They can't fix the $21 billion dollar (and growing) hole in the state budget but by Gawd they can tell you what TV to buy.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.
The California Energy Commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The concern is that the energy draw will rise by as much as 8 percent a year as consumers buy larger televisions, add more to their homes and watch them more often.
Commissioners say energy efficiency standards are the cheapest and easiest way to conserve electricity.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why don't California voters just tell their elected twerps to just go to hell and do something real about the collapse of the state?
#4
Think of how much energy they could save by going back to the old 8088 chip using 5 to 10 MHz rather then 2.33 GHz energy hogs in those millions of PC. Think of all those devices in government offices and schools. Yep, that's a savings. /sarc
#5
The salary and benefits of just one California bureaucrat will pay for the power bill of at least 100 families. Make the proper mental connection then sever the correct rice bowl connection.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2009 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Just think how much energy will be saved by not 'educating' one illegal-alien.
So here's a deal: we return the stimulus -- which hasn't created a single productive private sector job in CA-- to the Feds, who use it to a) build the goddamned fence, already, and b) crack down on illegals' employers, and c) deport.
And watch that $20B annual albatross quickly disappear, and overall CA public school scores soar.
#9
Its one thing to change the chemical composition of items such as spray glue or paint to meet a California only law, quite another to re-gear a piece of equipment such as a car or TV. If I were a TV manufacturer would I have a CA only line then the rest of the world? Where would that cost/benefit line cross? Then look at the potential CA consumer and realize that they either have already bought their TVs before the deadline then why bother?
What will be interesting is if they levy a fine on any non-complients of course needing to have regulators go building to building to inspect.
Wanna save energy? Shut down the entertainment industry. The energy used to light and cool studios, computers used for audio and editing, fancy offices for the execs, etc.
According to the Obama administration's latest count, the President's economic stimulus package has created 45 jobs in Texas' 58th congressional district and 30 jobs in the state's 91st district.
The White House's recovery.gov web site declares that Texas' 52nd district received exactly $8,937,289 in stimulus funds, while the 68th district has had precisely $310,963 funneled into it.
Trouble is, none of these congressional districts exist.
In its latest computer glitch, the Obama administration's much-ballyhooed accounting system for the $1.2 trillion stimulus law detailed government spending in 39 congressional districts in Texas -- a state that, in reality, has 32 congressional districts. More than $14 million in mystery money is attributed to seven phantom congressional districts, including the mysterious and fictional District 00.
Nationally, the recovery.gov site has mistakenly attributed $6.4 billion in stimulus spending to 440 non-existent districts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and even four American territories, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan government oversight group watchdog.org.
Republican critics of the stimulus package are having a field day with the administration's latest self-inflicted political wound.
Since passage of the stimulus bill, "over three million of our fellow countrymen lost their jobs and our nation suffers from the highest unemployment rate in a quarter of a century," jabbed Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas. "Now we discover that much of the money cannot be properly accounted for ... and in many cases (are) complete fabrications."
The administration attributes the mistakes to accounting errors committed by recipients of stimulus grants, loans and contracts.
"The problem appears to be with recipients who either were unsure of or confused over their congressional district or recipients who made an honest human error in manually entering the data for their reports," said Cheryl Arvidson, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery board.
Arvidson noted that the "congressional district snafu" applies only to the district-by-district accounting system and "does not mean there is money being sent into a black hole."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Arvidson noted that the "congressional district snafu" applies only to the district-by-district accounting system and "does not mean there is money being sent into a black hole."
We don't have all the facts yet so please don't jump to any conclusions, because you are not The One, who instictively knew that Cambridge police acted "stupidly".
#3
$8,937,289 in stimulus funds, while the 68th district has had precisely $310,963 funneled into it.
That's a big money trail. I'm guessing we can't rely on the NYT or any other member of the State-Run media to follow it. But it's so big even a blind man could follow the scent.
Did "they" really think that no one would notice this. What is so amazing about this administration is that they operate just like those people exposed by two kids in the Acorn offices.
#4
Charles Krauthammer said the other night, and I'm paraphrasing...."Gaffs such as this have made The Administration fodder for late-night comedy shows humour. They are doomed."
#5
According to the Obama administration's latest count, the President's economic stimulus package has created 45 jobs in Texas' 58th congressional district and 30 jobs in the state's 91st district.
