Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels

Channel Catalog

Channel Description:

The latest news from Business Insider

older | 1 | .... | 2087 | 2088 | (Page 2089) | 2090 | 2091 | .... | 2170 | newer

    0 0

    ruby red slippers dorothy When looking back on classic films, cinematography, acting performances, and musical scores are often praised for the role they play in a film's success. But fashion and costuming are no less important in Hollywood. Certain styles and designs can stay with viewers long after they finish a film.

    From Dorothy's ruby slippers in "The Wizard of Oz" to Cher's yellow plaid outfit in "Clueless," here are 26 of the most iconic movie outfits.

    "The Gold Rush" (1925) featured Charlie Chaplin in a well-loved outfit.

    In 1925, comedy legend Charlie Chaplin wrote, directed, and starred in "The Gold Rush," a feature-length silent film set during the Klondike Gold Rush. Chaplin led the film with his "Little Tramp" persona, the character Chaplin is most known for, with his toothbrush mustache and oversized suit.

    Ironically, the look of the iconic character happened while Chaplin was rushing to wardrobe. In his autobiography, Chaplin wrote: "I had no idea what makeup to put on ... However, on the way to the wardrobe, I thought I would dress in baggy pants, big shoes, a cane, and a derby hat ... I had no idea of the character. But the moment I was dressed, the clothes and the make-up made me feel the person he was."

    "Gone With the Wind" (1939) had a number of notable gowns.

    The grand historical drama "Gone With the Wind" won eight Oscars at the 12th Academy Awards, including "Best Picture" and "Best Actress." Southern belle Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) and Rhett Butcher (Clark Gable) have a turbulent romance during the Civil War.

    Throughout the film, Scarlett has a number of remarkable costume changes to flaunt her wealth and style. Perhaps the most memorable outfit from the film is the red dress that Rhett forces her to wear to a party with the intent of humiliating her as a harlot. Even so, Scarlett stunned audiences in her silk velvet ball gown.

    "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) wouldn't be the same without the ruby slippers.

    Although the first Technicolor film was released in 1935, "The Wizard of Oz" paid homage to Hollywood's transition from black and white into color as Dorothy (Judy Garland) stepped from Kansas into the colorful land of Oz. Dorothy's outfit was a centerpiece of the film, with her blue and white gingham pinafore dress and ruby red slippers.

    Though the slippers were originally silver in L. Frank Baum's book, the color was changed to red so that they would stand out against the famed yellow brick road. The slippers are so emblematic that they are even hailed as treasures of American history by the Smithsonian.

    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Brett Kavanaugh

    • The Trump administration is being accused of limiting the scale and scope of an FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. 
    • Three women have accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, but it's been reported FBI investigators are only pursuing information behind two of the allegations. 
    • Trump on Monday said he wants a "comprehensive" but quick investigation, adding that he's OK with the FBI interviewing all three accusers. 
    • Attorney Michael Avenatti, who represents the third accuser, told Business Insider that the investigation is a "farce" and is being run by Trump. 

    President Donald Trump on Monday sought to quell criticism over the White House's involvement in the FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, as critics questioned whether it set limitations on the probe.

    Senate Republicans and the White House on Friday agreed to an investigation lasting no longer than a week into sexual misconduct allegations, delaying a Senate floor vote. It came after dramatic, emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday from Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford.

    But confusion has erupted about the specifics of the FBI investigation, especially in terms of which allegations are being investigated and who's being questioned. ­Judiciary Committee Chairman Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley on Friday said the investigation will focus on "current credible allegations."

    What we know about who's been contacted by the FBI

    Kavanaugh is accused of sexual misconduct by three women: Ford, college classmate Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick, a client of the high-profile lawyer Michael Avenatti.

    • Ford alleges Kavanaugh attempted to force himself on her at a party when they were teenagers, at times covering her mouth with his hand to prevent her from screaming. She claims a friend of Kavanaugh's, Mark Judge, was in the room and aided in the alleged assault.
    • Ford had not been contacted for an interview by the FBI as of Sunday, according to The Washington Post. Her attorney, Debra Katz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Monday. 
    • Meanwhile, Ramirez, who alleges Kavanaugh shoved his penis in her face at a party when they were both college students at Yale University, reportedly spoke with the FBI on Sunday.
    • In a sworn declaration, Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh and Judge present at high-school parties at which gang rapes occurred. There are few signs the FBI is looking into Swetnick's allegations. 

    Judge's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, recently told Business Insider he does not recall the incident Ford described, but has also said he will cooperate with the FBI. Van Gelder on Monday reiterated Judge's willingness to cooperate but would not say whether he's been contacted by the FBI as of yet. 

    "Mr. Judge has said he will cooperate with the FBI and that is all we are going to say," Van Gelder told Business Insider via email. "As a former federal prosecutor, I respect the confidentiality of the FBI investigative process."

    On Monday afternoon, however, NBC News reported a senior US official said Judge had been interviewed by the FBI. 

    An ex-girlfriend of Judge's, Elizabeth Rasor, who has challenged his recollections, has offered to cooperate with the FBI but reportedly hasn't been contacted. 

    And Charles Ludington, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's who's challenged the Supreme Court nominee's statements on his drinking habits, told The Washington Post on Sunday he planned to deliver a statement to the FBI detailing Kavanaugh's "violent drunken behavior" in college. 

    Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that the FBI interview 24 people in connection with the allegations.

    What Trump has said about the investigation

    Over the weekend, reports began to surface that FBI investigators were looking into the allegations from Ford and Ramirez, but not Swetnick. The reports also suggested that the White House was limiting the list of witnesses.

    "We ask that you confirm that the FBI background investigation will include the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick and that the FBI will perform all logical steps related to these allegations, including interviewing other individuals who might have relevant information and gathering evidence related to the truthfulness of statements made in relation to these allegations," the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats said in their letter.

    Trump has rejected in recent days the notion he's "limiting" the investigation. 

    "Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion,"Trump tweeted on Saturday. 

    When questioned about the status of the investigation by reporters on Monday, Trump suggested he's open to having the FBI interview anyone with relevant information, including Swetnick.

    "The FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer," the president said.

    "I want it to be comprehensive," Trump said, while also adding he wants it to be done "quickly."  

    The president said it "wouldn't bother" him "at all" if the FBI interviewed all three of Kavanaugh's accusers, while also adding he'd heard Swetnick has "very little credibility."

    Though the FBI takes its orders from Trump, he said he's being "guided" by senators on the investigation's scope.

    The president also suggested Kavanaugh should potentially be interviewed. 

    "They should interview anyone they want within reason. You have to say within reason," Trump said.

    Avenatti says the investigation is 'a farce and is being run by Donald Trump'

    Avenatti, who represents Swetnick, on Monday told Business Insider the Trump administration is "afraid" of what his client might say and rejected the notion her allegations aren't credible. 

    "The investigation is a farce and is being run by Donald Trump. They obviously are afraid of what my client might say, which is why they are avoiding her," Avenatti said.

    He added: "There are many witnesses that can support her allegations and we are prepared to provide those names to the FBI as we have been saying for a week."

    Avenatti, who's perhaps best known for his representation of adult-film star Stormy Daniels and is considering a 2020 presidential run, said both Senate Republicans and the president are standing in the way of a truly comprehensive investigation.

    Reacting to Trump's claim that senators need to provide him guidance on who should be interviewed as part of the investigation, Avenatti said that "Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth."

    "It's part of the con he is running," he said.

    SEE ALSO: Trump mocks reporter during press conference as she asks a question on Kavanaugh: 'I know you're not thinking. You never do.'

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    Shopping Online More

    This is a preview of a research report from BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about BI Intelligence, click here.

    Amazon Prime’s free two-day shipping has led to an industry paradigm shift. Online retailers — small and large — are increasingly offering the perk to keep from losing customers to the behemoth marketplace. But free shipping comes at a steep cost: Rising shipping expenditures are eating away at retailers' margins. 

    Larger retailers that can better afford to eat the cost of free shipping are battling to gain an advantage over Amazon. But most retailers, particularly small ones, lack the resources necessary to compete with the massive online retailer. This has set off a race in the logistics industry: Large logistics providers are creating new services for small retailers, while logistics startups aiming to address the same market are growing in numbers. 

    In a new report, BI Intelligence weighs the costs and benefits of free shipping for retailers and analyzes the effects of the perk on the industry. It assesses the technologies that could become commonplace as retailers and logistics providers fight rising shipping costs. However, implementing a cost-effective free shipping strategy can be difficult, so the report also discusses various techniques that both small and large retailers can use to make free shipping work for them.

    Here are some key takeaways from the report:

    • Small and large retailers alike are turning to free shipping to better compete in an Amazon-dominated market. But rising shipping expenditures are eating away at retailers' margins — even Amazon reported in 2016 that its shipping costs jumped 40%.
    • Small retailers face even more challenges than their larger counterparts, as they often lack the resources to invest in supply chain improvements and can’t benefit from the generous shipping discounts large retailers receive. Typically, retailers can get discounts of up to 70%, while boutique shops may only see discounts of about 5%.
    • Both retailers and logistics companies will likely invest in technologies that help to lower shipping costs. These include augmented reality (AR), artificial intelligence (AI), and radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking. Additionally, as logistics providers continue to raise shipping rates, large retailers may move some logistics operations in-house.

    In full, the report: 

    • Provides an overview of how consumers' demand for free shipping is shaping the retail and logistics industries.
    • Examines the technologies that may be implemented as a result of  companies seeking to lower shipping costs.
    • Discusses various strategies to implement with free shipping for small and large retailers.

