Lip Dub of the Day: Newsweek published an article a while back which stated that Grand Rapids, Michigan, is high up on the list of America’s “Dying Cities.” So Grand Rapids responded by getting 5,000 residents together to perform an elaborate lip dub of Don McLean’s “American Pie.” Obviously. Newsweek subsequently offered Grand Rapids a contrite rejoinder , saying the article was picked up as part… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Daily What Discovery Date : 27/05/2011 09:37 Number of articles : 5
Continue reading …
Initial findings from black box recorder reveal flight 447 fell 10,000ft per minute after Airbus jet hit heavy Atlantic storm An Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic claiming 228 lives dropped 38,000 feet (11,600 metres) in three and a half minutes before slamming belly first into the ocean, according to investigators. French air accident experts published a chilling chronology of events that showed the three Air France pilots battling to regain control on flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in a heavy thunderstorm on the morning of 1 June 2009. Air France acknowledged that the disaster was triggered by faulty speed sensors, with one of the pilots exclaiming “we have no valid indications” as the Airbus A330 fell at 10,000ft a minute. Air safety specialists have been baffled by the loss of AF447, but the causes have become clearer since its black boxes were discovered two-and-a-half miles underwater this month. According to the BEA, the French air accident investigation agency, one of the pilots called the cabin crew two hours and six minutes into the flight to tell them: “In two minutes we should enter an area where it’ll move about a bit more than at the moment, you should watch out.” Just over eight minutes later everyone on board was dead following a descent that, according to experts, none of the passengers would have noticed. “The aeroplane probably felt more or less under control. The passengers probably would have felt their ears popping as it descended but the plane was held in a consistent pattern until it hit the sea,” said Guy Gratton of Brunel University and a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society. The report states that the experienced captain, Marc Dubois, 58, was resting when the Airbus began encountering difficulties, but had been present at a briefing with co-pilots David Robert, 37, and Pierre-Cedric Bonin, 32, shortly beforehand, when they discussed the turbulence ahead. The plane was flying towards a large storm system, a common obstacle on that route. The pilot flying the plane at the time, who was not identified by the BEA, said: “The little bit of turbulence that you just saw […] we should find the same ahead.” Two hours and 10 minutes into the flight, the computers controlling the flight switched off the autopilot after becoming confused by conflicting speed readings, caused by the icing up of pitot tubes monitoring the plane’s velocity. “There was an inconsistency between the speeds displayed on the left side and the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS). This lasted for less than one minute,” the BEA document said. Unable to calculate speed because monitors were showing an impossible drop from 275 knots to 60 knots, one of the pilots appeared to make a fatal assumption that the plane was flying too fast and was in danger of breaching “coffin corner”: the narrow aerodynamic envelope that keeps a plane flying at cruise altitude. JU the 37-year-old co-pilot, Robert, then suggested the plane perform a slight turn to the left, which resulted in an increase in turbulence. Two minutes later the plane’s serious difficulties became clear as the report describes a flight deck that would have sounded with scores of warning signals as AF447, buffeted by stormclouds and confused by contradictory speed readings, went out of control. The autopilot disengaged and the pilot took over the controls, uIn the middle of the night over the Atlantic and Buffeted by turbulence, he tried to lift up the plane’s nose, in an apparent attempt to slow it down. The A330′s stall warning sounded twice, signalling the aerodynamics were not generating enough lift and that AF447 was in danger of losing control, although its twin engines were working normally. Experts said the pilot was receiving erroneous speed readings although one aviation source said he appeared to contravene standard procedure for a stall which is to pitch the nose down and increase engine thrust. “You cannot call it pilot error because it may have been caused by reactions to data that was wrong,” said Chris Yates, an aviation industry consultant. At this point the co-pilot was heard saying “we’ve lost the speeds” and “alternate law”, which signals the autopilot has been disengaged. Seconds later the co-pilot decided to seek the help of Dubois and “tried several times to call the captain back” as another stall warning was issued. To add to the confusion, the speed readings returned to normal but the pilot kept the plane in a nose-up position, slowing it down and keeping the plane in a position where it was not generating enough lift. By the time the Dubois appeared, just over a minute later, and as the plane began its fatal descent, another stall warning had been issued. With the plane now rocking and falling at 10,000ft a minute, the pilot acknowledged the terrifying speed of the descent, saying “we’re going to arrive at level 100″, meaning 10,000ft. At that point, just over a minute before the recordings stopped, the control sticks were used simultaneously, indicating the battle to control the plane had reached a frantic pitch. The pilot handed control to an unnamed colleague, presumed to be Dubois. By now the “angle of attack”, a critical indication of airflow over the wings, was at more than 35 degrees – nearly triple the outer limits for safe flight. The BEA said the plane remained stalled throughout its