It's another Jacques Tardi-drawn comic! All hail Tardi! (And hey! I get to break out the Not-Safe-For-Work warning! Just so you know!)

Yesterday, I looked at an adaptation by Jacques Tardi of a book written in the 1970s. Today, we look at a comic that actually came out in the 1970s and is now back in print! It all works out!

You Are There was written by Jean-Claude Forest, who is best-known for this (well, the comic on which it was based), and drawn by Monsieur Tardi. Kim Thompson translated this sucker, and Fantagraphics published this bad bear. You will be charged no more than $26.99 for this, which isn't bad considering it's 163 big-ass pages chock full of grand Tardi art.

This is a very strange comic that doesn't completely work. Forest, channeling his inner Mark Twain, wrote in an early book edition about You Are There: "No one should see in Ici même a pamphlet, a satire on our society or the men who represent its political regime. Nor did I have any specific intention of mocking man's attachment to property. If this attachment leads to grotesque situations in this book, it does so no more than politics, law, groceries or fornication; it serves through its ramblings a story, a plot whose basis lies elsewhere and was intended, so far as I was concerned, to speak of something entirely different." If that's so, it's too bad, because You Are There works best as an absurdist critique of society and politics. It's a rambling, occasionally surreal look at a man who is crazy only because a crazy society says he is; who then is really insane? Perhaps Forest meant it as a love story, and there is a romance at its heart, but the romance is just as odd as the rest of the book, so it's unclear what, exactly, Forest was saying with this comic.

The situation is certainly interesting: Arthur There, the protagonist (and hence the title of the book) lives in a place called Mornemont, which, as we learn early on, was once a vast tract of land of which he is the sole heir. Over the decades and centuries, however, Mornemont has been subdivided into smaller plots of land, each owned by a different family. Arthur is embroiled in a lawsuit to get all the land back, but in the meantime, his one victory has given him ownership of all the walls and the gates through them. He lives in a narrow shack built on one of the walls and makes a living by charging a toll every time someone wants a gate open, gates to which he has the only keys. Throughout the book, he rarely comes down off the walls - the residents, he believes, would kill him for trespassing. His lawsuit to reclaim the rest of the land, however, continues throughout the book. In Paris, the president fears that he's going to lose the election, so he begins making plans to hole up somewhere and plan his triumphant return. Naturally, he picks Mornemont, but the reason he does is clever and changes Arthur's life quite significantly.

Ultimately, this is a story of a man fighting against the forces of conformity, as Arthur desperately tries to remain his own man. Everyone wants him to change, and even if some of the things that happen in the book are in his own mind, he clings to a dream when a lesser (or, perhaps, saner) man would have given up on them. He falls for Julie, who's the daughter of one of the couples living on "his" land, and their relationship is bumpy, to say the least. Julie is a bit crazy, too, in a different way than Arthur. She has what we might categorize as Tourette's, with no internal filters to stop her from saying whatever's on her mind or doing whatever's on her mind. Arthur's behavior is the polar opposite of Julie's, as he keeps everything inside him. This provides the very odd climax of the book, at which their personalities have switched places, to a degree. Julie believes in nothing, while Arthur believes in everything, so when they're on a row boat, about to escape from their pasts, suddenly things are different for both of them. The final image of the book, a surreal summation of events in the book, becomes a comment on what men will do to change their lives. It's not a particularly happy ending, but it is a logical ending.

The one thing you must deal with as you commence reading the book is that, even with a fairly standard narrative, Forest writes oddly. Apparitions appear for no reason. The scene shifts quickly in the middle of a page with no narrative tags to show it. Julie and Arthur often appear to be saying simply what's on their minds and not actually talking to each other. Julie's frankness about nudity and sex is unusually disconcerting (not because she likes sex and being naked, but because of the way she's so aggressive about it, especially in public). There's a strange, detached tone to the book, so even when serious things are occurring, Forest presents it absurdly, making it difficult to penetrate the author's intent (if, indeed, he had any). It's a complex work that keeps the reader at arm's length, which makes it hard to love.