    Interested in getting the full report? Here are two ways to access it:

    1. Subscribe to an All-Access pass to BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report and over 100 other expertly researched reports. As an added bonus, you'll also gain access to all future reports and daily newsletters to ensure you stay ahead of the curve and benefit personally and professionally. >>Learn More Now
    2. Purchase & download the full report from our research store. >> Purchase & Download Now

    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0


    • For the first time in 46 years, the Drug Enforcement Administration has changed its stance on the marijuana compound CBD. 
    • Rather than reclassifying CBD entirely, the agency changed how it regulates federally-approved drugs made with the compound.
    • Those drugs — only one of which, called Epidiolex, currently exists — are now classified as Schedule 5 drugs, meaning they're the least-strictly regulated.
    • Researchers, advocates, and entrepreneurs say the move is good news for the CBD industry as a whole. Here's why.

    A new drug derived from marijuana led to a landmark change in the US government's stance on cannabis in late September.

    After being greenlit over the summer as the first federally approved marijuana-based medication, an epilepsy drug called Epidiolex triggered the nation's top drug enforcer to change how it regulates CBD, the compound in marijuana not responsible for a high. It's the first time in 46 years that the agency has shifted its stance on the marijuana compound.

    The move was somewhat unexpected. Barbara Carreno, a representative from Drug Enforcement Administration, initially told Business Insider that she expected the agency to reschedule CBD entirely — not just federally-approved drugs made with CBD. 

    Carreno added that the move would unleash what she called a "sea change" for CBD manufacturers and the industry as a whole, which up until this point has existed in a legal grey area.

    But it appears that sea change may not occur after all. Only drugs already approved by the Food and Drug Administration will now be considered Schedule 5, the agency announced last Thursday.

    Still, researchers, advocates, and entrepreneurs told Business Insider they thought the move was good news overall for patients and for the CBD industry as a whole, which has been pegged as a roughly $1 billion business. Here's why.

    The move makes the medication available, but limits research

    Laura Lubbers, the chief scientific officer of a nonprofit called Cure that funds epilepsy research, told Business Insider that she was neither disappointed nor "necessarily pleased" with the DEA's decision, but felt it was good news overall that Epidiolex, which treats two rare forms of epilepsy, could finally get into the hands of patients who need it.

    "I’ve had so many people asking me: 'When is this coming? When is this going to happen?'," Lubbers said.

    Now that the DEA has made its decision, patients can officially get Epidiolex with a doctor's prescription.

    But the research on CBD will continue to be limited, Lubbers added.

    That's because as it stands, CBD remains a Schedule 1 substance — unless it's inside of a federally-approved medication. That means it's still difficult for many researchers to access and study, Lubbers said. Conversely, if the agency had decided to put all CBD — whether in a medication or not — in the Schedule 5 category, more people would be able to get their hands on it and research the compound's potential benefits.

    "CBD is already a precious commodity and now it’ll be directed towards patients, which is good, but it'll be harder for researchers to access and study it" than it would be if the DEA had fully rescheduled CBD, Lubbers said.

    "I think the research will move forward but at a slower pace than people would want," she added.

    The DEA's move could help keep unvetted products off the market

    cbd oil product lineupStill, the DEA's move may also help keep the booming CBD industry — which manufactures products that range from dog treats to coffee — in check.

    That's because the CBD in Epidiolex is manufactured and produced under strict standards, just like any other FDA-approved drug. The CBD in many other products is not.

    "The main thing is that CBD as approved by the FDA is pharmaceutical-grade CBD," Shlomo Shinnar, the president of the American Epilepsy Society and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told Business Insider in June. "That's not the same as when people tell you, 'Oh, I've got marijuana and it's high in CBD,' or 'Oh, I've got a CBD product.'"

    As it stands, the products are poorly regulated, meaning there is wide variation in content, safety, and price.

    For a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers tested 84 CBD products purchased from 31 different online retailers. Roughly seven out of 10 items had different levels of CBD than what was written on the label. Of all of the items tested, roughly half had more CBD than was indicated; a quarter had less. And 18 of the samples tested positive for THC, despite it not being listed on the label.

    "If the entire compound were to be rescheduled, there would be an even greater emergence of companies trying to ride the CBD wave, and these companies may or may not create a high quality product," Kelvin Harrylall, the CEO of a company called The CBD Palace (which audits CBD companies and creates a list of vendors it deems safe for customers), told Business Insider.

    "I am eager for the day when the schedule changes for the entire industry, but the issue isn’t as simple as just reclassifying CBD," Harrylall said. "I believe the CBD industry as a whole will benefit from this, and those that continue to make a good product will grow and shine, while those that are not will slowly recede."

    SEE ALSO: Pharmaceutical giants are sidestepping US marijuana restrictions to research cannabis-based drugs

    DON'T MISS: The CEO behind the first prescription marijuana drug explains what cannabis-based drug he wants to get approved next

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Why horseshoe crab blood is so expensive

    0 0

    Princess Ameera Al Taweel 3

    Saudi Arabia's Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel made headlines earlier this month when she married billionaire Khalifa Bin Butti al-Muhairi.

    The private ceremony, which was held in Paris, France, had an exclusive guest list that included, among others, Oprah Winfrey and Gayle King, the Daily Mail reported Monday.

    Al-Taweel was previously married to Prince Al-Waleed bin Tala, a member of Saudi Arabia's royal family and one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes' estimate of his net worth.

    Below, find out more about the high-profile philanthropist and entertainment company CEO.

    Princess Ameerah Al-Taweel married into the House of Saud, the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia, in 2008.

    According to Glamour, Al-Taweel met Prince Al-Waleed bin Tala when she interviewed him for a school paper at the age of 18. The two tied the knot nine months later in 2008, at which point Al-Taweel became the royal's fourth wife.

    A successful investor who owns stakes in numerous American companies including Lyft, Twitter, and Citigroup, the prince has been called the "Warren Buffett of the Middle East."

    The couple separated five years later in 2013.

    Speaking to Glamour in 2015, Al-Taweel, then 29, said that the divorce was "amicable." She also said she hopes to be a role model for young women.

    Al-Taweel continued: "I want to be the one women look to when they tell their daughters, 'Look, she got a divorce and see what she's doing now? She's an independent woman. She's doing something good for her country."

    Al-Taweel is an outspoken advocate for women's civil rights and empowerment.

    Over the years, she's worked closely with numerous non-profit organizations and high-profile global leaders like the Clintons, Queen Rania of Jordan, and members of the British royal family, the Daily Mail reported.

    According to Glamour, Al-Taweel has advocated for women in Saudi Arabia to gain the right to drive, access to equal inheritance, and custody of their children after getting divorced.

    In late September 2017, Saudi Arabia announced in a royal decree that it would lift its longstanding ban on women driving. The landmark decision took effect in June earlier this year.

    Currently, women in Saudi Arabia still cannot retain custody over their children after a divorce once their sons are older than seven or their daughters are older than nine, according to a report by the Human Rights Watch.

    According to the European Parliament, under Saudi Arabia's Sharia inheritance laws, daughters continue to get half of what sons are able to inherit.

    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Stormy Daniels

    • Porn star Stormy Daniels, in her upcoming book "Full Disclosure," provided an in-depth explanation for why she signed a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement to stay silent about her allegation of an affair with then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
    • It was out of fear for her safety, she wrote, fears that the agreement helped calm.
    • "I won't be defined by Donald f---ing Trump, and I won't be branded a gold digger," she wrote. "And they can't murder me."

    Porn star Stormy Daniels, in her upcoming book "Full Disclosure," provided an in-depth explanation for why she signed the original $130,000 non-disclosure agreement prior to the 2016 presidential election that silenced her from discussing her allegation of a 2006 affair with Donald Trump.

    That revelation of the hush money payment ended up leading to the conviction of President Trump's former longtime lawyer Michael Cohen — who facilitated the payment — amid a campaign-finance controversy that surrounded both he and Trump. Now, Trump and Cohen say they won't enforce that agreement after months of public scrutiny and Daniels filing a lawsuit to void the deal.

    In "Full Disclosure," which Business Insider obtained ahead of its release, Daniels said she was approached by a friend in August 2016 who warned her that if she didn't come forward with her story, operatives close to Trump could have her killed in an effort to make sure the story never saw the light of day. If she did come forward publicly, then political operatives hypothetically killing her off would be much more difficult, because then the public would know of her ties to Trump.

    "If you died tonight, no one would be like, Donald Trump or the Republicans did it," Daniels recalled the unnamed friend telling her. "But now you're their problem. They are going to go through your closet, find his skeletons, and get rid of them. ... This is a real thing Stormy. Think of your family."

    The person insisted that the "only way" for her family to be safe would be if she came forward with her story.

    She wrote that this terrified her, and she soon went down a "rabbit hole" of political conspiracies, starting with those surrounding the death of actress Marilyn Monroe, who was rumored to have had an affair with former President John F. Kennedy.

    "If there's a mistress who died suspiciously, I read about it, and each one, no matter how far-fetched, fed my fears," Daniels wrote.

    That fear led her to schedule a pre-election interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" to discuss her claims of an affair with Trump. She wrote that, at the time, she still hadn't even discussed the story with her then-husband.

    Shortly after that, she was contacted by attorney Keith Davidson, who represented Playboy model Karen McDougal in her arrangement with The National Enquirer. That outlet purchased McDougal's story of a 2006 affair with Trump for $150,000 only to never publish the account, effectively silencing her. Davidson would initially represent Daniels in her dealings with Cohen.

    Davidson made Daniels aware that Cohen was prepared to offer her $130,000 in exchange for her silence.