Must be referring to Chihuahua and Coahuila districts in the south. You laugh. Just wait till the election when their votes show up.
#9
My back left pocket is the Texas 66th Congressional district and I need $1 Million Billion for job creation activities. Just cash, small non-sequential bills, in easy to carry wads.
MWAW-HAW-HAW!
#11
My Congresswoman in Ohio, Jean Schmidt, wrote:
A closer look at the website reveals even more alarming facts. The Obama Administration has spent more than $5 million dollars to create or save eleven jobs in ten Ohio Congressional Districts that simply do not exist. For instance, the fine folks living in the 21st District got more than a million dollars while the folks who live in the 56th District got only $12,000. The problem is we have only 18 congressional districts in Ohio.
#16
Doesn't involve larceny, then, as that would involve actual property. Closer to gerrymandering with imaginary people, but, I am sure, the proper charge could be made to stick. How about just plain theft, and let them be judged according to Sharia law, their ultimate objective.
(Bloomberg) -- California's budget deficit may widen to almost $21 billion by next fiscal year as the most populous U.S. state's economy continues reeling from the global recession, its top fiscal analyst said in a report today.
The current $85 billion spending plan Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed in July is likely to fall more than $6.3 billion short by yearend as several provisions within the budget falter or miss revenue projections, Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said. That gap is in addition to a deficit Taylor said may reach $14.4 billion in the fiscal year beginning July 1.
"Addressing this large shortfall will require painful choices -- on top of the difficult choices the Legislature made earlier this year," Taylor said.
California, which accounts for 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, confronts resurgent fiscal strains brought on by the recession even as the state undertook record borrowing. California, the largest municipal bond issuer in the U.S., has sold more than $31 billion of bonds and notes since January, including more than $10 billion in the past seven weeks.
Schwarzenegger, whose budget director Mike Genest has said he is stepping down next month, will unveil his budget for the next fiscal year in January.
The Legislature, requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes or pass a budget, has struggled to respond swiftly as fiscal strains deepened. Since February, Schwarzenegger and lawmakers have slashed $32 billion from spending, cutting into funding for schools, universities and welfare programs. They also raised taxes by $12.5 billion to balance the budget enacted July 28.
Missing Projections
The current year's gap comes from several provisions in the budget that won't result in projected savings or won't generate anticipated revenue. For example, the budget counts on $1 billion by privatizing a quasi-government agency that sells workers' compensation insurance to companies. State officials have said they don't expect that transaction to occur this year. Also, the state won't realize $1 billion in budgeted savings from prison spending after lawmakers failed to pass the supporting legislation.
Tax-exempt, 6 percent bonds that California sold in April and due April 2038 traded today at a price to yield 5.52 percent, compared with about 4.66 percent on Oct. 6, according to data reported to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
Yields on AAA municipal bonds due in 5 years slid 2 basis points to 1.94 percent, the lowest since Oct. 14, according to a Bloomberg Fair Value index. A basis point equals 0.01 percentage point.
Budget Fight
"We believe that it's a realistic projection of what the governor and the lawmakers are going to need to solve," Schwarzenegger's budget spokesman H.D. Palmer said during a telephone interview today.
Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has already said he doesn't support further tax increases to help erase the latest deficit. Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature, have said they have already cut too much from needed health and welfare programs and will insist on new revenue, setting the stage for a protracted budget fight.
Taylor said the state will suffer annual deficits of more than $20 billion a year for the next five years, in part because it must begin repaying budget-balancing internal loans and funding shifts that Pacific Investment Management Co.'s Bill Gross, co-chief investment officer of the world's biggest bond fund, last month called "accounting tricks that couldn't fool a grade-schooler."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh my darling, oh my darling,
Oh my darling Clementine
You are lost and gone forever,
Dreadful sorry, Clementine.
#2
I could live with an American flag with only 49 stars, 48 or even less if need be. California was run by the US Army and local mayors until 1849. Could easily be done once again. That would be some "change" we could all believe in.
Deal: we in CA return the stimulus -- which hasn't created a single productive private sector job in CA-- to the Feds, who use it to a) build the goddamned fence, already, and b) crack down on illegals' employers, and c) deport.
Result: $20B annual albatross quickly disappears. CA public school scores soar. Productivity, economic growth and tax revenues increase.