three-and-a-half-minute descent, with the last recorded measurement showing the plane plummeting at 10,912ft per minute. Only 51 bodies were found in the immediate aftermath. Among the dead were five Britons and three young Irish doctors. Air France said on Fridaythe investigators should be allowed to get on with their inquiry and said its thoughts were with the families of the victims. In a statement the airline said: “It appears that the crew followed the evolving weather conditions and had changed their route, that the failure of the speed sensors is the initial event that caused the automatic pilot to fail and a loss of the associated flying tools, that the aircraft stalled at high altitude. “It also appears that the commander on board quickly interrupted his rest to return to the cockpit. The crew fought right to the end to control the plane which is proof of their professionalism and Air France would like to pay its respects to them.” France Air transport Airbus Airline industry Europe Brazil Dan Milmo Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Baby P ‘scapegoat’ in line for £500,000 payout as judges criticise former minister Sharon Shoesmith has said it was “justice, not money” that motivated her during a two-year legal challenge over her controversial sacking in the wake of the Baby Peter tragedy. The former Haringey director of children’s services is potentially in line for compensation of more than £500,000 after the appeal court ruled on Friday that her dismissal by the former children’s secretary Ed Balls was “intrinsically unfair and unlawful”. In an interview with the Guardian , she said she was still angry at her treatment at the hands of Balls and the tabloid media, and blamed him for triggering a crisis in child protection. “I’m still staggered by how irresponsible the secretary of state was. He almost demonstrated his lack of knowledge and understanding of children’s social care, loud and clear.” Although much attention will be paid to the compensation awarded to her, Shoesmith said this was never what drove her on. “I was never in it for the money. People will want to put noughts on it and all the rest of it but I was never in it for the money. I never discussed money. I wanted to win the case, I wanted the truth to be told.” The court was severely critical of Balls’s handling of the case, and sent out a clear message that politicians could not ignore “elementary fairness” when dealing with public servants at the centre of controversy, even when they felt they were acting legitimately in the public interest. Balls, now shadow chancellor, said he disagreed with the ruling and believed he had followed the “right and responsible course of action” in removing Shoesmith. The current government also said it would appeal against the ruling in a case which has become a battle between those who argue for greater public accountability and those who feel that making officials scapegoats is counter-productive and unfair. David Cameron said the government would take the Shoesmith case to the supreme court because ministers want to uphold the principle that they – and not the courts, through judicial review – should be responsible for their decisions. “It does seem to me important that governments are able to manage their organisations and provide accountability when things go wrong,” the prime minister said at the G8 summit in Deauville. The Labour MP Diane Abbott also joined the criticism in a piece for guardian.co.uk : “Shoesmith appears to believe that feeling sorry is enough. And, in her triumphalism, she has overlooked the fact the court has upheld the damning Ofsted report that formed the basis of her sacking. “I believe that it is no coincidence that the Victoria Climbié tragedy was followed within a very few years by the Baby P tragedy and in the very same local authority. As long as six-figure-salary social services bosses feel that they will suffer no penalty when these tragedies happen on their watch, these tragedies will continue to recur.” Speaking at the court after the judgment, Shoesmith said: “I am relieved to have won my appeal and for the recognition that I was treated unfairly and unlawfully. Having spent a lifetime protecting, caring and educating children, my sorrow about the death of Peter Connelly in Haringey when I was director is something which will stay with me for the rest of my life. But as the judges have said, making a ‘public sacrifice’ of an individual will not prevent further tragedies.” The ruling, by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuburger, Lord Justice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burton, said the issue of compensation should be referred back to the high court. But in effect it reinstates Shoesmith, who earned £133,000 a year, as an employee of Haringey council, liable for back pay and pension contributions dating back to her dismissal in December 2008. Compensation and legal costs in the two-year case could cost the council and the government more than £1m, although ministers have said they will seek approval from the supreme court to appeal. Although the ruling said compensation was a matter for Shoesmith and the council, it added that “it would be entirely appropriate for Haringey to seek a voluntary contribution from the secretary for state whose unlawful directions gave rise to the problems”. Kay said he felt Shoesmith had been made a “public sacrifice” by politicians to divert public and press attention, and noted that social workers and health workers were “particularly vulnerable to such treatment”. He added: “This is not to say that I consider Ms Shoesmith to be blameless or that I have a view as to the extent of her or anyone else’s blameworthiness. That is not the business of this court. However, it is our task to adjudicate upon the application and fairness of procedures adopted by public authorities when legitimate causes for concern arise, as they plainly did in