    She thought that would ensure her safety. Plus, she thought, she wouldn't have to make her husband aware of her allegations involving Trump. A huge win, in her mind.

    "I got to stay in my home with my daughter and do the work that I love," she wrote. "I won't be defined by Donald f---ing Trump, and I won't be branded a gold digger. And they can't murder me. And I don't have to tell" her husband, she rationalized.

    Daniels wrote that she didn't know how Cohen and Davidson arrived at $130,000 as the amount, and at the time, she said she wasn't concerned. She was "too concerned about her safety" to push Davidson for more information related to the price.

    "This was about putting all this behind me confidentially and never having to worry about Trump coming after me or my family," she wrote.

    SEE ALSO: A federal judge just ruled that an unprecedented Democratic legal challenge against Trump and his business can go forward

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    • Dr. Gary Shilling says that when it comes to trade, the buyer has the upper hand when there's plenty of supply. And in the scenario of the global trade war, the US is the buyer.
    • Shilling says it's possible that China's President Xi will "go to the mat" and things could get nasty. But ultimately, he believes the US will end up winning the trade war.

    Dr. Gary Shilling, the president of A. Gary Shilling & Co., spoke to Business Insider editor-at-large Sara Silverstein about the escalating trade tensions between the US and China. Following is a transcript of the video. 

    Sara Silverstein: And what do you think about Trump's trade war? What's the outcome going to be?

    Gary Shilling: Here's the point that I continue to make. When you've got plenty of supply in the world, and I think you do — plenty of industrial capability, plenty of raw materials and so on — it's the buyer that has the upper hand not the seller. The buyer has the ultimate power and who's the buyer? US is the buyer, China is the seller. And besides that, if you say, if we weren't buying all those consumer goods from China, and you and I enjoy them, they're cheap, they're great. But if we weren't buying them, where would China sell them? They have no other place to sell them, and in the meanwhile, China's growth is slowing.

    They've got a problem of huge debt expansion they're trying to curb, they're trying to deal with a shadow lendinga shadow banking system and so on and so forth. China isn't going to collapse obviously, but I think in this trade war, that the US has the upper hand.

    If you look at how this whole thing developed, after World War II, the rest of the world was pretty much in ashes and we were promptly into the Cold War, so I think that implicitly or explicitly, we basically said, "We will let Japan and Europe export freely into the US," because that gave them the growth to revive in a postwar era and that was cheaper for us than garrisoning even more US troops around the world and having more border wars. Well, that was fine, but that era's over, and globalization has replaced it, so it's an entirely different scene, and I think as a result, you have this situation where ChinaChina, you know, grew basically through exports and they went to Europe and North America. 

    Xi Jinping

    But you know, they did it with some rather underhanded — we'd let them into the World Trade Center in 2001 and they basically have not fulfilled their promises, they have not opened up their technology, they're not opening up to our investments, they steal our technology, they demand tech transfers for companies that want to operate in China and so on. And so you've got a situation now where China is basically playing by the old game, when everybody could export to the US, but now when you see the unemployment problem, no growth and purchasing power for the average guythe non-supervisory and production employeesno growth in real incomes for a decade and that has changed the whole scene and I think that's really what has gotten Trump elected and he's basically saying, "Hey wait a minute. We've got the upper hand here and we're going to go ahead."

    I mean, people say nobody wins trade wars. Yeah, in the short-run you don't, but in the long-run ... the US will be better off.

    Now, they could go to the mat. Xi, who is basically the president for life in China, and Trump, he won't be around forever of course, but they could go to the mat and you could get a really nasty, all-out trade war and a serious global recession. I'm not predicting that. I think they probably will settle and China will begrudgingly give ground. They'll import more US goods, they'll ease up on required tech transfers, steal less of it. They're not going to change their views entirely, but I think under pressure, they probably will give way and we'll end up winning the trade war.

    I mean, people say nobody wins trade wars. Yeah, in the short-run you don't, but in the long-run, if it's a matter of changing what has been the world exporting to the US and the US buying it and what do we do? We give them paper. That's why they own half of our treasuries. I think that is being reversed and in the long-run, the US will be better off.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    0 0


    • Grocery stores, gyms, and movie theatres are replacing Sears, JCPenney, and Macy's stores across the United States.
    • Companies replacing these department stores include Whole Foods, Planet Fitness, H&M, Target, and Burlington Coat Factory, according to a JLL report. 
    • Non-retail and non-restaurant companies now make up nearly a quarter of mall space in the US, up from about 19% in 2012, according to JLL.

    Shopping malls are drastically changing as department stores, their biggest and often most lucrative tenants, shutter hundreds of locations across the United States.

    Gyms, off-price retailers, and grocery stores are rushing to fill the space once occupied by many department stores, according to a recent report by the commercial real estate company JLL.

    Sears stores are being replaced by Planet Fitness gyms, AMC Movie theaters, Mariano's food stores, and off-price chains like Burlington Coat Factory, the report found.

    Meanwhile, Macy's stores have been turned into Lifetime Fitness gyms, Whole Foods grocery stores, and furniture retailers like HomeSense and Home Goods, according to the report. JCPenney and Bon-Ton locations have been replaced by Marshalls, H&M, Target, and Shop-Rite.

    The new tenants are changing the face of malls across the country. 

    Non-retail and non-restaurant companies now make up nearly a quarter of mall space in the US, up from about 19% in 2012, according to JLL.

    The replacement tenants reflect a massive shift in how Americans are spending their money. Food and entertainment spending have been gaining wallet share for the last several years, while spending on apparel and accessories has waned. 

    Here's a roundup of what's replacing department stores at malls across the US, according to JLL. 

    companies filling vacant department stores graphic

    SEE ALSO: Sears' CEO is making a last-ditch effort to avoid bankruptcy

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: One bite from this tick could ruin red meat for the rest of your life

    0 0


    • Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff used to work as a personal assistant to Hollywood's rich and famous.
    • He put up with the idiosyncrasies of his bosses to move up in the business.
    • In this particular instance, that meant dealing with his boss's drama, even in the middle of family emergencies.
    • His boss, the actress, will be referred to as EFA (extremely famous actress.)

    The following is excerpted from "Where's My F*cking Latte? (and Other Stories About being an Assistant in Hollywood© 2007 by Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff.

    I was the fifth assistant my boss the EFA (extremely famous actress) ever had. The very first one she hired must have been some kind of saint/miracle worker because everything I ever did was held up to comparison. To make things worse, my boss was still close to the first assistant, now a successful talent manager, who called on occasion and spoke very condescendingly to me about how things should be done.

    Because of my dreams of moving up to greater heights in "the biz," I put up with it. It’s called, "paying your dues."

    Last year, I was woken up at four a.m. by a phone call letting me know my grandfather had suddenly passed away. I say suddenly because although he was seventy, he’d been in great health. He ate right, played tennis three times a week on two reconstructed knees, and was known to go dancing on Saturday nights. I was devastated. My grandfather practically raised me. He was the one who encouraged me to go to Hollywood after college to live my dreams when everyone else back home told me I’d be better off staying in Michigan and finding a husband. As soon as I got off the phone with my aunt, I sat bawling my eyes out until I could gather myself enough to call and book a plane ticket home.

    I was at LAX by six and had checked my bags when it dawned on me that I had to let my boss know what had happened. I knew I couldn’t call her at home at this hour so, as best as I could, with tears streaming down my cheeks, I left a message on the office voicemail.

    Because of the stopover in Phoenix, my plane didn’t land until close to two p.m. L.A. time. When I couldn’t find my aunt at the airport, I turned my phone on to call her. My message indicator told me I had voicemail. Thinking it was my family, I checked it. It was my boss.

    "Where the hell are you?" she was asking me. "I’m in the car on my way to a meeting in Santa Monica and I can’t remember the address."

    Suddenly, I realized she probably never went into the office. She never got my message. I was about to call her when my aunt showed up. As soon as I saw her, she threw her arms around me and we both cried like babies right there in the airport.

    Once we got in the car, my aunt began talking about everything. About how she’d just seen my grandfather yesterday and he looked fit as a fiddle. About how he just died in his sleep, peacefully. Suddenly, I remembered I was going to call my boss. I dialed her cell phone and because of spotty reception, I was cut off twice before I could get the chance to tell her what had happened.


    "Sweetie, that’s terrible," my boss said.

    "I’m in Michigan," I told her. There was silence on the other end. I thought we’d been cut off again.

    "Hello?" I asked.

    "I’m here." I could tell my boss was annoyed. "You should have told me you were going to be out of the office."

    I explained to her that I’d left a message on the office voicemail.

    "But I never check that," she said. "That’s what I have you for." After a long sigh: "I wonder what other messages are on there that I missed today?"

    I could see my aunt was giving me looks from behind the wheel. I wasn’t sure if she could hear my boss’ voice coming from the earpiece.

    "I’ll check them and let you know," I told my boss.

    I dialed the office voicemail and after my message there were three others. One was from my boss’ agent. He was trying to set up a lunch for him and her to get together. My boss didn’t take too kindly to the fact she’d missed this call. I told her I was pretty sure he meant lunch a couple of weeks from now. She made me call him back in L.A. He was out so I gave the assistant my cell phone number. When I called my boss back to say I’d left word, she asked when I’d be returning to my job. I told her I wasn’t sure. I’d just gotten here and didn’t even know when the funeral was. When I said that out loud, I burst into tears. My boss told me not to worry.

    cell phone

    When I got to my aunt’s house, the rest of my family was already there. I’d no sooner dumped my bags, when they started barraging me with questions about my boss. An older cousin of mine, who had always been a big tabloid reader, began hounding me about every single rumor she’d read to the point that I had to keep ducking her. One of my best friends from high school, who now taught special education kids in our hometown, found out I was home and came over. We sat in my aunt’s backyard, smoking cigarettes and crying our eyes out. I asked a thousand questions about her job since I didn’t feel like thinking about anything having to do with my life. Sometime around the third cigarette, she asked:

    "So, what’s she really like?"

