Monday, February 28, 2011

To Slash the Abortion Rate, Dole Out Birth-Control Pills a Year at a Time

Abortion is one of those topics that gets people fired up. Everyone's got an opinion, but one thing pretty much everyone agrees on is that it would be great if the abortion rate were lower. One thing that may help: call it the Costco effect — when women are allowed to stockpile contraceptives, a new study shows the rates of accidental pregnancies and abortions go way down.

The study's publication online this week in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology is timely; it comes out as the U.S. Congress is debating the Title X program, the federal family planning program that serves millions of low-income women each year. Last week, House Republicans voted to cut off Planned Parenthood — many low-income women's source for reproductive health care — from federal funding.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), saw a 46% decline in the odds of an abortion and a 30% decrease in the odds of pregnancy when low-income women who relied on public programs for contraception received a one-year supply of birth control pills instead of the usual one- or three-month stash.

Picking up a 12-month supply in one clinic visit does away with the need for multiple clinic visits, making it easier for women to stick to their birth-control regimen. Because let's face it: schlepping to a clinic or pharmacy each month for a new pack of pills is a pain.

It's actually more than an inconvenience, argues lead author Diana Greene Foster; it's dangerous, akin to not wearing seatbelts.

“Having sex without using a method of birth control is one of many kinds of risks people take in their lives, like driving too fast or driving without a seatbelt,” says Foster, associate professor in UCSF's department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences. “If seatbelts were given out as piecemeal as contraception, few people would use them.”

Nearly half of women who rely on oral birth control receive just one month of pills at a time; most get less than a four-month supply at once, according to a 2010 study published in Contraception. In California, however, some family-planning clinics dispense a full year's supply of oral contraceptives.

The UCSF researchers looked at close to 85,000 women who got birth-control pills in Jan. 2006 through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment), a California family planning program. Then they cross-referenced those figures with birth records and other data from Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid.

About 1,300 pregnancies and 300 abortions would have been avoided had the 65,000 women in the study who got either one or three packs of pills at a time experienced the same number of pregnancies and abortions as those who got a year's supply.

“It's a cost-savings thing, but it's also a quality-of-care issue — and it's the right thing to do,” she says. “People don't stop having sex when their pills run out.”

Health plans may think they're saving money by doling out supplies on a monthly basis, but Foster's data shows they likely could save money by authorizing a year's supply and preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. After all, having oral contraceptives on hand means less unprotected sex — provided they're taken as directed, of course.

Birth-control pills are the most commonly used method of “reversible contraception” in the United States, according to the study. But their high rate of effectiveness — three pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year — is contingent upon taking the pills correctly each day. Half of women forget to take at least one pill each cycle, which makes the pills much less reliable: 80 pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year.

The idea of doling out multiple cycles of pills at once is a “long-standing, well-established tactic” of publicly funded family-planning clinics, which typically provide contraception on-site, says Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health care think tank.

“It's definitely one of the things that public clinics do that you don't normally see from private clinics,” says Sonfield. “It's been shown to be pretty successful.”

By: Bonnie Rochman (times magazine)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Facebook and Love: Why Women Are Attracted to Guys Who Play Hard to Get

McMillan Digital Art via Getty Images
McMillan Digital Art via Getty Images

On Valentine's Day, it's tempting to check your wall every 10 min. to see if that cute guy from the bar last week has poked you. But a recent Psychological Science study by researchers at the University of Virginia and Harvard says you will probably like him more if he ignores you than if he posts flirty messages.

The study complicates decades of research on the “reciprocity principle,” which says that people fancy others who show fondness for them. As psychologists Erin Whitchurch, Timothy Wilson and Daniel Gilbert explain the principle, “If we want to know how much Sarah likes Bob, a good predictor is how much she thinks Bob likes her.”

But recent research on non-romantic attractions — how much consumers like a certain product, say — shows that there can be pleasure in uncertainty. If you discover that your lottery ticket is a winner, you feel happier when you don't yet know the precise amount of your coming treasure than you do when you instantly learn its value. Or take Christmas: kids (and adults) often enjoy the anticipation of Santa's visit more than the actual presents he brings.