Tardi, however, is stunning. The strange world of Mornemont and its walls are fully realized, with astonishing detail that makes Arthur's desires even more concrete. The warren of homes and barriers along which Arthur runs provide a surreal backdrop for Arthur's fantasies, which Tardi simply places in the panels with no preamble, integrating the hallucinations so well into the "real" that they occasionally catch us off guard. It's a beautiful evocation of how Arthur sees the world. The stolid governmental world crashes against the private lives of the politicians, a theater of fluid sexuality and vice. At the end of the book, Tardi turns the tenants of Mornemont into costumed caricatures, medieval archetypes, and fools, who attack Arthur's home because they're tired of his lawsuit. Tardi pulls out all the stops, with the army moving in and the homeowners turning riotous and the two worlds crashing together. The absurdity of Forest's script is brought to amazing life, from Arthur's odd gatekeeper outfit to Julie's unabashed sexuality - at one point she sucks her thumb, and it's a creepily erotic sight. It's a tremendous work of art, heightening the weirdness of the narrative very well.

I would recommend You Are There because it's a thoughtful look at the pressure of conformity and what drives a man mad. But it is a difficult comic, because Forest isn't interested in making too much sense, even though it's fairly easy to figure out "what happens." Tardi is fantastic and makes the book even wackier, which isn't a bad thing. I have to warn you about it, but it's definitely worth a look.

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto stated that health care reform legislation under consideration in Congress is "the most costly piece of legislation we have seen in a generation." In fact, the health care reform bill is expected to reduce the federal deficit over 10 years, and even looking at gross costs alone, President Bush's 2001 tax cut bill was more expensive.

From Fox News' March 20 special coverage of health care reform legislation with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: Stick around. You're watching Fox News' Cost of Freedom coverage of the most costly piece of legislation we have seen in a generation. Now, does it pass? It's close. It's very close.

In fact, President Bush's 2001 tax cut bill, H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), cost more than the current health care reform legislation. In its scoring of EGTRRA, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the bill "would reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period." Leaving off 2011's projected $129.4 billion in decreased government receipts and increased outlays, CBO projected the bill to cost $1.22 trillion in its first 10 years. By contrast, in its March 18 scoring of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the accompanying reconciliation bill, CBO stated that including cost savings and revenue increases, the bill would actually reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first 10 of its enactment. CBO stated that the bill's "gross cost of coverage provisions" over the same period would be $940 billion.

President Obama sends a message to those celebrating the Persian holiday of Nowruz (Norouz), and in particular to the people and government of Iran. Here is the message in You Tube with Persian subtitles.

Russian Minister of Interior Rashid Nurgaliev gave an order to check  if the action of police against a popular Russian hosting ifolder.ru was legal. According to Lenta.ru, the order was given following request by president Medvedev.

When I came to the U.S. in 1980, I was young and naïve. I used to think that corruption and ethical lapses were just a third-world ill. Eventually, I became a tech CEO and learned the harsh realities of American business. Yes, standards are much higher, and breaches are punished, but the temptations are just the same here as they are in any other country. Ethical lapses (which are a form of corruption) are quite common.  You watch stories about these on TV every other day and read about them on TechCrunch.  It was the ethical lapses of our financial institutions that threw our economy into a tailspin, and for which we are paying the price, after all.

It is best to be aware of the temptations and to prevent the lapses from occurring. As Enron, Bernie Madoff, and Lehman Brothers have shown, it’s a slippery slope. Once you start compromising your values for short-term gains, there is no turning back. Business ethics are not something you need to start worrying about when your company reaches a certain size; they need to be sewn into the fabric of your startup from the get-go. The lessons are the same for tech businesses as they are for investment banks and for third-world economies.

Harvard Business School professor Michael Beer researched the difference between companies that perform at high levels for extended periods and those that implode when they reach a certain size. When analyzing the spectacular failures in the recent financial meltdown, he found that:

· Of the original Forbes 100 (named in 1917), 61 had ceased to exist by 1987.  Of the remaining 39, only 18 stayed in the top 100, and their return during the period 1917 to 1987 was 20% less than that of the overall market.

· Of companies in the original Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index of 1957, only 74 remained in 1997; of these, only 12 outperformed the S&P 500 in the period 1957 to 1998.

· The average CEO tenure in the U.S. is 4.2 years, less than half the 10.5-year average in 1990.