Special Inspector General for TARP (aka "SIG TARP") Neil Barofsky said something we've all known for a while: the government gave away the farm when AIG failed.
If you recall, AIG's failure meant that the companies on the other side of all of its contracts (counterparties) were going to be left holding the bag. Under normal cases of bankruptcy, the court would impose haircuts to the amount of money due to counterparties, but because AIG didn't actually declare bankruptcy, the counterparties claimed that they were owed 100 cents of every dollar. The only bank that even considered taking a haircut was UBS - the Swiss, for goodness sakes - hard to imagine that a Swiss bank could make US banks look bad, but here's a case in point.
OK, so let's get this straight: the financial world is melting down, Uncle Sam had just saved the bankers' butts and now Tim Geithner the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) was going to wimp-out? Yes, the Great Gazoo strikes again! (My friend pointed out that our current Treasury Secretary and former tax cheat bears a striking resemblance to this esoteric character from "The Flintstones" -- Geithner has been the Great Gazoo since!)
When Geithner/Gazoo says, "Hello Dumb Dumb," he's talking to us! The Great Gazoo shafted the US taxpayer in the AIG debacle and in the process, enriched the counterparties who dragged us into this mess. The SIG TARP report noted that "structure and effect of the FRBNY's assistance to AIG ... effectively transferred tens of billions of dollars of cash from the government to AIG's counterparties."
Oh, and remember all of those claims by Goldman Sachs brass that the firm had "perfectly hedged" its exposure to AIG? Not so fast, boys. According to the New York Times, "among its notable findings, the report challenged Goldman's position that it should not have been forced to bear losses on its dealings with A.I.G. because it had successfully hedged away any exposure. Mr. Barofsky said that Goldman's hedges were unlikely to have held up amid the market turbulence of late last year."
Barofsky seems to be one of the few officials that has to tell us what we already know: TARP is "almost certainly going to be a loss" for taxpayers and Geithner rolled over for Wall Street in the AIG negotiations.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We're all Russians now. All hail the American oligarchs at Government Sachs.
#3
The jokes going to be on them when world realizes the 100's billions of TARP money given to them will soon be worthless.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2009 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The tartp was solely to give enough time for the politically-connected bond-holding rent-seeker class to move into safer assets at the taxpayers expense.
Since President Obama took office, the American people have been subjected to an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to convince them that the $787 billion stimulus bill is working. Month after month, as unemployment continues to rise, the administration has sent its spinmeisters out to trumpet an altogether dubious number of jobs "created or saved."
Vice President Biden -- the man appointed by the president to oversee the recovery effort -- has shamelessly continued to claim credit for as many as one million jobs that the administration argues the stimulus has "created or saved."
Meanwhile, unemployment hit the highest point in a quarter century, and 3.8 million more Americans are out of work since the White House promised to "get the economy moving again." There's good reason to doubt thepresident's policies are working.
"Here in Washington, we've all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending," the president noted in his State of the Union address while responding to skepticism about the stimulus. "And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.
"That is why I've asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort -- because nobody messes with Joe."
Apparently, somebody is messing with Joe. Or even worse, Joe seems to be messing with us.
On top of espousing fictitious jobs claims, the White House has now directed the stimulus auditor to report inaccurate information on the Recovery.gov Web site. This continues to occur even as media reports savage the ridiculously inaccurate data.
From $1.2 million in stimulus funds that saved 935 jobs at a Georgia community council with only 508 employees, to a $1,047 lawnmower in Arkansas purchased with stimulus funds that resulted in 50 jobs, to the $26,174 grant for roof repairs in Texas that created 450 jobs, the signature item in the president's economic policy has been fraught with Enron-style accounting tricks and fraudulent reporting.
And all from a president who promised an "unprecedented level of openness and transparency."
The manifest inaccuracies in the data the Obama administration uses to justify its economic policies constitutes the promulgation of inaccurate and misleading information by the federal government. The American people deserve a straightforward accounting of the way the president spends their tax dollars, and they have the right to expect a return on their "investment."
So far, all they are getting is deceitful propaganda and a backbreaking trillion-dollar tax bill from the officials they elected to bring about change.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's a big, huge, honking money trail. How about someone follow it and see where the money really went?