    I thought about it for a second. "Horrible," I told her.

    "You really should move home," she said. Even though I couldn’t stand my boss, the thought of moving back here made me shiver.

    My aunt was serving up a dinner she cooked for everybody when my boss’ agent called. The reception was awful. He said to tell my boss he wanted to do lunch a week from today. I told him I was out of town, but I’d relay the message. He hung up without saying goodbye. I called my boss and thankfully got her cell phone’s voicemail. I told her about lunch. After that I decided to turn off my phone.

    The next morning, I had to go to the funeral home with my aunt to deliver a suit for my grandfather. On the way, I made the mistake of turning on my phone. I had two messages. The first one was from my boss. She was frantic about something.

    I called her at home. She was in tears. Her indoor cat had gotten out somehow and was now missing. Along with the housekeeper, she had mounted a search around her neighborhood to no avail.

    "She’s only a baby. She can’t protect herself out there."


    Being that the cat had scratched the hell out of my arms on more than one occasion, I was hoping my boss was wrong. "I wish you were here to help," my boss said. "When are you coming back?"

    I told her my grandfather’s funeral was tomorrow, and that I had a flight booked for Sunday, two days after that.

    Silence on the other end.

    "Don’t worry," my boss said. "Everything will be okay."

    When I hung up, I wasn’t sure if she was directing that comment to me or to her, though I had a feeling it was the latter.

    The day of my grandfather’s funeral, I was a wreck. During the service, I cried so hard my eyes hurt. Here was the man who encouraged every dream I’d ever had, and I never got a chance to say goodbye to him, or tell him one last time how much I loved him. I was so wrecked I don’t even remember the graveside service at all.

    Everyone went back to my aunt’s house afterwards and, because I’d asked her to tell everyone not to bombard me with questions about my famous boss, most people gave me my space. An uncle of mine began telling funny stories about my grandfather, keeping everyone in stitches. Nearly everyone there told me that he’d never die if I kept him in my heart.

    Shortly after people began leaving late that afternoon, I answered my aunt’s ringing phone to find my boss on the other end. She’d called directory assistance to track me down.

    "Your cell phone was off," she said.

    I told her my grandfather’s funeral had been that morning.

    "Well, at least that’s behind you," she said. She broke down and told me a neighbor had found what was left of her cat. The poor thing had apparently been attacked by a coyote. My boss began bawling.

    "I can’t handle death," she said. "I don’t know how you do it."


    She said there was going to be a memorial service at her house on Sunday and asked if I could be there. I told her my plane was coming into LAX late that night.

    Silence on the other end.

    "Can you change your flight?" she begged. "I’m going to have a lot of people here." Her "memorial" was going to be at one, which meant I’d either have to take the red-eye or fly out the next day. Usually, I’m quick on my feet, but I wasn’t in mental shape to talk my way out of it this time.

    "It’d cost me a lot to change my flight," I told my boss.

    "That’s okay," she said. "I’ll pay for it."

    I realized I’d screwed up. I scrambled for an excuse and told her I’d have to check with my aunt because I wasn’t sure if I was needed to go over my grandfather’s estate.

    "He couldn’t have had that much," my boss said. She was right, but I was getting annoyed and I wanted to get off the phone. I told her I’d call her back.

    I stormed into the kitchen where I found my aunt going over some of my grandfather’s personal papers. I told her I didn’t think I could go back to my job. My boss was probably one of the most awful people I’d ever met.

    man stressed staircase

    "People like that are very lost," my aunt said. "That’s why they crave so much validation." In the case of my boss, I couldn’t have summed it up better in one sentence if I’d taken a year to think about it. I told my aunt about what my boss wanted me to do. I said I wasn’t going to do it.

    "Maybe she really needs you there," my Aunt said.

    No more than five minutes had passed since I’d spoken with my boss when the phone rang again. I picked it up to find my boss’ former first assistant on the line.

    "I’m helping out while you’re gone," she explained in a passive-aggressive way that was supposed to make me feel guilty. "I booked your plane flight."

    I told her I was still talking to my aunt about whether or not I should stay until Sunday.

    "I’ll wait," the first assistant said.

    I covered the phone with my hand. My aunt, who’d heard my end of the conversation and understood what was going on, nodded to me and waved her hand as if to say, "it’s okay, go." I told the former first assistant that I’d be on the Saturday flight.

    In the morning, my aunt took me to the airport. She hugged me and told me it meant everything to her that I’d been home. I cried and promised to see her again at Thanksgiving. When I hugged her goodbye, I couldn’t let her go for several minutes.

    7 eleven

    I slept nearly the entire flight back to L.A., got my car from long-term parking and made it to my apartment feeling exhausted. I dropped my suitcase on my bed and noticed I had several messages on my answering machine. Two were from my boss, looking for me on the day I left. One, which made me cry, was from a close friend who’d heard the news and was sending her condolences. One was from my aunt telling me again that she loved me and missed me already. The last message was from my boss’ former first assistant.

    "(EFA’s name deleted) wants you to get to her house by noon to help set up. And also could you pick up six bags of ice, paper towels and cups?"

    Visit INSIDER's homepage for more.

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

    0 0

    elon musk

    • Elon Musk will no longer serve as chairman of Tesla's board of directors as part of the CEO's settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
    • Four of the board's nine members could still have conflicts, though, according to proxy-firm Glass Lewis.
    • In an interview, Glass Lewis' head of environmental, social, and governance research explained the problems facing Tesla's board. 

    After a dramatic weekend, Elon Musk agreed to step down as chairman of Tesla's board and pay a $20 million fine to settle a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding his failed bid to take the electric-car maker private in August.

    But even with Musk out, there are still some major issues facing Tesla's board of directors, according to Glass Lewis, one of the largest and most influential proxy advisor firms. The firm had previously raised its concerns ahead of Tesla's annual shareholder meeting in May— but many of its recommendations were not passed.

    In an interview with Business Insider, Glass Lewis' head of environmental, social, and governance research explained why the SEC settlement pushes Tesla's board into uncharted waters, and that many of these problems would have been more easily fixed if it had gone about them on its own time.

    "It gets challenging when it gets to this point," Courteney Keatinge, head of ESG at Glass Lewis, told Business Insider on Monday.

    "Once a company has had so many scandals and there are leadership issues, it can get challenging to change that dynamic. This would have gone over easier if it were something the board had determined on its own with the support of Elon Musk. Ultimately, this is getting at what we think is best for the company and for shareholders."

    Still, many of the board seats are held by directors that Glass Lewis says aren't adequately independent. Tesla discloses two directors — Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal — as non-independent, meaning they have connections that could deem them insiders. Two others, however, deserve this distinction and contribute to Glass Lewis' concerns: Antonio Gracias and Brad Buss.

    "What's particularly concerning regarding director Gracias, is that he is on the audit committee which is a committee we really want unquestionably independent directors to be sitting on," Keatinge said. Gracias is the CEO of Valor Management, a private-equity firm that has received past commitments from a revocable trust owned by Elon Musk. Additionally, VMC has been paid consulting fees by Tesla in the past, Glass Lewis said.

    Brad Buss found himself on Tesla's board thanks to the SolarCity merger back in 2016. Tesla considers him independent, but Glass Lewis says this connection makes him unfit for the board's audit committee.

    To be fair, the duo's connections on paper don't necessarily mean Gracias and Buss can't vote independently in the board room. "What's important to remember is that boards are a big group of people," Keatinge explained.

    "And there are differently personalities and traits that people have. However, we're not in the board room, so it's hard for us to understand how the board is working if there is an actual check on Elon Musk and his behavior."

    Even if Musk's removal as chairman is a wake-up call for shareholders, replacing nearly half of the directors won't be something investors can do in a single vote thanks to the staggered terms used by Tesla.

    "Not every director is up for election every year, which serves to entrench the board," Keatinge said. "So shareholders were not able to vote on whether or not they should continue to remain on the board and will serve a three-year term."

    Going forward it all comes down to who the board chooses to replace Musk as chairman.

    "Things can change drastically even in a year," said Keatinge.

    "It will depend on what Elon Musk's relationship and what the board member's relationship with the independent chair looks like and that's really going to determine how effective this individual can be. It is an entrenched board and there are a lot of personal ties to Musk, so its hard to tell if they will that director the deference it will require."


    SEE ALSO: Elon Musk's brother should be booted from Tesla's board as the company's looking 'more tenuous than ever'

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

    0 0

    cheapest michelin meals

    No matter where in the world you live, it's easy to assume that Michelin-starred dining should be reserved for splurge-worthy special occasions only — and that even then, it may drain your savings.

    However, this is no longer the case, and there are actually some affordable options if you know where and when to go.

    Booking platform Traveloka conducted research into the 50 cheapest Michelin-starred meals in the world— and it found that there are reasonable options all over the planet, starting from just $2.20.

    In order to produce the list, the site used the official Michelin website for each country covered by the guide in order to find the cheapest one and two-star restaurants. It then ranked them by the price of an individual meal, whether it was an the cheapest main à la carte dish available or a set menu.

    According to Traveloka, a meal at the world's most expensive restaurant — Ibiza's Sublimation — would cost the same as a meal in all 50 of the restaurants on this list combined.

    Scroll down to see the 50 most affordable Michelin-starred restaurants on the planet, ranked by price of the cheapest à la carte dish or set menu, from most expensive to cheapest.