As the authors write, “When people are certain that a positive event has occurred, they begin to adapt to it.” That adaptation makes it all less thrilling. By contrast, “when people are uncertain about an important outcome, they can hardly think about anything else.”

This expectancy can create a “self-perception effect,” a psychological phenomenon first described by the respected researcher Daryl Bem in the late '60s. Bem noted that people often form attitudes about themselves by observing their own behaviors. In this case, the self-perception effect would roughly translate to “I must like him if I keep checking my wall to see if he pops up.”

To test whether the uncertainty theory applies to romantic attraction, Whitchurch, Wilson and Gilbert devised a simple experiment. They recruited 47 women from the University of Virginia and told them they would be participating in a study exploring whether Facebook is a useful dating site. The researchers also said several male students from the University of Michigan and UCLA had viewed their profiles — which was a lie. The male students were fictional.

Each participant was told she would see the Facebook profiles of four of the guys. Then the participants were randomly split into three groups. In Group 1, each woman was told that the four guys had all said they expected to like her best. In Group 2, each woman was told she would see profiles of four men who had given her average ratings.

Finally, the women in Group 3 were told that their four men might be those who liked them most and might be those who thought they were average. This was the uncertainty group.

Then all the participants rated the men according to how much they liked them, how much they wanted to work with them on a class project, and — cutting to the chase — how much they wanted to hook up with them.

The results confirmed the reciprocity principle — the women in Group 2 had less desire for the guys whose profiles they saw than the women Group 1, who saw the profiles of the guys who thought they were hot. But the women in Group 3, the uncertainty group, were even more attracted to their men — men whose feelings they didn't know. As the authors write, “Women were more attracted to men when there was only a 50% chance that the men liked them best than when there was a 100% chance that the men liked them the best.”

In short, guys, you're right to play hard to get. This Valentine's, you can spark her attention by not poking her.

By: John Cloud (times magazine)

Moroccan Single Mother Burns Herself in Protest

RABAT (Reuters) - A young Moroccan set herself on fire after being excluded from a social housing scheme because she was an unmarried mother, a local government official said on Wednesday.

Morocco introduced a new family law in 2004 that has won it praise from Western countries for giving women more rights than many Arab countries.

But single mothers continue to struggle in the absence of a social safety net as authorities in the Muslim country do not recognize children born out of the wedlock.

Mother-of-two Fadwa Laroui, 25, used flammable liquid to set herself on fire in front of the town hall of Souk Sebt, in central Morocco, late Monday, the town's mayor Boubker Ouchen told Reuters.

Two Souk Sebt residents said Laroui died Wednesday at a Casablanca hospital, but Ouchen could not confirm that. Medical sources at Casablanca's Ibn Rochd hospital, where she was being treated, could not be reached for comment.

Laroui is the first Arab woman known to have set herself on fire in a protest at social conditions after Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation on December 17 led to a revolution that toppled President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali after 23 years in power and prompted several Arab men to do the same.

Ouchen said Laroui had not benefited from a housing scheme for low-income households because she was "a single mother and has not been a permanent resident of the town."

"Divorced and single women and single mothers live with their parents. The administrative procedure has been applied in full transparency," Ouchen added.

He denied newspaper reports that the authorities had destroyed the shack she, her two children and her parents were living in.

Reporting by Souhail Karam; Editing by Alison Williams for nytimes magazine

Bahrain King in Saudi Arabia to Discuss Unrest

MANAMA, Bahrain — A day after one of the largest pro-democracy demonstrations this tiny Persian Gulf nation had ever seen, its king was in Saudi Arabia, a close ally and neighbor, to discuss the unrest engulfing the region.

The visit of King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa on Wednesday, reported by The Associated Press, came just as the aging Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, returned to the country after three months of medical treatment in the United States and Morocco.

Even before King Abdullah landed in Riyadh, the capital, the Saudi government announced that it would pour billions of dollars into a fund to help its citizens marry, buy homes and start their own businesses, The A.P. reported, citing state television. Reuters said the package was estimated at $35 billion.

King Hamad had already tried his own payout — offering $2,650 to every Bahraini family in the days before large protests broke out more than a week ago — but the economic concession was not enough to stem the tide of opposition from the country’s Shiite majority. As in Saudi Arabia, the ruling class of Bahrain is made up of members of its Sunni minority.