#2
The problem is that the data in the system are self-reported. In other words, there was no "quality assurance" review. In such a system errors are to be expected. In fact, I wouldn't trust any data in the system (even those that seem right such as in an actual Congression district). Apparently they spend $27 million to redesign the web site, but forgot the most important element: real data.
#3
"And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.
When the Administration claimed it has gone through all the data with a fine tooth comb it appears they have been very selective in their scrutiny. All of the erroneous data uncovered is in support of the Administrations economic policies to create or save jobs. Its curious that none of the bad data has gone the other direction to indicate blatant wasteful spending. Obviously, their primary effort has been to control perceptions regarding the allocation of funds. That way if shit hits the fan its they simply blame the little people for recording errors. Anyone see a pattern her?
#4
It's a big, huge, honking money trail. How about someone follow it and see where the money really went?
A little case study: there's $6.6B in stim $$$ for education-related projects in California, $4.7B has been "paid out": roughly $3.2B for "stabilization" ie filling the holes in the state's operating budget, and a little over $1B for special ed and programs for disadvantaged schoolkids.
This leaves about $400m paid out, and another $1.9B made available but not paid out. Seeking answers about the missing billions, I asked my congressman's staff, who didn't have any idea where the money was but guessed that the money resided with the state, and referred me to the state legislature.
My state assemblyman had no clue re the missing $1.9B or the mysterious $400m actually paid out. (I was routed to the assemblyman's budget expert, who realized that I knew much more than he about the matter and cheerfully signed off with "Let me know what you find out, huh?")
No one in the state government bureaucracy in Sacramento had any idea about any of the funds, let alone the $2.3B not accounted for, and referred me to local officials. The school district CFOs I called couldn't help.
Ditto for all but one of the half dozen governor's office economic development and executive staff members. No one had any idea regarding how much money was allocated, for what purpose and with what restrictions, and how much was spent and how much remaining-- let alone any idea as to where the missing education-related $1.9B went.
Finally, after three weeks of calls and emails and online sleuthing, I chanced on the only person in this entire process who had a competent explanation: a staffer at Gov. Schwarzenegger's Recovery Act Task Force who said Ahnuld redirected $1.9B in education-related stimulus money to CA correctional facilities.
As to the $400m, I'm pretty sure that was allocated to the "School Impovement Program", which, according to one webpage, buried deep within a .pdf file accessible only via one obscure pop-out page at the national arra.gov site, supposedly allocated $377M to California school renovation projects like ours. Eureka!
But no. The school district that owns the property asserts that such funds can't be used for underutilized "surplus" schools.
This is Katrina. Multi-level governmental ignorance, incompetence, arrogance, secrecy, and utterly zero accountability, with undisclosed shell games, buck-passing, and a massive diversion of $2B from education to non-educational purposes, in this case, to gain cover for a massively failing criminal justice approach.
The cronies and public employee unions receiving the funds-- or merely blocking them from being spent at all-- have not created and aren't creating any jobs.
This is decadence. We are truly becoming a banana republic.
President Barack Obama's choice for a top job in the Treasury Department did not disclose all of her late tax payments until she was repeatedly prodded by Senate investigators, a congressional report issued Wednesday said.
Obama's nominee for undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, Lael Brainard, is the fifth presidential nominee to reveal tax issues during the congressional vetting process.
Brainard was late in paying real estate taxes in 2005, 2006 and 2007 on property in Northern Virginia, according to the report by the Senate Finance Committee staff.
The report also challenges the accuracy of a deduction Brainard claimed for running an office from her home. The challenge led Brainard to reduce the deduction on her 2008 return, though she declined to adjust returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007, telling committee staff she used a reasonable method to calculate the deductions.
Brainard is current in all her taxes, said Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams.
"There's nothing in the record that in any way could call into question her qualifications or ability to carry out the duties of this position," Williams said.
The amounts in question were relatively small. Brainard paid $121.75 in interest and $1,279.34 in penalties on late real estate tax payments, the report said.
But the committee's top Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is unhappy that the committee staff had to submit 10 sets of questions to Brainard before getting complete information about the late payments.
After Brainard was nominated last spring, the Finance Committee had her fill out a routine questionnaire that asked whether she had made any late tax payments in the past 10 years. Her initial response did not include all the late payments. It did, however, acknowledge she had made late unemployment insurance payments for household employees "on a number of occasions," the report said.