    Note: All meal options and local prices are accurate as of June 2018, while all exchange rates are accurate as of August 2018.

    SEE ALSO: The 50 best restaurants in the world in 2018

    50. Dill, Reykjavík, Iceland — $109.50

    The most expensive meal on the list comes from Iceland's Dill — and it's a set menu for 11,900 Icelandic króna ($109.50).

    49. Galt, Oslo, Norway — $103.90

    This set menu is rather high-end, but in the city of Oslo, 865 Norwegian krone ($103.90) is as good as it's going to get for Michelin-starred dining.

    48. Mathias Dahlgren-Matbaren, Stockholm, Sweden — $87.50

    Instagram Embed:
    Width: 540px

    A modern Nordic à la carte dish from this Stockholm restaurant will cost you 795 Swedish krona, or $87.50.

    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Michael Avenatti

    • Attorney Michael Avenatti on Monday said the FBI investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a "farce and is being run by" President Donald Trump. 
    • Avenatti is representing Kavanaugh's third accuser, Julie Swetnick, and said the Trump administration is "afraid" of what his client might say to the FBI. 
    • Trump has been accused of limiting an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh and excluding Swetnick from the process. 
    • The president on Monday said he has no problem with the FBI interviewing all three accusers.

    Attorney Michael Avenatti on Monday said the FBI investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is a "farce and is being run by" President Donald Trump. 

    Trump and Senate Republicans on Friday announced they'd agreed to a limited, weeklong investigation in allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. 

    But reports last weekend suggested the Trump administration is limiting the investigation and excluding Kavanaugh's third accuser, Julie Swetnick, who is being represented by Avenatti. Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, engaged in "abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls" at parties in high school and were present at a party where she was "gang raped." 

    Avenatti on Monday told Business Insider the Trump administration is "afraid" of what his client might say if she's interviewed by the FBI. 

    "The investigation is a farce and is being run by Donald Trump," Avenatti said. "They obviously are afraid of what my client might say, which is why they are avoiding her. There are many witnesses that can support her allegations and we are prepared to provide those names to the FBI as we have been saying for a week."

    'The FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer'

    Trump on Monday said it "wouldn't bother" him at all if the FBI questioned all three women who've accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, but he also described Swetnick as having "very little credibility."

    "The FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer," Trump said. "I want it to be comprehensive."

    Trump also said he's being "guided" by senators on who should be looked at by investigators. 

    Avenatti dismissed Trump's comments and claimed both Senate Republicans and the president are preventing the investigation from being truly comprehensive. 

    "Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth - it’s part of the con he is running," Avenatti said. 

    Avenatti, who has repeatedly butted heads with Trump over his representation of adult-film star Stormy Daniels, also said that people have been paying too much attention to one aspect of Swetnick's sworn declaration on the allegations and aren't getting the full picture. 

    "People need to read the entirety of her declaration and not just focus on paragraph 13," Avenatti said. 

    Avenatti was referencing the section of the sworn declaration that details the night Swetnick claims she was raped. The declaration does not explicitly allege Kavanaugh or Judge were involved in the alleged assault.

    SEE ALSO: Michael Avenatti reveals client who is 3rd woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    watching netflix laptopAround the world, people have fallen in love with Netflix. But Netflix can be different for people around the world who use the service.

    Compartech rounded up data on everything you've ever wondered about Netflix around the world. The report includes everything from how many titles each country offers to what percent of that country's yearly income is spent on Netflix.

    Then there's the most important factor: cost. Whether you're thinking about moving overseas or want to see where your country stacks up, it's interesting to see how much others pay for the same service. This is how much Netflix costs in countries across the world.

    1. Denmark is currently one of the two most expensive countries to buy a Netflix subscription.

    A subscription is about $12.37 USD per month.

    Some of the titles currently available are "The Bridge,""The Danish Girl," and "Copenhagen."

    2. Tied with Denmark is Greenland, charging residents quite a lot for their Netflix.

    A subscription is about $12.37 USD per month.

    3. Japan has a bigger library than America, with around 5,986 titles.

    A subscription is about $5.86 USD per month. The site ranked Japan as the most cost-effective country to watch Netflix in.

    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    elon musk tesla spacex boring

    • Tesla's board has repeatedly made clear that it sees its duty as ensuring that Elon Musk remain in a leadership role at the company — not representing shareholders' interests.
    • But Musk's role at Tesla is now in jeopardy, thanks to charges filed against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with his series of tweets about potentially taking Tesla private.
    • The SEC is seeking to bar him from serving as a director or officer at a public company.
    • Tesla's directors seem to have done little to protect Musk — much less shareholders — in the wake of the tweets or in Musk's negotiations with the SEC.

    Tesla's board is spectacularly bad at its job — even measured by its own very low bar.

    As the charges of securities-law violations filed late last week against the electric-car company and CEO Elon Musk indicate, Tesla's directors failed at the job that's supposed to be the top priority of any board — overseeing top executives. But they also failed at doing what they've defined as their highest duty — ensuring that Musk remains the unquestioned leader at Tesla as its CEO and chairman. As part of the settlement the company and Musk agreed to with the SEC, Musk will step down as chairman of the board.

    In fact, Tesla's board is so horrible at its job, that the SEC effectively ordered it to undergo a shakeup as part of the settlements. Not only does the company need to replace Musk as chairman, but it also needs to add two new, independent directors to the board. What's more, the SEC found it necessary in its settlement with the company to order directors to do what they should have been doing all along — keeping a close watch over Tesla's CEO.

    Tesla allegedly had no Twitter policy for Musk

    The SEC complaints were related to Musk's infamous "funding secured"tweets from last month. The agency charged that Musk knew— or had reason to know — that the statements he posted on Twitter about potentially taking the company private were false and misleading.

    But in the complaint it filed against Tesla itself, the SEC made clear that the board itself was also at fault. In a public regulatory filing in 2013, the company alerted the agency and investors that it planned to use Musk's Twitter account to communicate with investors. That meant that anything that Musk or the company posted on that account pertaining to information about the company — and there was a lot of it — would have to meet the same disclosure requirements as official company statements such as press releases or documents filed with the SEC.

    Despite that, no one on the board or at the company reviewed Musk's tweets before he posted them, according to the SEC's complaint. Worse, the company had no procedures or rules in place to ensure that Musk's Twitter statements met SEC disclosure requirements.

    "Until after the August 7, 2018 tweets, Tesla had no corporate policies that specifically addressed Musk's use of Twitter," the SEC charged.

    As part of the settlements, Tesla and Musk declined to admit to or deny the agency's allegations. That's par for the course; when the SEC settles charges with defendants, the latter rarely acknowledge guilt. But you can take the company agreement as part of the settlement to pay a $20 million fee and to shake up its board as a tacit admission that the board wasn't doing its job.

    Tesla's board was doing its best impression of Nero

    It's been clear for a long time now that instead of overseeing Musk, Tesla's directors saw it as their job to defer to and empower him. But the SEC complaint against Musk added additional details about the board's negligence in the form of the detailed timeline of the events leading up to and following his statements that a move to take the electric-car company private was all but a done deal.

    The actors that are conspicuously absent from much of that sequence of events: Tesla's directors. They're also notably absent in CNBC's story about the events immediately leading up to the SEC's decision to file charges, during which time Musk reportedly rejected the agency's initial settlement offer — a move that for a short time put in doubt whether he'd be able to remain at the company at all.

    After Musk rejected that offer, the agency filed suit against him and sought to permanently bar him from serving as an officer or director of any public company. Musk ended up settling with the SEC the next day.

    In other words, Tesla was facing what its own directors apparently considered an existential threat — Musk's departure — yet they seemed to do almost nothing to prevent it. Instead, they seemed to be fiddling while Rome was burning.

    Neither Tesla nor Musk have commented publicly on the settlements. But in response to the charges that were filed Friday against Musk himself, the board put out a statement that almost read like a non-sequitur. It didn't directly address the SEC's complaint or its possible consequences. Instead, it seemed to indicate that the company and it would continue on with business as usual.

    "Tesla and the board of directors are fully confident in Elon, his integrity, and his leadership of the company, which has resulted in the most successful US auto company in over a century," the board said. "Our focus remains on the continued ramp of Model 3 production and delivering for our customers, shareholders and employees."

    Musk's tweets about Tesla going private got him in trouble

    Musk is in trouble for a series of tweets sent August 7 in which he stated that he was considering taking Tesla private at a $420 a share price, that the funding for such a deal was already "secured," that investors were on board, and that the only barrier left to the move was a shareholder vote. He also said that the company was hoping to structure the deal so that all current investors could remain shareholders in the company even after it went private if they so chose.

    According to the SEC complaint, Musk had reason to know when he made the statements that pretty much all of them were false or misleading. Although he'd spoken with Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund about a deal to take Tesla private prior to the tweets, they hadn't discussed a price and had no formal, signed agreement in place, according to the SEC. The company hadn't even begun to work through how it might structure the deal so everyday shareholders could remain investors, the SEC said.

    By the time of the tweets, the board hadn't even received a formal proposal for such a transaction, much less voted to approve it, according to the complaint. And Musk hadn't spoken to any institutional investors about such a deal, the SEC said.

    Tesla's board is largely absent from the SEC's timeline

    The SEC's complaints against Musk and Tesla are largely focused on the actions of Musk himself, but they do give some insights into what happened inside the company after his tweets. Some 35 minutes after Musk sent his initial "funding secured," Deepak Ahuja, Tesla's chief financial officer, sent him a text message asking whether Ahuja and other Tesla executives should craft a message for Musk to send to employees and investors that explained the rationale for the move. Musk sent out that email later in the day.

    kimbal musk elon musk brotherMeanwhile, just minutes after that first tweet, Tesla's head of investor relations sent his own text to Musk asking him to verify the tweet. The IR head, along with Musk's chief of staff and Musk himself, then fielded multiple inquiries from reporters, investors, and analysts asking for clarification about the tweets.