Beer posited three core reasons for the failure of so many Wall Street firms in the fall of 2008: the firms lacked a higher purpose (in other words, they were focused on short-term gains, profits, and bonuses); they lacked a clear strategy; and they mismanaged their risk. Companies like Charles Schwab and US Bancorp were able to avoid the fallout by having a laser-like focus on customer service and on honesty and transparency. Neither company touched the subprime mortgage securitization market, because they saw it as risky and simply not the kind of business that served the company’s long-term interests.

Even outside Wall Street, companies like Cisco Systems, Southwest Airlines, and Costco Wholesale, with the strongest sense of higher purpose, achieved the greatest success. Take Costco. Wall Street analysts have long chastised Costco’s management for paying high wages and keeping employees around for a long time, because this results in higher benefits costs. But the company’s CEO, Jim Sinegal, lives by his belief that keeping good employees is strategic for Costco’s long-term success and growth. The company’s per-employee sales are considerably higher than those of key rivals such as Target and Wal-Mart; customer service at the stores is phenomenal and fast; and Costco continues to expand, both in number of warehouses and in products and services for business and consumer customers. The culture of the company flows downward from Sinegal and his focus on employees and, by extension, to customers.

One of the problems that Beer found with the failed banks was that their employees lacked the ability to “speak truth to power”. Employees felt intimidated by superiors; the institutions’ internal voice of conscience and purpose was silenced by a maniacal focus on short-term profits and whatever scheme would bring them in. The silencing of employees who sought to challenge strategy and risk-management practices likely also undermined the banks’ moral authority and emboldened those who already felt inclined to do the wrong thing. With a muted internal voice, these organizations lacked a moral compass. As a result, they drove off a cliff with astonishing speed.

The same things happen in Silicon Valley companies.  I asked management guru — and head of the CEO Institute of Yale School of Management — Jeff Sonnenfeld for his advice on how startups can sow the seeds for building a Cisco or Costco. Here is Jeff’s advice:

1)  Create a culture of openness and welcome dissent – Internal constructive critics are your best friends — too often, founders are blinded by their own enthusiasm for their creative vision and then are surrounded by sycophants, kissing up. Founders who fall out of touch rapidly lose their ethical bearings. At Intel, founder Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore did not look for sycophantic followers in selecting the brilliant, contentious, but relentlessly honest Andy Grove as their colleague and successor. Similarly, Craig Barrett and Paul Otellini have consistently fought for different points of view internally — without undermining the enterprise, and always reinforcing Intel’s self-critical core ethic.

2)  Lead by example.  The authenticity of the leader’s character is essential — if colleagues don’t believe you, they will not take needed risks on your behalf — such as training subordinates to be able to do their own jobs.  Startups are often defined by the hip clichés of VC firms, adoring press, and HR consultants — but the startups don’t really practice what they preach.

3)  Learn from immediate peers or distant models. Too often, founders atrophy because they believe that the unique quality of their business or technological mission means that they too are truly unique in leadership values.  Steve Jobs has patterned himself after Polaroid founder Ed Land — and tried to learn from Land’s strengths and weaknesses.  Henry Ford regretfully once claimed “History is bunk” but in reality revered Thomas Edison.  Michael Dell put legendary tech entrepreneur (Teledyne) and educator Dr. George Kozmetsky on his board right from the start to learn from this brilliant then septuagenarian.

4)  Recognize your own fallibility as a leader, know your limits, and beware of the myth of immortality.  Entrepreneurs often are horrified at the thought of leadership succession. The founders of great firms such as Google, Cisco, Amgen, and Microsoft have known that they would need to prepare for a day when they no longer could be the lone day-to-day internal boss, primary external ambassador, and symbolic cultural icon. The founder of the original (pre-Starbucks) coffee house chain Chock-Full-o-Nuts started his first café on Broadway 43rd Street in 1923 and was a great national success.  Sadly, sixty years later, as a dying man who had been flat on his back for two years at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, he still clung to the job of leader of the enterprise, his full-time physician serving as acting president.

5)  Remember that institutional character — like a liquid cupped in your hand — is fragile; easily lost; and hard, if not impossible, to regain. Egomaniacal moves, personal grandiosity, greed, and deception create impressions that are hard to erase.  Whole Foods founder, John Mackey, sabotaged the integrity of his own exalted brand, damaging the company’s internal pride and customer admiration far more badly than any competitor could have, due to his self-inflating and his misleading “anonymous” blogging, hiding his identity through an anagram of his wife’s name, “rehodab.”