In a nation of only 500,000 citizens, the sheer size of the gathering on Tuesday in Manama, Bahrain’s capital, was astonishing. Tens of thousands of men, women and children, mostly members of the Shiite majority, formed a ribbon of protest for several miles along the Sheik Khalifa bin Salman Highway as they headed for the square, calling for the downfall of the government in a march that was intended to show national unity.

“This is the first time in the history of Bahrain that the majority of people, of Bahraini people, got together with one message: this regime must fall,” said Muhammad Abdullah, 43, who was almost shaking with emotion as he watched the swelling crowd.

But for all the talk of political harmony, the past week’s events have left Bahrain as badly divided as ever. Its economy is threatened and its reputation damaged. Standard and Poor’s lowered its credit rating this week, Bahraini authorities canceled next month’s Bahrain Grand Prix Formula One race — a source of pride for the royal family — many businesses remained closed, and tourism was reported down.

On one side of the divide is the Sunni minority, which largely supports King Hamad, as the protector of its interests. On the other is the Shiite majority, which knows the changes it seeks will inevitably bring power to its side. The king began releasing some political prisoners on Tuesday night, and the crown prince, Sheik Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, has called for a national dialogue to try to bridge differences, preserve the monarchy and unite the nation. But so far in Bahrain, there is no substantive dialogue between the sides. There is a test of wills, as the Sunnis fight to hold on to what they have and the Shiites grapple for their fair share after years of being marginalized by an absolute monarchy that has ruled the nation for two centuries.

“I’m really excited, but I don’t know what is going to happen,” said Fatima Amroum, a 25-year-old woman in a black abaya who was quietly sending text messages as she watched the procession on Tuesday. “I’m a little scared of uncertainty; we might get what we demand, but freedom will be chaotic at the beginning.”

The days of protest and repression have mostly been about the Shiites speaking up and the Sunnis cracking down. But on Monday night, in the wealthy neighborhood of Juffair, tens of thousands of pro-government demonstrators poured into Al Fateh Grand Mosque to express their support for the embattled king.

The pro-government crowd borrowed some of the opposition’s slogans, including “no Sunni, no Shia, only Bahraini.” But that was where the call for unity started and ended.

This was an affluent crowd, different from the mostly low-income Shiites who took to the streets to demand a constitutional monarchy, an elected government and a representative Parliament. The air was scented with perfume, and people drove expensive cars. In a visceral demonstration of the distance between Sunni and Shiite, the crowd cheered a police helicopter that swooped low, a symbol of the heavy-handed tactics that have been used to intimidate the Shiites.

“We love King Hamad and we hate chaos,” said Hannan al-Abdallah, 22, as she joined the pro-government rally. “This is our country and we’re looking after it.”

Ali al-Yaffi, 29, drove to the pro-government demonstration with friends in his shiny white sport utility vehicle. He was angry and distrustful.

“The democracy they have been asking for is already here,” he said. “But the Shias, they have their ayatollahs, and whatever they say, they will run and do it. If they tell them to burn a house, they will. I think they have a clear intention to disrupt this country.”

On that point there is agreement: the Shiite opposition does want to disrupt, but with peaceful protests aimed at achieving its demands. The public here has learned the lessons of Egypt’s popular uprising and the power of peaceful opposition.

“I feel freedom like I never felt it in my life, but I’m also a little worried,” said Hussein al-Haddad, 32, as he marched with the Shiite protesters on Tuesday. “What is going to happen next?”

On Feb. 14, Shiites tried to hold a “day of rage,” modeled on the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that forced out autocratic presidents. The police gave no ground, firing on crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets and leaving one man dead, shot in the back. The next day, at the funeral, another man was killed the same way.

The protesters marched into Pearl Square, the symbolic center of Manama, the capital, and set up camp. In the early-morning hours, the police raided the camp, killing three men. Then, last Friday, a group of unarmed protesters tried to march into the square. The army opened fire, and one young man, Abdul Redha Mohammed Hassan, was left with a bullet in his head. He died Monday and was buried Tuesday.