"The dollar amounts involved aren't large compared to some other administration nominees this year, but the lack of candor, accuracy and timeliness in addressing the issues has been discouraging," Grassley said.
Finance Committee Democrats rushed to Brainard's defense. "I am satisfied Ms. Brainard has taken the steps necessary to fix the discrepancies in documents submitted to the committee," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee. "We intend to move forward as soon as possible on this nomination, to bolster the efforts at Treasury and strengthen America's recovery at home and abroad."
Brainard's husband, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, is the top U.S. diplomat for East Asia. Brainard and Campbell ran an international affairs consulting firm out of their home.
If confirmed by the Senate, Brainard would oversee American policies on issues including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and international tax treaties. Brainard was a deputy national economic adviser for international affairs during the Clinton administration.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ya know,some of who have had the opportunity to run a business out our home know wot a cluster is to figure out the depreciation and and the tax consequences. The tax codes are a definite cluster for anybody
#4
When I was an independent contract instructor working from my home, I considered taking the home office deduction. However, somewhere I got the tip that doing that was like putting a post-it note on your return saying "Please audit me". And if the IRS agent visited your home and spotted even one thing in your office that was not business related, they could disallow the whole deduction. For me, it wasn't worth it.
But then, I'm not a Democrat.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/19/2009 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
Carly Fiorina announced her 2010 campaign for California's U.S. Senate seat in the usual way. She rolled out a new Website. She bounded across a stage at a "green detergents" factory to the strains of "Surfin' U.S.A." and gave a short speech about "solutions that work." Then she added a step that has become more-or-less essential for serious Republicans--a conference call with conservative bloggers. Over 23 minutes, she fielded some of the friendlier questions she'd get all day, such as whether she'd learned anything from 2009's successful Republican candidates that could help her in her challenge to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
"My team knows very well how to run a campaign against a nasty Democrat," said Fiorina.
Halfway through the call, however, conservative blogger Dan Riehl awoke the elephant in the room. Did Fiorina have anything to say to Chuck DeVore? One day earlier, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) had endorsed DeVore, a Republican assemblyman from Irvine, Calif., who had been running against Boxer for months, and had pre-emptively attacked Fiorina for her allegedly liberal positions.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Her political baptism came as an adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign.
Sheesh! There is a good reason NOT to vote for her!
#2
"...where Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman united the national conservative movement against a liberal Republican candidate and let a Democrat sneak in to win a key congressional seat,..."
Wait. I thought the liberal Republican endorsed the Democrat when she dropped out. Rewriting history? Or is my memory possibly bad (again).
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
11/19/2009 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There was talk of having her as McCain's vp at some point. My friend, an ex HP employee said that would have been the one thing to cause him to vote for Obama.
#4
OK, so I just googled "chuck devore for senate" and guess whose web site popped up first? Carly Fiorina's! Is google trying to get me to drink the koolaid? That pisses me off. Are the country club republicans gonna shell out big bucks for Fiorina and ignore DeVore? We're gonna get six more years of Boxer if they do.
"In June, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Fiorina had voted in just five of 18 national, state and local elections in which she was eligible to cast a ballot since she registered in Santa Clara County in 2000, according to public records."
beyond that her record as a CEO was somewhere between mediocre and awful
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/19/2009 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I hear Carly speak last week (yes it rymes) and my impressions was somebody who has theri stuff together and doesn't dodge questions or pass responsibility. She was aske some pointed questions about HP and to be quite honest she gave some very clear and concise answers. I really think she can take out Babs Boxer simply because she is not part of that political elite. DeVore can never win a statewide office or he would already be in one.
#7
Since when is Fiorina pro-life? She wasn't as of the 2008 convention. For that matter, she gave a really horrible, sleep-inducing convention speech.
Oh, OK, by Media Matters standards, she's pro-life, but then, by that standard, so's John Kerry & Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/19/2009 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I should add, by their standards, *I'm* pro-life, in that I think it's an abomination and I'd probably shun anyone I found out had gotten one. But I certainly don't think it's murder, and I'm kind of leery of the shitstorm if they overturned Roe vs. Wade.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/19/2009 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I'm afraid CS is spot on. Devore is our preferred candidate for conservatives, but would have no chance against Boxer and her warchest. Fiorina is not a good GOP candidate, but she's better than "Dumb as a box of hair" and would at least vote most times with the Caucus. We don't need Barbara for another six years for purity's sake (I hate making that argument, but it's reality). If Devore had more name recognition, more campaign funds, and a healthier state GOP behind him it might be different
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2009 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, "I keep all of my clients' business private."