this case. … Whatever her shortcomings may have been (and, I repeat, I cannot say), she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated.” Cameron said he supported an appeal against the ruling: “We all remember the absolutely appalling case of Baby P and how, as a country, we’ve got to do right and make sure we are accountable for the terrible mistakes and errors that were made. Obviously, we can’t bring Baby P back and we have to make sure justice is done.” Haringey also came in for criticism over its sacking of Shoesmith less than three weeks after her removal by Balls. The judges said that although Balls’s action had put the council “in a very difficult position” there was no urgent reason to have rushed to a decision to terminate her employment, a process the judges said was “tainted by unfairness”. Balls said: “My actions on receiving that report were, at all times, guided by detailed advice from department experts and lawyers on the proper and fair way to proceed. It was my responsibility, as secretary of state, and on the basis of that independent report, to do what was necessary to protect the interests of children in Haringey and protect wider public confidence in child protection. That is why I acted as I did.” He added: “Having thought long and hard about this decision over the last two years – and having read the appeal court judgement today – I know that faced with the same circumstances I would make the same decisions again.” Shoesmith failed in her attempt to quash the findings of an Ofsted report commissioned by Balls into safeguarding in Haringey, which was critical of her department. Ofsted chief inspector Christine Gilbert welcomed the ruling, saying: “I am pleased that Ofsted has comprehensively won this case and that the original judicial review judgement in our favour has been upheld in every aspect on appeal.” Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: “This ruling will give a much-needed boost to social workers up and down the country who protect daily thousands of vulnerable children and adults. It should serve as a lesson that whipping up a campaign of vilification and hatred will never save a single child’s life.” Peter Connelly, known as Baby P during initial investigations into his death, was on Haringey’s child protection register when he died violently at the hands of his mother, Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker, and Barker’s brother Jason Owen in August 2007. After his killers were convicted in November 2008, a media and political furore broke out over why safeguarding agencies had failed to spot that Peter was in danger. Balls announced at a live televised press conference on 1 December 2008 that he had used special powers to remove Shoesmith after studying the findings of an Ofsted report which reported management failings in her department. Balls declared that Shoesmith was “not fit for office”. But it turned out Shoesmith had not been given a chance to discuss or respond to the report before it was published, in contravention of procedures. She was unaware of Balls’s plans to remove her, and learned of her dismissal while watching the press conference live on TV. During a judicial review hearing brought by Shoesmith last year, Balls defended his actions on the grounds that the political circumstances meant he had to act quickly and decisively, and that Shoesmith as the accountable officer in Haringey should bear the responsibility for the failures. Even had Shoesmith been given a chance to respond it would not have changed his decision that she should go. But the appeal court said that simply because Shoesmith, as director of children’s services (DCS), was ultimately accountable for child protection matters in her borough, it did not mean that either the secretary of state or Haringey could ignore due process, regardless of the public and media outcry. In his ruling, Kay writes: “The fact that the 2004 act, in creating the singular post of DCS, identified as a matter of policy one individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability in relation to children’s services does not mean that that person is to be denied the protections that have long been accorded to responsible and accountable office-holders. Nor does the fact that the secretary of state is not the employer of a DCS relieve him of the obligation to be fair.” He adds: “I find it a deeply unattractive proposition that the mere juxtaposition of a state of affairs and a person who is ‘accountable’ should mean that there is nothing that that person might say which could conceivably explain, excuse or mitigate her predicament. ‘Accountability’ is not synonymous with ‘Heads must roll’.” Philip Henson, head of employment at City law firm Bargate Murray, said: “Ms Shoesmith’s case has a wider lesson for all employers of the need to ensure that they carry out a fair investigation and procedure, affording staff the opportunity to put their case forward, rather than pandering to public and media pressure and making a kneejerk decision to fire members of staff. “Although the court of appeal judges did not make a ruling on compensation, instead referring the case back to the high court for ‘further consideration’, Ms Shoesmith is likely to receive compensation approaching, or hitting, the £1m mark, taking into consideration reinstatement of her pension rights.” Baby P Child protection Ed Balls Patrick Butler Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Actor Jeff Conaway, who starred in TV’s “Taxi” and the movie musical “Grease,” has died. (May 27)
Continue reading …
Tami Roman, the ex-wife of former NBA player Kenny Anderson, talks about the third season of VH1′s top-rated show ‘Basketball Wives.’ (May 27)