The army’s attack on unarmed civilians shocked even the government’s supporters, and the military was withdrawn. The demonstrators poured back in, setting up a camp and a speaker’s podium and making it clear that they would not leave until their demands were met. The first demand, now, is the dissolution of the government and an agreement to create a constitutional monarchy.

“They are the ones who made the demands grow bigger,” said Mohammed al-Shakhouri, 51, as he watched a procession of thousands follow the coffin of Mr. Hassan to the cemetery for burial.

The government seems to have accepted that violence will not silence the opposition and has shifted its strategy. It has set up a press center to get its message out and is working with a public relations firm.

The opposition has stuck with its tactic of peaceful protest. On Tuesday, the Shiite political parties, chief among them Al Wefaq, called for the demonstration to start at the Bahrain mall and march into Pearl Square. Even the organizers were surprised as turnout swelled, packing the eastbound side of the highway from the mall to the square.

“It is a revolution,” said Hussein Mohammed, 37, a bookstore owner and volunteer for Al Wefaq. “It is a big revolution. It is unbelievable.”

By: Michael Slackman (nytimes magazine)

Chicago, It's Rahm Emanuel, Your Next F#@*ing Mayor



On a recent Saturday morning, a middle-aged man worked the produce and deli sections of a South Side Chicago supermarket, ambling past signs touting a half-pound of honey ham for $2.49 and a bulletin board with photos of three teen runaways. In tan chinos, a sports shirt and a well-worn brown leather jacket, he walked up to the African-American shoppers and employees with brisk efficiency, engaged in amiable but brief chats, then turned and headed down the bread aisle, a universe away from the West Wing meeting he'd have been in were it not for a career decision unprecedented in political annals.

"Rahm Emanuel, running for mayor" he said, thrusting out his hand to Chiquita Robinson, 48, a deli clerk who didn't need the introduction. "I'm gonna vote for you," she said, later explaining her preference: "Obama asked him to work for him. He's from Chicago. He's really involved in things, knows a lot of people and will be great."

He doesn't shout, doesn't curse, doesn't tell anybody they're stupid or wrong. For the moment, at least, that vividly profane side of Barack Obama's former chief of staff has been replaced by a disciplined campaigner with some overwhelming advantages: a national profile, a prodigious Rolodex, shock-and-awe fundraising, a triathlete's stamina and a hit man's resolve—plus, of course, the reflected glow of the President of the United States, himself a hometown hero. All of which is upending conventional wisdom about the city's Feb.?22 mayoral election, in which Emanuel is the clear front runner. The change in leadership comes at a perilous moment. The next mayor could either reinstate Chicago's status as a world-class city, or leave it another postrecession victim.

Chicago politics being a blood sport, front-runnerdom has made the slim Emanuel a fat target. Critics wonder if a man known for dropping F bombs like a B-52 has the temperament to be mayor. Emanuel's prime rival raises daily the threat of a "Rahm tax" on services from gym memberships to haircuts. The cops and firefighters pointedly are not endorsing him. People are still muttering about the more than $18 million he earned in less than three years as an investment banker after he left the Clinton White House. And Emanuel had to summon every ounce of his finite patience to endure nearly 12 consecutive hours of public interrogation over whether he even qualifies to be on the ballot as a legal city resident. (He does, according to the state's supreme court.)

In this odd adventure, Emanuel, 51, is something of a trailblazer: there are 17 living former presidential chiefs of staff, yet none have departed the White House for anything quite so humble as a bid for municipal office. James Jones, an Oklahoman who held the job under Lyndon Johnson, went on to serve a few terms in Congress; Dick Cheney, who staffed Gerald Ford, represented Wyoming in the House; and Erskine Bowles, who steered Bill Clinton through the Lewinsky saga, lost two U.S. Senate bids from North Carolina. But it's something different to walk away from Situation Room crisis meetings, visits to foreign capitals, high-stakes budget negotiations and the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit for a rough-and-tumble world in which speedy garbage pickup can make you a hero and unplowed snow can ruin you.