But a spokeswoman for Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010. "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image," the spokeswoman said. "It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner's World intends to respond to Adams's breach of contract with legal action.
But while Adams clearly violated his agreement, it's not clear he did so without Runner's World's consent. A source with knowledge of the situation says multiple outlets, including Time, approached Runner's World after the photos first appeared on its website in July to inquire about obtaining the reuse rights. Those who inquired were forwarded to Adams. Editors at the magazine were aware of negotiations to resell the pictures, and were primarily concerned to see that Runner's World received prominent credit, says the source. In the event, Newsweek credited Runner's World right on its cover.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's the big deal? This photograph is tastefully done. It is not p0rn. Do you suppose there might be a little catiness and envy going on in the donk corp and donk media?
#2
if she calles it sexist, why did she pose for it. Not to mention all the beauty contests she was entered in during her earlier years, are these sexist as well, I think describing her as an idiot twit (twot) would be falling short of the mark.
#3
This is Phase IV in the New Media Model for propping up an insupportable argument-- in this case, the MSM mantra that Obama is somehow other than a lightweight BS artist who's totally out of his depth and whose presidency is failing on every single domestic and f-p front.
Phase I: dismiss facts out of hand
Phase II: dispute facts
Phase III: accept facts but make excuses
Phase IV: abandon argument altogether, then change the subject. Palin! Levi!
Breach of contract, out of context, extra publicity, newspeak is doing her favors. Photographer contacted immediately after the Runner's World release tells me they thought this picture would be a some sort or ruiner, but its a great photo.
#8
Like 2008 wasn't one long Obama wet dream courtesy of the mass media.
Posted by: ed ||
11/19/2009 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Palen blew this one. This does not seem sexist to me. I think she's putting other photographers on notice not to breach their contract.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/19/2009 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The sexism wasn't in the photo - it's perfectly appropriate for the context it was taken for. I used to work with a runner who kept copies of that magazine in the company shitter for reading material. It's par for course.
The sexism is the re-contextualization by putting it on the cover of Newsweek along with a really fucking condescending first-name crack out of the Sound of Music.
How about a similar topless photo of Obama with a tag-line referring to him by his first name and punning off of a line from Huckleberry Finn?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/19/2009 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Don't leave us hanging, Mitch - give us the line. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/19/2009 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
So, that's what 'teeny-tiny gym shorts' look like. More of them! (Or should that be less of them)? ;-)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the Senate can't sit back for the Obama administration to investigate the shootings at Ft. Hood, so he's pushing ahead with a Homeland Security Committee hearing to look into what went wrong before the massacre.
There's been some tension between members of Congress who want a thorough investigation into the Ft. Hood shootings, but the Obama administration has been hesitant about letting key government officials testify before congressional panels. Lieberman is holding a hearing Thursday on the issue.
"We want to know what the federal government knew and what it did concerning Maj. [Nidal Malik] Hasan and whether action should have been taken based on information available to federal employees," Lieberman said. "We also will investigate how this incident affects our understanding of and defenses against the threat posed by violent Islamic extremism and homegrown terrorism."
Both Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) met with FBI Director Robert Mueller and Army Secretary John McHugh to make sure that the Senate's investigation does not interfere with the criminal case against Hasan.
Though Lieberman said Mueller had "understandable concerns" about approaching witnesses who might be relevant to the criminal investigation, he assured Mueller that the Senate's interests lie more with government officials and breakdowns in communication leading up to the killings.
"We must confront a troubling question: was this was once again a failure to connect the dots? Were there inexcusable deaths and communications failures and failures to act on compelling evidence that might have allowed us to prevent the attack at Fort Hood?" Collins said.
Lieberman added he is scheduled to meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday afternoon in preparation for Thursday's 10 a.m. hearing.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
ION WMF > THE REPUTATION OF CHINA'S ANTI-SHIP BALLISTIC MISSLES: THE US NAVY'S NEED TO CONTROL ITS [strategic]] WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WESTERN PACIFIC.