I’ll add another very important point: Establish an independent board. Venture firms often demand a majority of board seats as a condition for their investments. Conflicts invariably arise. The board begins to serve the needs of VCs and management, rather than of the company itself, which loses the independent voice to warn it not to do the wrong things. The inconvenient truth is that all board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the company, and not in their own interests. Board members must not engage in transactions in which they or their partners stand to gain. They are legally required to avoid these conflicts of interest.

Finally, remember that in business, you have to make tough choices at every juncture. Though business decisions usually have clear consequences and outcomes, ethical decisions are always hard. Making the right choice doesn’t always bring success, but ethical lapses almost always lead to failure. No matter what the consequence, doing what’s ethical and right is always the better long-term strategy.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. Follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa.

Conservative party would impose unilateral tax on banks to recover taxpayers' billions if elected, party leader says

The Conservative party would impose a unilateral tax on banks to claw back the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money used to prop up major financial institutions during the economic crisis, David Cameron said today.

His pledge came as the Financial Times reported that the chancellor, Alistair Darling, is to use next week's budget to signal government support for a global bank tax, although only as part of an international agreement.

Darling will set out detailed options in his budget statement but will insist that the money raised should go to national governments and not be used for an insurance fund against future collapse, the paper said.

There are fears that the existence of an insurance fund could encourage risk-taking and that any unilateral action could prompt an exodus of banks from the City to less punitive regimes abroad.

But Cameron said the Conservatives' proposed levy, similar to unilateral measures announced by the US president, Barack Obama, was needed to protect British taxpayers from future bank collapses.

He said the banking industry was one of the vested interests he would confront if elected and accused Gordon Brown of failing to stand up to the financial sector.

"We had the biggest bank bailout in the world. We can't just carry on as if nothing happened," he said.

"In America, President Obama has said he will get taxpayers back every cent they put in. Why should it be any different here?

"So I can announce today that a Conservative government will introduce a new bank levy to pay back taxpayers for the support they gave and to protect them in the future.

"No, it won't be popular in every part of the City. But I believe it's fair and it's necessary."

The prime minister has been a leading advocate of a globally co-ordinated levy on banks, which could bring in tens of billions of pounds a year from the financial services sector worldwide.

He was forced to abandon his preferred option – a "Tobin" tax on financial transactions – but hopes the International Monetary Fund will back the measure at its April meeting in Washington ahead of a G20 meeting in June.

The FT said Labour's manifesto could commit to diverting some of the proceeds of the levy into aid for poorer countries – in line with a campaign for a "Robin Hood tax" on the banks.

• Conservatives
• Banking
• Tax and spending
• Recession
• Global recession

Fox News' Special Report suggested that a "deal" in the health care bill was sought by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) for a proposed hospital in Connecticut and discussed other purported "deals" for Tennessee and Louisiana. In fact, Connecticut would potentially have to compete for funding against other states, and Republicans and Democrats have said that provisions for Tennessee and Louisiana are crucial to fixing an imbalance in Medicaid funding in those states.

From the March 19 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BRIAN WILSON (correspondent): Deals still alive for the moment? Well, Republicans claim that Democrat Bart Gordon changed his vote from "yes" -- from "no" to "yes" after he got $100 million for Tennessee hospitals that treat the poor. Other deals still in play? Yes, the Louisiana Purchase: $300 million in Medicaid money is still alive; Connecticut hospital handout -- $100 million sought by Senator Dodd.

From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Retiring Congressman Bart Gordon is doing a 180 as well. Now he voted "no" in November, but after securing millions of dollars in Medicaid funding for low-income patients in his home state, well, he's now in the "yes" column.

Connecticut would reportedly have to compete for the hospital funds. The Hartford Courant reported that Connecticut would have to compete for the funds. Also, Dodd reportedly said that at least 14 other states could apply for the grant.

Funding for health care facilities would be decided by Health and Human Services secretary. The text of the Senate health care bill as passed states that the $100 million grant for "infrastructure to expand access to health care" "may only be made available by the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon the receipt of an application from the Governor of a State" that meets certain requirements:

(b) REQUIREMENT.-Amount appropriated under subsection (a) may only be made available by the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon the receipt of an application from the Governor of a State that certifies that-

(1) the new health care facility is critical for the provision of greater access to health care within the State;

(2) such facility is essential for the continued financial viability of the State's sole public medical and dental school and its academic health center;

(3) the request for Federal support represents not more than 40 percent of the total cost of the proposed new facility; and

(4) the State has established a dedicated funding mechanism to provide all remaining funds necessary to complete the construction or renovation of the proposed facility.