And we're not talking about just any White House chief of staff. We're talking about Rahm, among the most famous and influential occupants the job has seen in years. A man who helped elect Clinton and to shape his White House, then won a hard-fought North Side congressional seat from which he, in turn, recruited and advised the candidates who restored a Democratic House majority in 2006. A man who mused about becoming the first Jewish Speaker of the House, before leaving Congress to work beside America's first black President. And yet here he is this morning at a strip mall in a black working-class neighborhood, fist bumping little kids as surprised shoppers snap cell-phone pictures. The candidate is warm, if not effusive, good with eye contact, then exiting conversations to quickly corral another shopper as if he were a hustling parking-lot attendant paid per car. Emanuel is a decisive man, and he is campaigning in the pursuit of a decisive win on Feb. 22—not just a victory but one big enough to avoid a runoff election.

That was once thought to be impossible. Given the large (six-candidate) field, and the deep ethnic fragmentation of America's third largest city, insiders doubted that anybody could pull more than 50% to win outright. The bookmakers expected a runoff between a white candidate and a black or Latino contender. Yet here in one of the nation's most segregated cities, not one African-American shopper or worker during this morning's supermarket swing privately voices a preference for the leading black candidate, former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun. No matter that in 1992 Chicago catapulted her to the U.S. Senate — the body's first and only African-American female. To these voters, a sense that Emanuel has the power and prowess to deliver results matters more: "He could pull strings to do the city good," says Lucas Redmond, 69, a retired refrigeration engineer who voted for Braun back then but associates her with wasted opportunity. Chimes in a dairy-department employee: "I voted for her, but it seems when we go with race, it doesn't do us any good. He's better qualified."

City hall has been run since 1989 by Richard M. Daley, the king of American mayors. Daley leaves Chicago having overseen the city's transformation from declining Rust Belt bastion to world-class metropolis, with a flourishing arts scene, innovative financial markets and commerce-fueling transport services. With its dazzling sculpture and architecture, the 24.5-acre (10 hectare) Millennium Park, opened in 2004, not only anchors downtown but makes it one of the great public spaces anywhere.

Chicago's problems, however, are also daunting. There's the city's $500 million deficit, which amounts to nearly 10% of its annual budget. Several pension funds face the prospect of going under, with little help likely from a state whose own financial predicament is precarious at best. The city's basic infrastructure, especially mass transit, is in rapid decline. The school system is in crisis, with a high school dropout rate that exceeds 50%. Only the cities of Detroit, Milwaukee and Newark, N.J., are more segregated. According to a recent analysis of economic growth in 150 metropolitan areas worldwide by the Brookings Institution and the London School of Economics, Chicago placed a listless 82nd. Chicago's substantial black population in particular endures crushing unemployment and persistent crime. "You can have a world-class ballet and opera," says Emanuel (a former ballet dancer). "But if half your kids aren't graduating, you can't be a world-class city."

Which brings us to the obvious question: Why? Why leave the grand arena of national governance for a circus of pothole fixing, tree trimming, water-main repair, subway-line extensions and fights over which alleys drivers can use as thoroughfares? Why subject yourself to a city-hall press corps whose cynicism can make its White House counterpart look decorous and fawning? "I loved the White House. I loved working for both President Obama for two years and for President Clinton for six years," Emanuel tells me after somehow arriving just five minutes late to a downtown diner in a blizzard that has paralyzed the city. "But I love with a greater amount of emotion and strength also being the mayor of the city of Chicago, a city I grew up in and I would want my kids to call home. I think it's facing some serious challenges... Every city faces these challenges. I want to be the first to solve them." In other words, Emanuel is a gut-level kind of guy with a gut-level passion for Chicago. He loves it for the grit and grandiosity that has produced everything from Saul Bellow's greatest novels to Michael Jordan's six NBA titles to the epic Daley-family political machine. "I give you Chicago," wrote the newsman-essayist H.L. Mencken. "It is not London and Harvard. It is not Paris and buttermilk. It is American in every chitlin and sparerib. It is alive from snout to tail." Emanuel's vision is less lyrical but just as devout. "It's the most livable big city," he says, "with all the potentials of a big city and the management of a smaller town. This is what makes it, from a lifestyle question, unique. It's the only inland city with an international economic focus."