    There's no indication from the complaints that Tesla's directors said anything to Musk about them or reacted to them in any particular way.

    And that's odd, because if the SEC complaints are correct, they — as much as Musk — had reason to suspect that at least some of the tweets were false. They knew, for example, that more needed to be done to complete a going private transaction than just getting a shareholder vote, according to the SEC. At least one of them, according to the complaint, seemed to know that structuring such a deal so that everyday shareholders could remain investors was dubious — and that the board hadn't even considered a formal proposal for how to do that.

    One would also think that the board would have immediately tried to get an explanation from Musk about his tweets, since the idea that a deal was mostly done would have come as news to them, as the complaint makes clear.

    Yet despite that, there's no indication in the complaints that the board confronted Musk about the tweets or encouraged him to correct the record in short order. Tesla representatives did not respond to an email seeking information about discussions the board may have had with Musk about his tweets or his negotiations with the SEC.

    Regardless, the board certainly didn't clear up Musk's alleged false statements itself. Instead, it allowed those statement to remain in place for nearly a week.

    The board had reason to know Musk was in serious trouble

    It wasn't until August 13 that Musk himself started walking back his tweets, acknowledging that there was no formal proposal to take the company private and nothing had been presented to the board. On August 24, he publicly abandoned the effort in a blog post, acknowledging for the first time that there were potential obstacles to allowing current shareholders to remain investors after the company went private.

    The SEC reportedly opened an investigation into Musk's tweets by the day after he posted them and subpoenaed the company's directors on the matter within weeks. So, directors had every reason to know that Musk and Tesla faced serious legal trouble soon after he made the statements. The SEC complaints can and do lead to the ouster of executives and even to criminal charges by the Department of Justice.

    One would expect that Tesla's directors would have been doing everything they could to placate the SEC and to push Musk to settle the case on terms as favorable as he could get, as soon as possible, especially if those terms allowed him to keep his chairman and CEO titles.

    That's because directors have made it clear that keeping Musk at the company has been paramount for them. Earlier this year, in explaining why it needed to hand out a stock award to him that could pay him as much as $55.8 billion, directors explained that he was a crucial component to the company.

    "The board believes that having the active and engaged services of Mr. Musk is important to the continued growth and long-term interests of Tesla," the directors said. "While the board recognizes that Tesla has many valuable employees who have been a critical part of Tesla’s success, the board believes that many of Tesla’s past successes were driven significantly by Mr. Musk’s leadership."

    When Musk rejected the SEC's initial settlement offer, there was a real chance that he would be forced out of any kind of leadership role at the company.  Despite that threat, there's no indication in the reports about Musk's negotiations with the SEC that the board played any active role in advising its CEO during that period.

    By the board's own terms, the settlement is a big loss for Tesla

    Musk ultimately agreed to step down as chairman, pay a $20 million fine, and have his communications with investors overseen by the company. Additionally, Tesla agreed to add the new board members and pay its own $20 million fine.

    Although those penalties are somewhat harsher than what the SEC initially offered, they still look a lot like a slap on the wrist compared to what the agency could have gotten if it took the case to trial. After all, Musk remains at the company.

    But by the board's own words, his removal as chairman is a significant blow to Tesla. This spring, shareholders proposed that the company bar Musk or anyone else from holding both the CEO and chairman titles. In arguing against the proposal — which investors ended up voting down — Tesla's board emphasized how important it was to the company that Musk retain both roles.

    "The board believes that the company’s success to date would not have been possible if the board was led by another director lacking Elon Musk’s day-to-day exposure to the company’s business," it said. The board continued:

    "The board believes that it is precisely during times when a company must quickly adapt to constant change and outside pressures that board leadership needs to be lockstep with the company’s operations. Our achievements to date notwithstanding, the company is still at a point in its development where we must execute well in order to realize our long-term goals, and separating the roles of chief executive officer and chairman at this time would not serve the best interests of the company or its stockholders."

    Now, thanks to the board's lack of oversight of Musk, Tesla will have to face its uncertain future without him holding both roles. In other words, while the company's directors helped fend off an investor proposal to disempower Musk, their ineptitude led to him losing his crucial chairman role anyway.

    So, great job, Tesla directors. Not only are you bad at looking out for the interests of shareholders, you're weren't even good at protecting your all-important CEO. And now the company, investors, and Musk have all paid the price — and may have to keep paying it.

    SEE ALSO: Tesla's board is terrible at its job — it's shown it has no interest in controlling Elon Musk or sticking up for investors

    SEE ALSO: Elon Musk says he was thinking like a Vegas casino owner when he tweeted 'funding secured'

    SEE ALSO: Elon Musk's new Tesla pay package could make him $55.8 billion — and it's a case study in what's wrong with executive compensation

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: British Airways has a $13 million flight simulator that taught us how to take off, fly, and land an airplane

    0 0

    Mega Man 11 Shot

    • "Mega Man 11" revives an iconic character, mixing classic gameplay with modern graphics and presentation.
    • Precise controls and unique special weapons make Mega Man a joy to play, despite unforgiving pitfalls and tough enemy bosses
    • With four difficulty settings, the game is welcoming for newcomers but still holds a challenge for veterans of the series.
    • The updated presentation and voice acting bring a refreshing dose of personality to a tried and true formula.

    "Mega Man 11" is the game fans of the series have been waiting for. It treats the Blue Bomber with the sort of love and respect that a 30-year-old franchise deserves.

    Once easily recognized alongside iconic characters like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man has struggled to make the jump to the current generation of consoles. Until now.

    Sniper Joe, an age-old Mega Man enemy, guards the path with his shield and blaster.

    Developer Capcom's formula for Mega Man has always been roughly the same: The heroic robot must jump and shoot his way through eight stages and eight enemy bosses in order to find and defeat the evil Dr. Wily.

    Each stage is carefully crafted based on the boss's theme and can be completed in any order. Completing a stage and defeating the boss will grant Mega Man a special ability to help him beat the rest of the stages.

    Each of the eight robot masters guards their own unique stage.

    In "Mega Man 11," Capcom has successfully distilled the core of the series and placed it in modern packaging. That includes full voice acting, high-definition graphics, lighting effects, multiple difficulty levels, and online leaderboards for high scores.

    Though most of these featureswould be considered standard for a single-player platforming game in 2018, Mega Man has long been trapped in an odd nostalgia loop that has stunted the series' growth.

    In "Mega Man 11," the bosses start out as Mega Man's pals before being turned against him.

    The Mega Man series has always been influential, but the gameplay began to stagnate as newer technology allowed for more possibilities beyond Mega Man's 2D world. Capcom's Mega Man spin-offs continued to layer more complex mechanics on top of the original formula, but as things got more complicated, the series began to lose its charm and simple identity. 

    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Airstream Basecamp

    • Iconic trailer manufacture Airstream has captured millennial buyers with two new products.
    • Airstream CEO Bob Wheeler is glad that younger customers have responded so well, but he also said that 86-year-old Airstream's values have always aligned with millennials.
    • Airstream is all about design and adventures, not owning a lot of stuff.

    Airstream is an 86-year-old American icon, famous for its "silver bullet" trailers — roadgoing symbols of freedom and great industrial design.

    But its two newest products are intended to appeal to millennials, a generational push that according to CEO Bob Wheeler shouldn't surprise anyone.

    "A couple of things have aligned well for us," Wheeler said in an interview with Business Insider, adding that to a certain extent Airstream's appeal to the largest generation since the Baby Boomers was a happy coincidence.

    "The cultural values that are part of millennial DNA are around the idea that your self-worth isn't determined by the things you own but by the adventures you have. We're lucky to be a brand that's at the center of that. Airstream inspires fellowship."

    Airstream's most expensive Travel Trailer starts at $150,000, but its two newest trailers are priced under $50,000.

    The Basecamp, at just over $36,000, arrived in late 2016. At launch, Airstream called the trailer, which sleeps two, "our most nimble Airstream yet." The compact design departs from the familiar silver-bullet shape, but it's relatively lightweight and doesn't require a big SUV or pickup to tow.

    "Stylistically, it's much more modern than the traditional silver bullet," said Wheeler, who became CEO in 2005. "It's designed to be more camping oriented. It's really struck a chord with people who want to hit the road and don’t want to tow a big trailer around."

    Airstream Nestr

    The "Nest by Airstream" trailer is a different story. Airstream acquired NEST Caravan, based in Bend, OR, in 2016, when the small company's fiberglass trailer was still at the prototype stage. Launched in April, Nest costs $49,500, and it weighs just 3,400 pounds.

    "We stumbled across it, fell in love with it, and decided it was a product we could bring to market," Wheeler said. "It had a very different look and feel than anything Airstream had ever made before, but it touched our values of innovation."

    Nest generated immediate interest for the Ohio-based company — but it was unlike anything the firm had previously experienced. 

    "We had 90,000 sales leads, but 90% went directly to website — and they went to Nest, not to look at our traditional products," Wheeler said. "These buyers are millennials or a little older."

    Airstream CEO Bob Wheeler

    Basecamp customers also tended to be younger, but Nest customers differed from Basecamp buyers in an important respect.

    "They're more urban and more design-focused," Wheeler noted. "They're less drawn to rugged outdoors activities, and they're towing with a Mercedes or BMW SUV."