Proposed UConn hospital part of Republican Gov. Rell's health care proposal. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has reportedly proposed a $352 million University of Connecticut Health Center that would rely on $100 million in federal funds available as a grant in the health care bill under the provision inserted by Dodd.

Under health care bill reconciliation "fix," $100 million in Medicaid would go to "disproportionate share hospital" payments. Changes proposed to the Senate health care bill included a section that, in part, gives disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to states that otherwise would receive no payments after FY2011. The House Rules Committee summary of the changes describes Sec. 1203:

Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011.

Entire TN delegation asked Energy and Commerce Committee to deal with the fact that the state is scheduled to get no DSH money. As reported by the Nashville Business Journal, a May 2009 letter from Tennessee's entire House delegation -- consisting of both Democrats and Republicans -- to the House Energy and Commerce Committee requested DSH funding. According to the letter, Tennessee had given up DSH funding in 1993 when it created a special state insurance program, TennCare, in lieu of traditional Medicaid. The letter added that, since March 2006, Tennessee hospitals have "returned to a traditional Medicaid population," but are not getting DSH payments, unlike almost every other state. From the letter:

As you may know, with the onset of the TennCare waiver in 1993, the state agreed to eliminate the DSH payment for Tennessee, using the rationale that the majority of the uninsured and uninsurable would have the opportunity to enter the new TennCare program and, consequently, hospitals would be getting TennCare reimbursement for the majority of the patients that would have been charity care patients. Although there was an initial 25 percent-decline in charity care under the program, the cost of charity care in Tennessee hospitals returned to pre-TennCare levels by 2000 and has continued to grow at a pace consistent with hospitals across the country. As of March 2006, the state Medicaid program began to disenroll adults who were eligible for TennCare as uninsured or uninsurable previously. This leaves Tennessee hospitals in the dilemma of having returned to a traditional Medicaid population covered by a Medicaid program with no DSH payment. Tennessee is one of only two states with no DSH payment. The other state is Hawaii.

Tennessee reportedly got temporary fixes in the past. The Nashville Business Journal article also reported:

The imbalance has existed since Tennessee gave up its payments when it created TennCare in the 1990s -- and it has been similarly addressed by lawmakers in the past. Early last year, a $32.8 billion bill to insure poor children included a provision extending DSH payments to Tennessee hospitals by $30 million a year for two years.

TennCare spokeswoman Kelly Gunderson said the majority of Tennessee hospitals receive some level of DSH payments.

Funding would fix FMAP rates for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The Senate bill as passed includes a provision -- often referred to as the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservative media -- that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The bill requires that it only apply to states "for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster" and "determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government."

The Department of Health and Human Services states that FMAP is "used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures. The Social Security Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate and publish the FMAPs each year."

Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. [Sen. Mary] Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."

Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal states that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."

Less than two months after talking up the turnaround at Dow Jones-IAC (NSDQ: IACI) personal finance JV FiLife, paidContent has learned the site’s continued existence is no certainty. It survived the multiple trimmings as Barry Diller cut back on IAC’s portfolio of emerging businesses, but the company is now exploring options that range from leaving it open to a sale or a full shut down. When Ezra Kucharz, president and GM for just over a year, left for CBS (NYSE: CBS) in January, both IAC and DJ credited him publicly with turning around the site and building it to 4.4 million unique visitors in December. Now both companies are declining comment about the site’s future.

Less than two months after talking up the turnaround at Dow Jones-IAC (NSDQ: IACI) personal finance JV FiLife, paidContent has learned the site’s continued existence is no certainty. It survived the multiple trimmings as Barry Diller cut back on IAC’s portfolio of emerging businesses, but the company is now exploring options that range from leaving it open to a sale or a full shut down. When Ezra Kucharz, president and GM for just over a year, left for CBS (NYSE: CBS) in January, both IAC and DJ credited him publicly with turning around the site and building it to 4.4 million unique visitors in December. Now both companies are declining comment about the site’s future.