The Road to City Hall
No one expected Daley to leave when he did. But Emanuel wasted no time assembling an organization that has operated with the discipline and stealth of a presidential incumbent with a lead. Famous for his invective and epithets, Emanuel knew that the image of a coarse hothead might be useful in a fixer but could unnerve voters choosing an executive. Thus the man who once sent a dead fish to a pollster has been on his best behavior, taking extreme care not to flash his trademark temper in public. (Though he can still occasionally get snippy, as he did during an appearance at a charter school, curtly telling one loquacious host to stop talking so that he could hear from the teachers.) He won't engage rivals in rhetorical combat—Emanuel has skipped several candidates' forums—and prefers to appear, much like a President does, at only one message-specific public event per day. He is selectively minimalist about when to engage with the press.

Emanuel has also brought a political version of Colin Powell's concept of overwhelming force to bear on the race. The nearly $12 million he raised in just the three months following Daley's September decision dwarfed the combined total funding of his rivals. It was five times that of his prime critic and opponent, Gery Chico, a wealthy lawyer and former Daley aide whom Rahm has managed to recast as a compromised insider. Moguls such as Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and Chicago hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin help finance an all-star team of local consultants and young sharpies lured from the Obama Administration. Entertainers such as Jennifer Hudson and Jeff Tweedy of Wilco have headlined fundraisers. The comedian Andy Samberg, who memorably impersonated a cartoonishly obnoxious Emanuel on Saturday Night Live ("Do I lack even basic social skills? Absolutely"), stumped for Emanuel at a train stop in January, declaring that Emanuel would be "the most overqualified mayor of all time."

Behind the scenes, meanwhile, Emanuel employs the most cutting-edge techniques. A focus on social networking and demographically targeted e-mails is part of "using the Internet in ways not previously used in a municipal campaign," says Chicago-based Democratic consultant Eric Adelstein. Emanuel is harnessing Google Analytics to micro-target voters based on their Web surfing. "So you look for 'Chicago Bears' and there may be an Emanuel message that might interest you, a sports fan between the ages of 40 and 60," Adelstein says. While Emanuel has more than 40 paid staff members, a well-known Latino candidate, city clerk Miguel del Valle, has six. And the control Emanuel's team exerts can sometimes befit a national candidate: when a local television news station recently interviewed his parents, the campaign insisted that its own crew film the interview as well. And then there are the effective TV ads, one featuring Obama and another, Bill Clinton.

The shrewd, muscular campaign is the natural product of a career that has always been somewhat exceptional. Born to a hard-driving pediatrician father who served in a Jewish paramilitary organization that operated in Palestine and a psychiatric-social-worker mother, Emanuel moved to the Chicago suburbs as a youth with his equally ambitious and successful brothers, prominent Hollywood agent Ari and bioethicist-oncologist Ezekiel. He attended summer school in Israel and, eschewing a scholarship with the Joffrey Ballet, attended Sarah Lawrence College and quickly found his place in Chicago politics, working in 1989 as chief fundraiser for Richard Daley's first winning mayoral bid. (The revolving Daley-Obama door now features Daley's younger brother William, who hired Emanuel for that 1989 fundraising job, replacing him as White House chief of staff.)

Emanuel's ascent to the national scene began when he was one of the first hires at Clinton's fledgling Little Rock, Ark., presidential headquarters in 1991. He proved a prodigious fundraiser and joined Clinton as a White House adviser for six years; next came those two-plus lucrative years in investment banking, in which he impressed many with his contacts, judgment and capacity for work. In 2002 he won the congressional seat vacated by Rod Blagoje-vich, who went on to glory and then disgrace as governor. Emanuel took on what he calls "a job nobody wanted," he says, as chairman of the Democratic Congressional-Campaign Committee, where he was praised for selecting mostly moderate candidates and shepherding the party's 31-seat gain in 2006. It seemed entirely possible that Emanuel would succeed Nancy Pelosi as House Democratic leader until Obama asked him to take his mix of White House and Capitol Hill expertise into the Oval Office.

For a man barely acquainted with failure, the mayor's race could have been a humbling experience. Yet fortune shone upon him. His strongest potential white rival blinked and didn't run. The city's black political elite chose Braun as its "consensus" candidate, a move that proved disastrous: Braun has been uninspiring and erratic, most notably when she declared at a February candidates' forum that a black female rival had previously been "on crack." The public's attention has been elsewhere — the Bears' playoff run, the epic blizzard — drowning out the attacks of rivals like Chico, who has sought to exploit the vagueness of Emanuel's proposal to broaden Chicago's tax base. (Chico calls it "the largest sales tax in the city's history"; Emanuel counters that his plan would not raise overall taxes.)