    The Basecamp has clearly been a success for Airstream, which is a division of Thor Industries. Wheeler said that the company is investigating larger designs and focusing on adding a permanent rather than convertible bed.

    With Nest, Wheeler said it's too soon to talk about expanding. "We need to learn a lot more about who's buying," Wheeler said. "Fiberglass is a challenge, and we don’t undertake that lightly."

    Tapping into millennial aspirations has been a good thing for Airstream, and it hasn't hurt that the generation, born between roughly 1981 and 1997, is 75-million strong.

    "It makes us extremely bullish about our future," Wheeler said. But he quickly added that millennial values are consistent with the values Airstream has promoted for over 80 years. 

    "We're very lucky, but this is a validation of our thinking." 



    FOLLOW US: On Facebook for more car and transportation content!

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Watch SpaceX launch a Tesla Roadster to Mars on the Falcon Heavy rocket — and why it matters

    0 0

    kanye west

    • Kanye West's next album, "Yandhi," was scheduled to drop on Saturday night, but it didn't.
    • On Monday, his wife, Kim Kardashian West, announced on Twitter that the album will instead debut on November 23, which is Black Friday.
    • West has garnered controversy this year for his pro-Trump stance, which made headlines again over the weekend when he went on "SNL" wearing a MAGA hat and began a rant where he praised Trump in the final moments of the broadcast before his mic was cut off.


    Kanye West failed to deliver on his promise to release his next album, "Yandhi," on Saturday, leaving fans confused and angry. But for those still sticking with West who are willing to wait a little longer, "Yandhi" officially has a new release date.

    West's wife, Kim Kardashian West, tweeted on Monday that the album is now scheduled to drop on November 23 — Black Friday — and said it will be "worth the wait."

    West tweeted last Thursday that "Yandhi" would be released on Saturday, when West was the musical guest on "Saturday Night Live." Instead, West ranted about Donald Trump during an off-air speech that was met with mostly negative reactions from the studio audience.

    "If I was concerned about racism I would've moved out of America a long time ago," West said.

    West has courted controversy this year for his pro-Trump stance. On Sunday, West tweeted a photo of himself wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. The caption said, "this represents good and America becoming whole again.  We will no longer outsource to other countries. We build factories here in America and create jobs.  We will provide jobs for all who are free from prisons as we abolish the 13th amendment. Message sent with love."

    He later clarified his comments on the 13th Amendment, saying in a later tweet, "the 13th Amendment is slavery in disguise meaning it never ended We are the solution that heals." He then tweeted that he wants the 13th Amendment to be amended, not abolished.

    Earlier that day, Trump tweeted, "Like many, I don’t watch Saturday Night Live (even though I past hosted it) - no longer funny, no talent or charm. It is just a political ad for the Dems. Word is that Kanye West, who put on a MAGA hat after the show (despite being told “no”), was great. He’s leading the charge!"

    West retweeted it on Monday.

    "Yandhi" will be West's second-solo album of the year following "Ye," which dropped in June. 

    SEE ALSO: The release date for the next 'X-Men' movie, 'Dark Phoenix,' has been changed for the second time

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: How actors fake fight in movies

    0 0

    Trader Joes

    • Trader Joe's employees all dress in a Hawaiian theme for work.
    • In a podcast where Trader Joe's employees reveal company secrets, Trader Joe's founder Joe Coulombe explains the story behind the Hawaiian shirts with help from Marketing Director Tara Miller and Vice President of Marketing Product Matt Sloan.
    • One employee said in the podcast that he owns close to 40 Hawaiian shirts.

    Trader Joe's employees are known for always dressing in a Hawaiian theme.

    But it isn't without reason. When Joe Coulombe founded Trader Joe's  stores in 1967, he carefully picked its nautical theme. 

    "I'd been reading a book called 'White Shadows in the South Seas,' and I'd been to the Disneyland jungle trip, and it all coalesced," Coulombe explained in the Trader Joe's podcast where execs reveal company secrets.

    "White Shadows in the South Seas," the book by Frederick O'Brien that Coulombe was inspired by, takes place on an island in the South Pacific.

    And to this day, Trader Joe's employees — whom the company calls "crew members"— all wear Hawaiian shirts because of that. 

    "We wear Hawaiian shirts because we're traders on the culinary seas, searching the world over for cool items to bring home to our customers," Trader Joe's writes on its website

    "And when we return home, we think grocery shopping should be fun, not another chore. So just relax and leave your worries at the door. We'll sail those seven seas, you have some fun with our finds at your neighborhood Trader Joe's."

    Trader Joe's CEO Dan Bane said he owns more Hawaiian shirts than he can count, but donates a lot of them to charity each year. Other Trader Joe's employees have said they have entire closets filled with Hawaiian shirts, with one employee saying in the podcast that he owns close to 40

    The Trader Joe's podcast is hosted by Vice President of Marketing Product Matt Sloan and Trader Joe's Marketing Director Tara Miller. It covers topics like the retailer's products and values, the history of the chain, why it calls its employees "crew members," and its famously cheap wines.

    SEE ALSO: Trader Joe's CEO reveals the unusual reason it sells bananas individually for 19 cents

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

    0 0

    Donald Trump

    • A new bombshell report from The New York Times on President Donald Trump's finances questions his claim that he's a self-made billionaire.
    • The report found that Trump's father lent him about $60 million, far more than the "small loan" of $1 million he claimed during his presidential campaign that he had received.
    • The report also found that if Trump had done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the S&P 500, he'd still be worth about $2 billion today.
    • Overall, Trump received about $413 million in today's dollars from his father's real-estate empire, largely because he helped his parents evade taxes, according to The Times' report.
    • Forbes estimates that Trump's net worth is about $3.1 billion.

    A new bombshell report from The New York Times on President Donald Trump's finances questions one of his fundamental claims: that he's a self-made billionaire.

    According to the report, published Tuesday, Trump received far more money from his real-estate-mogul father than he has previously acknowledged and was a millionaire by the time he was 8 years old.

    Trump once claimed that his father gave him a "small loan" of about $1 million to help him get started in the real-estate business, but The Times' analysis found that "Fred Trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today's dollars." Much of this loan was never repaid, the report said.

    The Times said that if Donald Trump had done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the S&P 500, then he'd still be worth about $2 billion today.

    Forbes estimates that Trump's net worth is about $3.1 billion.

    The Times said its report was based on hundreds of thousands of documents on Fred Trump's business empire, including mortgages and deeds, probate records, financial-disclosure reports, regulatory records, and civil-court files.

    The Times said it also interviewed Fred Trump's former employees and advisers and analyzed tens of thousands of confidential records, including bank statements, financial audits, accounting ledgers, cash-disbursement reports, invoices, and canceled checks.

    "Most notably, the documents include more than 200 tax returns from Fred Trump, his companies and various Trump partnerships and trusts," the report said.

    The report found that the president over the course of his life received $413 million in today's dollars from his father's real-estate empire, much of which The Times said was acquired because Trump helped his parents dodge taxes.

    In October 2015, during his presidential campaign, Trump said: "My whole life really has been a 'no,' and I fought through it. It has not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me."

    Trump added: "I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of $1 million. I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan, I started buying up properties, and I did great. I did a good job. But I was always told that would never work."

    SEE ALSO: DONALD TRUMP: 'My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars'

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

    0 0

    Afghan mujahideen Stinger missile Afghanistan

    • By the mid-1980s, the Soviet war in Afghanistan had reached something of a stalemate.
    • To turn the tide, the US introduced Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to erode Soviet control of the air.
    • In the years since, the Stingers and US policy in Afghanistan have become a headache, but CIA personnel involved in the Stinger program still see it as a success.

    By the mid-1980s, several years after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, many US officials felt neither the Soviets nor the US-backed Afghan rebels had gained an edge.

    "In '85 there was a prevailing sentiment — if you would look at the press and if you were in officialdom; if you walked around Washington and talked to people in the defense, intelligence, and executive branch in general — the view was that we were at a stalemate with them," Jack Devine, who took over the CIA's Afghan Task Force around that time, told Business Insider.

    "There was a sentiment growing, 'How long are we just going to bleed the Russians?'" said Devine, whose 32-year CIA career included stints as acting director and associate director of operations. More critical observers interpreted the US dictate as "bleed the Russians to the last Afghan."

    Russia Soviet Union USSR tanks Afghanistan

    President Ronald Reagan decided to make "one more big push" with the Afghan program, Devine said, "which I was surprised that the Russians, to the best of my knowledge, never picked up on."

    There was a program to support Afghan rebels dating to the early days of the invasion, but it had been "pretty small and meager," Devine said. "They had weapons left over from World War II or something that they started with."

    With the decision from the White House, the task force grew and its budget swelled. But the program encountered a problem on the ground, where weapons and aid were supposed to cross the "zero line" from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

    "Despite the fact that we had now ample money and ample production, we weren't able to move things across the border because the Hind helicopters for the Russians just basically nailed down and suppressed movement across the border," Devine told Business Insider.

    'A fighting war with the main enemy'

    Russia Soviet Union Hind helicopter Afghanistan

    To address that problem, some officials wanted to use the Stinger missile, which was still in development.

    "With this we'll be able to alleviate the pressure on the border," the thinking went, Devine said. "I don't think anyone there, certainly myself included, thought that this would drive the Russians, in and of itself, out."

    The Stinger's deployment wasn't without controversy, however. There was resistance in the Reagan administration and within the CIA, Devine said. Nor was Pakistan's president at the time, Mohammed Zia-ual-Haq, on board.