#3
Obama administration has been hesitant about letting key government officials testify before congressional panels.
Concerned about the American people "jumping to conclusions?" In denial about referring to the events at Fort Hood as a TERRORIST attack? "Hesitant" about flipping over the rocks and uncovering Major Hassan's many contacts and connections are we? Attempting to keep all investigations under the control of the WH?
Anyone catch of whiff of that ACRID SMELL besides me?
(CNSNews.com) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there was "bipartisan support" for Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute four prominent terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in civilian court in New York City.
Hoyer pointed to "three very conservative observers"--former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist--who he said agreed with Holder's decision.
Hoyer also said that while he thought Abd al-Nashiri--who allegedly orchestrated the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 that killed 17 U.S. sailors--would get a fair trial at a military tribunal, Kalid Sheikh Mohammed would also get a fair trial in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal for his role in 9/11.
Hoyer cited a letter signed by Barr, Keene and Norquist that said civilian courts were the "proper forum" for terrorism trials.
The letter was issued by the anti-Guantanamo Bay Constitution Project. Hoyer read portions of the letter at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday and referred to the letter again when answering a question from CNSNews.com during the event.
The portion that Hoyer cited reads: "Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases. Civilian prisons are the safe, cost-effective and appropriate venue to hold persons convicted in federal courts. Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards."
"Likewise, the federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community," Hoyer read from the letter.
These arguments led Hoyer to conclude that there is now "bipartisan support" for the Obama administration's decision to try top terrorists in federal court in New York City.
"So, obviously there is, I would say, bipartisan support for the actions that the attorney general has determined are in the best interest of bringing these--what I think all of us would agree are heinous criminals who created heinous acts--to justice and that Keene and Norquist and Barr all agree with the attorney general and the president that this can be done consistent with the safety and security of the United States," said Hoyer.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
This made me write the Presidnet and my two Senators and one Congressman (Congress.org) saying I can't see how this will ebd wee for the citizens.
No Miranda rights, no attorney present during questioning - they have to be set free. As I suppose Himmler would be, if tried in this country in 2009.
If, somehow, they do go to prison - a U.S. federal prison, do they get to spend some quality time with the general population? Has some advantages. Or solitary in Supermax? or will their attorney arrange messages to their Jihadi buddies?
Can't possibly end well. Suprise me, O. Go ahead.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/19/2009 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Senator Graham had it right yesterday when he asked Holder "Tell me if you will Mr. Attorney General, how may other enemy combatants captured overseas on the field of battle have been brought back to the US for civil trial." The supercilious Holder looked off in the distance and pondered for a second, at which time Senator Graham retorted, "NONE Mr. Attorney General, NONE!"
This has nothing to do with "justice" but everything to do with Barry's appeasement of the far left.
#3
To the US military, for future reference. The next time you get a batch of such scumbags, only bring them halfway home. The ocean is a big place, and the sharks there are often underfed.
"1. The "tragic shooting" at Ft. Hood. What happened at Ft. Hood was a jihadist massacre a terrorist act, not a tragedy.
2. The civilian justice system has been handling terrorism cases successfully for years. No mention of Mamdouh Salim, the al-Qaeda founder who was never brought to trial for 1998 U.S. embassy bombings because he maimed a Bureau of Prisons guard in an escape attempt during which he attempted to kidnap is taxpayer-funded defense lawyers.
3. We can protect classified material because of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). It is not just classified information that is helpful to terrorist organizations. The list of people who might be identified as unindicted coconspirators that I had to turn over in 1995 was not classified, but it told al-Qaeda who was on the government's investigative radar screen. Moreover, CIPA does not shield all classified information from the terrorists just the classified information the judge decides is neither discoverable under the rules nor relevant to the trial. If it is discoverable and/or relevant, the defense gets it. And in civilian court, the terrorists can demand to represent themselves (as I explained in this column), so the government can't shield the classified information from them as it can in the military system (where it can require them to have military lawyers with security clearances in order to get access to the discovery).