Most fortuitous of all was the strange battle over the basic question of whether Emanuel was, in fact, a Chicago resident eligible to run for mayor. A lawsuit, whose source of funding remains mysterious, argued that he'd lived in D.C. too long to call himself a Chicagoan. Weeks of legal wrangling culminated on Dec. 14 in nearly 12 consecutive hours of testimony from Emanuel that included a discussion of items stored in his Chicago basement (including his wife's wedding dress). After an appeals court ruled against Emanuel, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously decreed him a legal resident. A saga that threatened to embarrass not only gave him endless free publicity but, thanks to his uncharacteristic self-restraint in the face of goading by a pack of hostile citizens, softened the caricature of volcanic Rahmbo. It made him out to be the victim and underscored an implicit campaign theme: Emanuel as patriot who left his post in Congress to serve his President and now longed to return home. Especially in the African-American community, the notion of a powerful white man sacrificing for a black man is potent.

Training for a Tough Job
Much credit surely goes to the candidate himself, a paragon of fitness and energy. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays he starts at 5:45 a.m. by swimming a mile at the elite, perfect-for-networking East Bank Club. On Tuesdays and Thursdays he does 25 minutes on a stationary bike ("Level 14," he says), 15 minutes on an elliptical trainer, 100 sit-ups and weights. On Saturdays he hikes 20 miles (32 km) or runs 4 miles (6.5 km), and on Sundays he has private yoga instruction. Then it's off to daylong, mostly unpublicized, appearances, including meet and greets at 100 El stops so far and hours spent feeding his inner wonk by studying the intricacies of school policy, transit, community policing, planning, airports, homelessness, garbage collection, health care and public housing. There are detailed papers on saving health care dollars via wellness programs, semiprivatizing trash pickup, persuading retailers to put supermarkets in the city's many "food deserts" and creating a sprawling, Google-like campus for high-tech innovators and venture capitalists. A serial cell-phone user, he's constantly dialing donors, prospective hires and legislators, like Illinois senate president John Cullerton, who says Emanuel has been the only mayoral hopeful to call.

The hardest part might be when Emanuel ventures into a lion's den: Chicago's firehouses. Few groups are as clannish as the city's firefighters, many of whom have the time to work second jobs. A strong case can be made that there are far too many, especially given the sharp drop in the number of fires (thanks in part to modern construction standards). Emanuel has hinted that this system must change. When he took his message to a North Side firehouse this month, one firefighter (who wouldn't give his name) offered his verdict: "The guys aren't too happy."

For Chicago to survive and flourish, however, hard choices lie ahead. A city with 30,000 employees groans under $12.4 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Borrowing $245 million for anticipated police and firefighter raises, Chicago shares a fiscal predicament with cities nationwide. Though the school system has become a national laboratory for change, overall progress is incremental, and test scores are uninspiring. Teachers are well paid but work the shortest school day of the nation's 50 largest districts, teacher recruitment and performance evaluation are awful, and principals are not well trained.

That's why Emanuel's critique of city workers in a TV ad titled "Service" infuriates union leaders but seems to resonate with voters. "City government is not an employment agency," he says. "That means making sure everybody that works for the city government knows that they're actually a public servant representing and helping the people that pay them." Unionists may be outraged, but a popular suspicion is that too many have had it too good for too long. Emanuel is proposing various savings of $500 million, although he is withholding some key, politically charged details, like whether he'll go after pension benefits of existing workers.

It is a sign, however, that Emanuel is not interested in merely being a caretaker of the city he loves. Every city in America faces similar problems with its schools, budget and public-employee pensions. But Chicago's example will be especially important. As he has been throughout his career, Emanuel is prepared to make some enemies to achieve his goals. He insists that the story is bigger than one man. "It's about governing, not about me," he says. "The day of reckoning has come. Denial is not a long-term strategy."

By: James Warren (Times magazine)