    "It was the concern that if we deployed it that the Russians would [see it as] a real slap in the face and that they might respond, and it could produce a much larger direct confrontation," Devine told Business Insider. "I didn't share that view, but it's not without merit."

    US lawmakers were also uneasy with using the Stinger in Afghanistan, worried in part about sensitive technology falling into the hands of the Soviets.

    Milton Bearden, the CIA's officer in Pakistan overseeing Afghan operations at the time, was asked to tell senators that the Soviet Union had years earlier gotten its hands on the Stinger through a source within NATO.

    Afghanistan mujahideen

    An interagency meeting at the White House led to agreement to introduce the Stinger. A presidential memo followed, after which Devine was sent to procure the missiles from the military through a logistics officer.

    "It was my job to go and tell them, 'Listen I want the Stingers coming off of the line.' I gave him a number, which to the best of my knowledge is still not public ... and he said, 'You can't have them. Our troops don't have them yet,'" Devine said.

    "If I were in his shoes, I probably would've said the same thing," he added.

    But Devine persisted. "I said, 'We actually have a fighting war with the main enemy, and the president would really like to see this happen,' and he basically ... said, 'Good luck, wish the best, godspeed, but you can't have them.'"

    "So I notified the White House, and [they] said, 'Well, call him back tomorrow,' and I called him back, and he wasn't a happy camper, but he parted with the missiles."

    Three hundred were reportedly delivered in 1986, followed by 700 the next year — between 2,000 and 2,500 of the missiles were given away by the CIA during the war, according to journalist Steve Coll.

    US military officers provided training for the new missile. Pakistani officers trained in the US then returned to their country in the latter half of 1986, where they trained Afghan rebels.

    Ronald Reagan Afghan Afghanistan mujahideen White House Oval Office

    In September 1986, behind a white sheet hung up in a classroom in Rawalpindi, "a Pakistani noncommissioned officer slowly moved a penlight whose light source the students would track and eventually 'kill' with their Stinger training units. Primitive, but it did the job for about a hundred bucks," Bearden wrote in his 2004 book, "The Main Enemy."

    Other surface-to-air missiles the Afghan rebels used against the Soviets had to be guided to their targets, leaving the gunners exposed. But the Stinger was a heat-seeker — a "'fire and forget' missile that allowed a gunner to live and tell of his encounter with Soviet gunships," Bearden wrote.

    Even before it was in combat, Bearden added, "a belief began to spread through the highly superstitious ranks of the resistance that it possessed certain magical powers."

    'That was a very good day'

    By late September, members of the Afghan mujahideen who were approved for the Stinger — only "the best fighters," Devine said — deployed on its first mission.

    On September 26, 1986, after a week of traveling, several dozen Afghan rebels with the missiles hunkered down near an air field used by Soviet forces outside of Jalalabad, in northeast Afghanistan.

    Soviet Union Red Army air force Kabul Afghanistan

    That afternoon, as a Soviet air patrol returned to base, they hoisted their Stingers to their shoulders, switching on the guidance systems and locking on to the heat signatures of the helicopters overhead.

    The first missile, fired by Ghaffar, the group's commander, shot out of the launch tube, "traveled the prescribed six meters on its launch charge, and then [the rocket motor] failed to ignite," Bearden wrote. "The missile fell to the ground, clattering among the rocks until its momentum was spent."

    But the two other gunners each brought down a Soviet helicopter. Ghaffar reloaded and fired again, bringing down another.

    "It's not known generally the first missile fired bounced along the ground," Devine told Business Insider. "I'm told that some of the people who had real-time knowledge of it sort of cursed me, saying I sent them a piece of crap. But the next three shots hit their targets."

    The Afghans broke radio silence for the first time in a week to report the kills, "sending the electrifying news of the first major victory against the Soviet helicopter fleet," Bearden wrote.

    Afghanistan Soviet Union helicopter

    News of the shoot-down "came back like a rocket," Devine said. In a bit of luck, a satellite passed over just in time to get clear imagery of the scene.

    "I almost had it in real-time, the pictures. There was also footage taken of the incident that came back to Washington," Devine said. "We had the actual visuals on it right away."

    According to Bearden, a rebel swung his video camera around in celebration as the helicopters came down, mixing "wild shots of ground, dusty sandals, and sky" together in the footage.

    "It was a big event for the mujahideen. It was a big event for us, the Pakistanis, everybody involved," Devine said. "It was a stand-up-and-shout event."

    "That was a very good day," Ghaffar told Stars and Stripes in 2008. "We were very, very happy. The helicopters were a big problem for us."

    'The Russians changed their strategy'

    Soviet Union armored vehicle Kabul Afghanistan

    The Soviet response was immediate.

    "I watched with deep interest as Soviet air operations stood down in eastern Afghanistan over the next week," Bearden writes. "When operations resumed, patrolling aircraft were flying much higher than before the ambush."

    The Soviet military adopted tactics to counter the new threat, including a new rule of thumb that 20,000 feet was now the safety altitude — about twice the ceiling of the Stinger, according to Bearden.

    Soviet officials calculated that within the first year of its use, the Stinger had a success rate of 20%, up from about 3% when the rebels were using the SA-7 system, which was a Soviet copy of a much older US weapon. Nearly 270 aircraft were downed in total, according to one report.

    "It isn't that they shot so many helicopters and planes down, although they did," Devine said of the new missiles. "The Russians changed their strategy, and they flew above the range of the Stinger missile."

    "At that point, that huge build-up of weapons ... just poured across the border" into Afghanistan, he added.

    USSR Soviet Union armored vehicle Afghanistan Kabul withdrawal

    Within two years of that first successful Stinger strike, Russian forces began to pull out of Afghanistan, completing their withdrawal in February 1989, almost 10 years after invading.

    While touted as a game-changer, the Stinger's effect on the battlefield and on Soviet leaders has been debated.

    Alan J. Kuperman, a political scientist and arms expert, has argued that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made the decision to withdraw prior to the Stinger's first use and that Soviet countermeasures — such as flares and nighttime operations — negated the Stinger within a few months.

    Bearden has rebutted those arguments, citing evidence from US, Soviet, and Afghan sources. Devine, too, pointed to the introduction of the Stinger as a critical juncture.

    "We know now that the Russian military decided in aftermath of this that they were leaving," he said, though he acknowledged that many factors led to that decision, including Soviet economic decline, budgetary issues, and political distaste for the campaign at home.

    "What really stopped it was the futility on their side," Devine said. "They were only controlling the major towns. They lost most of the countryside."

    The Stinger undercut "their air capabilities," he added. "The Stinger changed the course of the war."

    'Let's not get bogged down'

    Afghanistan mujahideen Stinger missile

    In addition to limiting who could get Stingers, the US required expended missiles be returned before new ones were issued. The missiles were kept "under pretty tight control," Devine said.

    But the CIA still mounted a program to recover missiles after the Soviet withdrawal, with Congress authorizing $65 million for buybacks in the early 1990s.

    Pakistani and US intelligence sources monitoring the effort told The Washington Post in 1994 that it had been plagued by failures, miscalculations, and wasted money. The sources said only a fraction of estimated 1,000 Stingers provided to rebels during the final years of the war had been recovered and that CIA did not know who had the rest.

    Officials involved in the distribution and monitoring of the missiles told The Post that the accounting system broke down as the war turned in the Afghans' favor and the US increased the supply of missiles. "We were handing them out like lollipops," a US intelligence official said at the time.

    "I was a bit agnostic about [the recovery program] because the mujahideen has history of putting its weapons under the floorboards, waiting for the next war," Devine said. "But I'm told by very good sources, over the years, that it proved to be a very good program, and that they got a very high percentage of them accounted for."

    Afghanistan Taliban Stinger missile airliner

    Government officials said as many as 600 of the Stingers were still missing in 1996.

    In the decades since, there have been periodic concerns about Stingers and other shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles being used against commercial aircraft. The US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 again stirred concern the US-provided weapons could be used against American forces.

    At the start of that war, the Pentagon said the Taliban and Al Qaeda still had 200 to 300 of the missiles. US pilots in low-flying aircraft reported seeing surface-to-air missiles fired at them, but no US aircraft were downed by Stingers.

    In 2005, the Afghan government launched a new effort to recover missing Stingers. At that time, it wasn't clear how many were still in the field, though many experts thought the ones still out there were likely too old to be used effectively. (The missile is thought to have a shelf-life of 10 to 12 years.)

    "The last ones were delivered in 1988," Bearden told The New York Times in 2009, "and it's a pretty complex system — a lot of things can go funky."

    US bombing in war in Afghanistan

    After the Soviet withdrawal, "the prevailing sentiment in Washington — 90%-10% — was get out," Devine said. "We won. We defeated the Russians, and let's not get bogged down in Afghanistan."

    Devine said he and others disagreed at the time, believing the US could offer support to locals, "but over the years I've changed my view and felt that the right view was not mine," he said. "It was to get out of there."

    In 2010, Devine argued that a CIA-led cover-action program was the best approach for Afghanistan going forward, rather than an ongoing US military presence there, which he compared to the Soviet occupation.

    But muddled policies and failures on the ground in Afghanistan in the years since don't detract from the agency's victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan, Devine said.

    "It was one of the CIA's finest moments. I would not for one minute support in chipping away at that," he told Business Insider. "There's some folks that just can't take a victory for a victory. They want to turn it into a defeat. I'm not one of them."

    SEE ALSO: 74 years ago, US Marines waded into 'the toughest battle in Marine Corps history' — here are 25 photos of the brutal fight for Tarawa

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: MOAB Blast in Afghanistan

older | 1 | .... | 2087 | 2088 | (Page 2089) | 2090 | 2091 | .... | 2170 | newer