In answering Senator Hatch's questions, Holder emphasized that the coconspirator list in my case was not a classified document (as I explain above). That, however, doesn't help the attorney general's argument. To the contrary, it demonstrates that there is a great deal of non-classified information that comes out in a civilian trial, and that gets made available in civilian discovery, that is not classified. This information is still incredibly helpful to the people trying to kill us.
Moreover, the Left always complains that too much information in government is classified. Implicitly, Holder is now suggesting that we classify far more information than we otherwise would to bring it under the protection of CIPA. In addition, CIPA requires that all classified information issues be litigated (including any appeals) prior to trial. If we classify everything, that's going to require a mammoth pretrial trial and appeal before the actual trial happens. And, even if you did that, CIPA cannot control what goes on in the courtroom once witnesses start answering questions and blurting out information and once defense lawyers start asking questions about classified information in order to provoke the prosecutors into objecting (defense lawyers often don't care about the answers to these questions; they ask for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to object and make the government look like it is hiding important information from the jury).
4. Classified information procedures in the Military Commissions Act, which would apply at military commissions, are "based on" the CIPA that applies in civilian trials. They may be "based on" the CIPA rules, but they are not the same as the CIPA rules. The MCA provisions (Sec. 949(j)(c)) expressly provide for (1) deletions of classified material from discovery documents made available to the accused; (2) the withholding of methods and sources of intelligence collection from the accused; and (3) the deletion of classified information from exculpatory evidence. It is true that, whether you're in civilian or military court, the executive branch gets the opportunity to propose a substitution (e.g., an unclassified summary of the information) rather than surrender the classified information. But in civilian court under CIPA, the presumption is that if classified information is relevant under the rules of evidence, the accused gets access to it. In military court under the MCA, the presumption is that classified information gets withheld, especially if it involves methods and sources of intelligence.
5. A civilian trial is no more a platform for KSM than a military commission would have been. That's ridiculous. KSM was ready to plead guilty and be executed eleven months ago. Whatever soapbox he was going to have, he'd largely already had, and while we'd have had to let him speak before sentence was imposed, that would have been the end of it. Now, he's going to get a full-blown trial after combing through the discovery for a couple of years and after putting the Bush administration under the spotlight.
Holder derided Senator Kyl for pointing this out, saying Kyl had no way of knowing what KSM's position is today. That's a specious point. We do know what his position was eleven months ago when the Obama administration could have accepted his plea and pushed for his execution. Moreover, why would that still be KSM's position today, when he now knows Holder is ready to give him the stage in New York that he's been seeking since the day he was captured?
6. In a civilian trial, America will see KSM for the coward that he is Holder: "I am not scared of KSM." Submitting a war criminal to a military commission is not an exercise in fear; it is an exercise in justice. We already know all about what kind of animal KSM is, thanks to the exrtraordinary information that has come out in the military proceedings and the CIA interrogations. You could fill a book a book with it, which the 9/11 Commission did. We don't need to bear the risks of a civilian trial either to learn more about KSM or so Mr. Holder can show how brave he is.
7. Holder expects to detain the terrorists in federal prisons under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) to ensure that they do not pose a risk to Americans. In addition to not mentioning Salim (see no. 2, above), the attorney general skipped over the inconvenient fact that his Justice Department just caved in on the SAMs in the case of terrorist Richard Reid.
8. For eight years justice has been delayed no longer, "It is past time to finally act." Holder, of course, does not mention the role of his firm and others in delaying and derailing the military commissions during their representation of America's enemies. Senator Kyl just confronted him with my contentions on that score (from this column). The attorney-general responded that I am a polemecist who says inflammatory things for talk shows, whereas he is concerned with facts. (I guess he means pertinent facts, like how he is not "scared of KSM.") I'm delighted to let people judge that one for themselves."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand. On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.
According to the Obama administration's latest count, the President's economic stimulus package has created 45 jobs in Texas' 58th congressional district and 30 jobs in the state's 91st district.
Special Inspector General for TARP (aka "SIG TARP") Neil Barofsky said something we've all known for a while: the government gave away the farm when AIG failed.
Since President Obama took office, the American people have been subjected to an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to convince them that the $787 billion stimulus bill is working. Month after month, as unemployment continues to rise, the administration has sent its spinmeisters out to trumpet an altogether dubious number of jobs "created or saved."
What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.
(CNSNews.com) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there was "bipartisan support" for Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute four prominent terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in civilian court in New York City.
