measles kills a small number of children — usually those whose parents decline vaccination. But in poor countries, measles is a major killer of malnourished infants. Around the world, the initiative estimates, about 158,000 children die of it each year, or about 430 a day.

Every year, an estimated 112,000 children, mostly in Africa, South Asia and the Pacific islands, are born with handicaps caused by their mothers’ rubella infection.

Thanks in part to the initiative — which until last year was known just as the Measles Initiative — measles deaths among children have declined 71 percent since 2000. The initiative is a partnership of many health agencies, vaccine companies, donors and others, but is led by the American Red Cross, the United Nations Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Unicef and the World Health Organization.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 27, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the source of the financing for the upcoming vaccination campaign in Rwanda. It is being financed by the GAVI Alliance, not the Measles and Rubella Initiative.

Read More..

DealBook: Obama’s Nominee for S.E.C. Tries to Allay Skepticism

Mary Jo White’s path to the Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a crucial juncture: the Congressional charm campaign.

Lawmakers are scrutinizing Ms. White ahead of her Senate confirmation hearing, raising questions about the former prosecutor’s lack of regulatory experience and the challenge of policing Wall Street firms she recently defended in private practice. But Ms. White is seeking to quell concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

She recently scheduled meetings with Senate Banking Committee members, who must clear her nomination, and answered a 20-page boilerplate questionnaire detailing her qualifications, according to a copy provided to The New York Times. The document sheds new light on her list of Wall Street clients, including little-known work performed for HSBC’s former chief executive. It also describes her ties to New York Democratic causes and laurels she earned both as a defense lawyer and federal prosecutor.

The questionnaire, created by the banking committee, focused significant attention on her movement through the revolving door between government service and private practice, a concern that has loomed since President Obama nominated Ms. White in January.

“As a government official, I believe I have an established track record and the reputation of being tough, but fair,” she said in the document.

Ms. White also offered a previously undisclosed concession, vowing “as far as can be foreseen,” never to return to Debevoise & Plimpton, where she had built a lucrative legal practice. To avert potential conflicts stemming from her work on behalf of Wall Street giants, Ms. White had already agreed to recuse herself for one year from most matters that involve former clients.

While Ms. White’s nomination is expected to sail through the committee before receiving full Senate approval, four Congressional officials who spoke anonymously warned that some Democrats have lingering reservations.

The Democrats note that her husband, John W. White, is co-chairman of the corporate governance practice at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where he represents many of the companies that the S.E.C. regulates. They also question whether Ms. White’s recusals, even if well-intentioned, could cripple her ability to run the agency.

In a meeting on Tuesday with Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, Ms. White did little to alleviate the fears.

“Senator Brown respects Ms. White’s credentials and experience, but is concerned with Washington’s long-held bias toward Wall Street,” his spokeswoman, Meghan Dubyak, said in a statement. “He pushed Ms. White,” to explain “whether her previous employment or her spouse’s current employment could cause her to recuse herself from key business facing the S.E.C.” The agency has already fallen behind in writing dozens of new rules for Wall Street.

Ms. White’s supporters counter that, before the White House announced the appointment, the Office of Government Ethics vetted her disclosures. The nonpartisan officials concluded that, even with her recusals, Ms. White could effectively run the agency.

Her supporters also trumpet her long tenure as a tenacious prosecutor. During stints as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn and as the first woman United States attorney in Manhattan, she helped oversee the prosecution of the crime figure John Gotti and directed the case against those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The cases won her praise from several lawmakers.

Ms. White still has time to win over remaining skeptics. Her confirmation hearing is not expected until the week of March 11, Congressional officials briefed on the matter said.

Until then, Ms. White is blitzing through the halls of Congress, a routine practice for nominees. She began her charm offensive at the top of the banking committee’s roster, visiting this month with the Democratic chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, of South Dakota. A Congressional official briefed on the matter said Ms. White performed well at the gathering, and no major issues arose.

In the next round of meetings, she will face off with a more liberal arm of the committee known to scrutinize nominees. After meeting Mr. Brown, Ms. White is scheduled to see Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon. She also will meet Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is an outspoken critic of Wall Street, Ms. Warren’s office confirmed on Tuesday.

Even if Ms. White fails to satisfy lawmakers’ concerns, the meetings are an important step in clearing the way for her appointment.

“Senators will have a chance to size Mary Jo up, and I believe will come away with a great sense of comfort that she’s a candidate of true quality,” said Harvey Pitt, who passed through the confirmation process in 2001 to lead the S.E.C.

He noted that additional disclosures could bolster her candidacy. “I do think she will need to provide a level of comfort to the committee that she is aware of the issue, has a definitive plan for navigating through the potential conflict issues, and will be completely open about when she has a potential recusal issue, and how she has handled it,” he said.

Ms. White, a political independent, assured lawmakers in her questionnaire that she was “completely independent of political or personal influences.” She did disclose, however, $13,000 in campaign donations to Democratic candidates. She also served on the campaign committee of a Democrat who had run for New York attorney general.

Her ties to Debevoise — and its clients — are more significant; she represented JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Michael Geoghegan, the former head of HSBC.

Ms. White, 65, said this month said that she would retire from Debevoise after taking over the S.E.C. and would forgo the firm’s typical retirement perks: office space and a free BlackBerry. She also will sever financial ties to the firm during her term at the S.E.C., taking an upfront lump-sum retirement payment rather than collecting a monthly installment of $42,500.

Her husband has also offered concessions. He agreed to convert his partnership at Cravath, Swaine & Moore from equity to nonequity status and promised not to “communicate directly” with the S.E.C. about rule-making. Ms. White will not participate in a matter with a direct effect on his compensation.