Continue reading …This judge is either ignorant or just intentionally extended the Citizens United decision to allow corporations to contribute directly to candidates . If this decision were to stand, it would be the end of our democracy, and I am not exaggerating even a little bit. A judge has ruled that the campaign-finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision last year in his analysis. In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns. Cacheris says that under the Citizens United decision, corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute to campaigns. The ruling from the federal judge in Virginia is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to corporate spending on campaigning by independent groups, like ads run by third parties to favor one side, not to direct contributions to the candidates themselves. Cacheris noted in his ruling that only one other court has addressed the issue in the wake of Citizens United. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled the other way, allowing a state ban on corporate contributions to stand. The reason this is so devastating (and the reason corporations are barred from direct contributions), is because corporate entities place a barrier between individual owners and disclosure. Forget AT&T. Imagine the Kochtopus tentacles that could spread out and envelop this entire country. Incorporate in New Jersey, where no disclosure of actual corporate owners is required, and reach into every local, state, and national campaign in the country to fund candidates. Disclosure will be meaningless, because these entities will be unknown and essentially created for the purpose of receiving funds and transmitting them to candidates of choice. Judge Cacheris, a Reagan appointee, framed his decision [PDF] using Citizens United logic, expanding it: The Supreme Court’s logic was that because Buckley found that independent contributions by human beings do not corrupt, and because Bellotti held that “the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity,” 130 S. Ct. at 903, corporations cannot be banned from making the same independent expenditures as individuals. 130 S. Ct. at 899-903. That logic is inescapable here. If human beings can make direct campaign contributions within FECA’s limits without risking quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and if, in Citizens United’s interpretation of Bellotti, corporations and human beings are entitled to equal political speech rights, then corporations must also be able to contribute within FECA’s limits. There is another ruling in Minnesota which ruled opposite, so now there are conflicting decisions, meaning this will likely head to the US Supreme Court, and I think we could all guess where they’d take it on a 5-4 decision. Sigh. [h/t Think Progress ]
Continue reading …
It is turning out to be a bad season for high-profile and elusive fugitives. From Pakistan to Serbia, the world’s most wanted men are falling like dominoes. Ratimir (“Ratko”) Mladic’s life is an especially macabre illustration of the turbulent twentieth-century history of the country formerly known as Yugoslavia. Indeed, his life eerily shadows the re-birth of Yugoslavia (literally, “the land of the southern Slavs”) in 1945 from the devastation and violence of World War II, the four ensuing decades of relative prosperity and apparent stability in the multinational, federal and single-party state created by the Yugoslav communist movement
Continue reading …‘The Sinner’s Grand Tour’: 10 Sexy Places The Guidebooks Won’t Tell You About (PHOTOS)
May 27, 2011 No Comment
I’ve never been much interested in going to the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the Colosseum, or any of the standard tourist draws in Europe. When I travel, I like to track down some of the more specialized attractions – the ones that have always lured history’s outsiders, the debauched aristocrats, wild monks and free-spirited noblewomen who populate the continent’s secret past. Luckily, while researching “The Sinner’s Grand Tour” (Broadway, May 2011), I discovered that Europe is still littered with underground historical sites. Seeking out these forgotten boudoirs, relics and dungeons provides travelers with an entirely fresh view of the most over-trodden destinations. Let your imagination run riot!
Continue reading …
Andrew Sullivan's vendetta against Sarah Palin reached a new milestone on Friday after he insinuated that the former Alaska governor was somehow akin to Adolf Hitler. Sullivan referenced Leni Riefenstahl's infamous pro-Nazi movie after quoting a former Palin spokeswoman on what he labeled “the upcoming propaganda movie, “Triumph Of The Will” “The Undefeated.” The writer, who is a top purveyor of the “Trig Truther” theory about the Republican's youngest son, made the latest attack on his blog on The Daily Beast as part of a “quote for the day” item. Sullivan reproduced Meg Stapleton's laudatory words about the Palin documentary, which will soon be released in Iowa, and then added his beyond snarky one-liner: “If someone gives it a chance and watches it, watches the film, I think they will be surprised at the caricature that’s been drawn and the contrast to reality. I just think every aspect of it is so powerful, you cannot walk away from this film looking at Sarah Palin the same way. You just can’t,” – Meg Stapleton , on the upcoming propaganda movie, “Triumph Of The Will” “The Undefeated.” Only months earlier, during a November 7, 2010 interview with BBC Radio 4 , the blogger claimed that “Sarah Palin represents an America this is absolutely, definitionally white , that's very much rural America.” Sullivan thus leapfrogs over the white supremacist-hinting label/reference as an attack against the former vice presidential candidate, and goes straight to smearing her as a fascist. [H/t: Melissa Clouthier ; VerumSerum blog ]
Continue reading …The chairwoman of the DNC—who slammed Republican 2012 hopefuls for putting the US auto industry at risk by favoring foreign automakers—herself owns a foreign car, the Hill reports. “If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they…
Continue reading …