In line with a standard move for federal appointees, Ms. White further agreed to recuse herself for one year from voting on enforcement cases involving Debevoise clients. There are limitations to the policy, though, in case it is “in the public interest” and a “reasonable” person would not object.

Some lawmakers dismiss questions about her potential conflicts, but still question her mastery of regulatory minutiae. While Ms. White is a skilled litigator, she lacks experience in financial rule-writing, unlike a predecessor, Mary Schapiro, a lifelong regulator who ran the S.E.C. for nearly four years.

In her questionnaire, Ms. White highlighted her role as a director of the Nasdaq exchange and other experiences that she said gave her “a firm grounding” in securities laws.

She also, inadvertently, drew a connection to Ms. Schapiro. Like Ms. Schapiro, Ms. White is an animal lover, currently serving as a board member of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

She agreed to step down from the board once she is sworn in at the S.E.C.

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/27/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Nominee For S.E.C. Tries to Allay Skepticism.

Read More..

India Ink: Image of the Day: Feb. 26

Read More..

Books: Gauging Faces and Bodies in the Botox Age

You never know what a little vanity will do for a person’s health. Some people bloom in their quest for physical improvement, others wither, and a few are completely destroyed. Despite centuries’ worth of efforts to penetrate the complicated thickets where health and beauty intertwine, there is always more to explore, as two new books make clear.

Dr. Eric Finzi, a dermatologist in the Washington area, has produced what may be the first authorized biography of botulinum toxin, the fearsome poison that, bottled into mild-mannered Botox, enhances foreheads everywhere. This little molecule does its good work by paralyzing muscles: In the forehead it inactivates the frown-producing corrugators, while used elsewhere on the head and body it can alleviate migraine headaches, stop problem sweating and ease the spasticity associated with a range of neurological diseases.

But even those who know all about the drug’s physical effects will be intrigued by Dr. Finzi’s narrative, because it turns out that cosmetic Botox may not be all about vanity after all. Research studies, including some by Dr. Finzi, have found that the substance appears to alleviate depression more safely and perhaps more effectively than the usual treatments.

That result at first seems trivial and obvious: If you stop frowning at people, they’ll like you more  and treat you better, and you won’t feel so blue. But the process turns out to be considerably more sophisticated and complicated, because it appears to apply even to people without visible frown lines.

Dr. Finzi calls it “noncosmetic cosmetic surgery” and traces the postulated mechanism to some of the lesser-known work of William James and Charles Darwin. Both thinkers argued that facial expressions are not just the outward manifestations of emotion, but vital links in the unconscious neurological processes that create emotion. In other words, if you cannot smile, you will never be as happy as if you could, and if you cannot frown, you will be unable to experience the full intensity of the negative emotions manifested by frowning, depression included.

This “facial feedback hypothesis” has found some modern confirmation in a study showing that injections of Botox into the forehead seem to inhibit activation of the amygdala, the brain structure thought to regulate all gut-wrenching emotion.

Dr. Finzi expands his narrative with a discussion of the subtleties of common facial expressions, including homage to interested parties like Norman Cousins and his idea that laughter could cure disease.

But the book’s major focus is the frown: Dr. Finzi offers anecdotes suggesting that taming overactive corrugators may save marriages and boost careers, and then, spinning some of the still largely debatable theories linking depression and anger with chronic disease, he postulates that Botox treatments may someday prove to help forestall heart disease and cancer.

That’s quite a set of achievements for one bad little molecule, gram for gram the most potent toxin we know. Dr. Finzi is no stylist, but the momentum of his argument keeps the reader with him for the duration (and undoubtedly quite a few overactive corrugators will be soothed into submission as a result).

The complexities of the face almost pale in comparison with those of the torso, as Abigail C. Saguy makes clear in “What’s Wrong With Fat?” “Once you put down this book you will never hear the word ‘obesity’ the same way again,” she promises, and she is absolutely correct.

Dr. Saguy, a sociologist at U.C.L.A., methodically teases out all the overtones of the loaded words we use to describe big bodies. These bodies are, after all, neither good nor bad, just big.

But “fat” often implies the coexistence of sloth, gluttony and self-indulgence. “Obesity” equals disease to medical professionals, while in the world of public health it is a raging epidemic with substantial global mortality. Those immersed in the conventional ideals of beauty see being overweight as an aesthetic disaster, but others find it sexually irresistible, and to activists “fat” has become a rallying cry, with weight-based discrimination a violation of social justice as deplorable as that stemming from race or gender.

In fact, the concept of bigness has become so laden with overtones good and bad — guilt, blame, fear, anger and desire, among others — that finding a value-free way to describe men and women who are larger than average has become almost impossible. “Heavy,” “plus-size,” “corpulent” and “fleshy” all carry weighty implications in one sphere or another.

Dr. Saguy analyzes it all, and asks why. She winds up paying particular attention to the debate in the medical world over the actual health consequences of being fat: Studies keep confounding the reigning supposition that thin is best with evidence that modestly overweight may be even better. Meanwhile, those who are larger than average are routinely blamed for their size, a phenomenon augmented by deplorably simplistic media coverage (unlike anorexia, interestingly enough, which is remarkably free of the same connotations of personal fault).

Much of Dr. Saguy’s text is academic and requires some determination to penetrate, but she also provides immensely readable nuggets, notably a brief discussion of her experiences attending an annual convention of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, where, seven months pregnant, she underwent a funhouse-mirror body-image transformation worthy of Alice in Wonderland. Like Dr. Finzi’s narrative deficiencies, hers fade into unimportance in the face of fascinating and illuminating material.

Read More..