Home » Archives by category » News (Page 925)
High School Football Brawl Prompts Suspensions

Members of two Pennsylvania high school football teams have been suspended after a brawl prompted officials to end the game early.(Sept. 20)

Continue reading …
Matching Business Booming in Ukraine

The business of matching Ukrainian and Russian women to foreign men is booming _ in person and online _ feminist opposition notwithstanding. (20 September 2011)

Continue reading …

Democrats were of course relieved by Obama’s proposed deficit reduction plan, since they were concerned about him taking down the party with cuts to Medicare and Social Security. But they know it’s only an opening gambit, one that’s unlikely to be accepted by House Republicans — and the real power now shifts to the Super Committee. The president, after all, is only promising to veto their agreement if they decide to cut Medicare without raising taxes on the wealthy . That’s an opening you could drive a Mack truck through, and it’s difficult to trust the man who played the public option shell game: Even those who have traditionally urged moderation from Democratic politicians were complimentary about — if not a touch emboldened by — the president’s new tone. “It was an effective opening bid,” said Matt Bennett, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs at the centrist-Democratic think tank Third Way. “He definitely planted a flag in the ground. He definitely communicated to his base and it was an opening bid in what is going to be a long negotiation.” The tone of an opening bid may, of course, change after a period of high-stakes negotiations. And while Bennett may be willing to stomach the compromise that will inevitably be struck, others were more nervous. The president’s initial proposal, for example, leaves Social Security alone while calling for $240 billion in Medicare savings, including means-testing for additional areas of the program. Dean qualified such reforms as “not at all disabling,” but other liberals saw a window opened. “We don’t feel like we can rest,” said Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works. “But from where we started … this is a major improvement. We want to push him a little bit further so he really understands that Social Security is a pension plan and that it is not simply a negotiating tactic.” Clouding the response to Obama’s debt reduction plan is the recollection that not too long ago, he offered Boehner a deal that would have changed Social Security’s payment structure while raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Senior administration officials explained that those provisions weren’t included in the current proposal because this plan reflects “his vision, and not a legislative compromise being crafted to garner some number of votes in the House and the Senate.” But implicit in that statement is the recognition that Obama would be willing to make the same deal again, provided it could move a bill through Congress. And yet, the political landscape now is drastically different than the one that existed during the peak of the debt ceiling negotiations. And it seems likely to change even further. Mike Lux, a progressive strategist who has been critical of the administration in the past (despite working for the president during his transition to the White House) argued that progressive groups have and continue to create “a magnetic pole … that Obama is starting to move to.” As the election nears, Lux and others argue, political realities will only further compel the president to both campaign on raising tax rates on very wealthy Americans and speak out against deep cuts to popular entitlement programs.

Continue reading …
Michael Boley Touchdown Celebration: Giants Player Hits Man In Face With The Ball (VIDEO)

New York Giants outside linebacker Michael Boley knew exactly what to do when Sam Bradford’s lateral pass to Cadillac Williams dropped to the ground in the second quarter. While Cadillac remained in neutral as the ball rolled around, the Giants’ veteran chased it down and scooped it up. When Boley looked up there was nothing between him and the end zone but 60 yards of greenery. Boley rolled down the sideline all that way to put the Giants up 14-6. Once he arrived in the end zone there was no longer acres of free space in front of Boley, but he didn’t seem to register that in his exuberance. In celebration of his big play, Boley fired the ball directly into the face of man standing just beyond the end zone. Despite this person standing just feet from Boley, the defender seemed not to notice him even after he pegged him in the head. We have no more information on this highlight.

Continue reading …
NBC’s Curry Uses White House Talking Points to Discredit Suskind Book

Working hard to run defense for the Obama administration on Tuesday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry interrogated journalist Ron Suskind on his new book critical of the White House and announced she wanted to go through go through unflattering parts of the book “one by one,” while using Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney-approved talking points to discredit it. Curry began the interview with Suskind, author of “Confidence Men,” by touting White House claims that the Pulitzer Prize winner plagiarized some background information in the book from Wikipedia: “Did you or did you not lift that passage from Wikipedia?…How do you account it for being so similar?” In her final question to Suskind, Curry was equally petty, citing a handful of minor typographical errors as evidence of the entire book not being credible: …you make some mistakes – CNBC reporter Erin Burnett, you called her Erin Burkett, you say the unemployment in June 2009 was 8%, in fact it was 9.5%. You say that the Dow dropped 378 on February 10th, 2009, in fact it dropped 382 points on that date. So do you agree – Jay Carney makes this point – do you agree with him? That if you cannot get these details right, then the broader analysis that you subscribe to, that you put forth in this book, has got to be judged in accordance with that, has got to be questioned. There are inaccuracies in your book. Of course, Curry has had her own trouble with accurate details . Throughout the segment, Curry tried to cast doubt on direct quotes from administration officials: > …you report that the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner actually ignored the President's order to create a plan to do something about Citigroup….Geithner said that these reports in your book, quote, “bear no resemblance to the reality.” Did Geithner ignore the President or didn't he? > White House communications director Dan Feiber told us at NBC News that these comments that I just attributed to talked about with Timothy Geithner are absolutely 100% not true. So they are saying that they're not true. > In response to your portrayal in your book, Larry Summers has said, “The hearsay attributed to me is a combination of fiction, distortion, and words taken out of context”….Did Summers believe that the President was in over his head or didn't he? > …you quote Christina Roehmer, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, as saying, “I felt like a piece of meat,” when she was excluded from a meeting. And also you quote former White House communications director Anita Dunn, quoting her calling the White House, quote, “a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” Now both of these women have subsequently denied making these comments. How do you – how do you respond to that? Every single question Curry directed at Suskind was a refutation of his book. At no time did she accept any of part of it as factual or legitimate criticism of the Obama White House. Here is a full transcript of the September 20 interview: 7:06AM ET ANN CURRY: Well, Ron Suskind is now joining us to talk about his new book, it's called “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, And the Education of a President.” Mr. Suskind, good morning. Let's begin right there, did you or did you not lift that passage from Wikipedia? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: "Confidence Men"; Suskind Defends Book's Claims About President] RON SUSKIND: Of course not, of course not. If you're talking- CURRY: How do you account it for being so similar? SUSKIND: Well, if you're going to talk about Fannie Mae in 1968, you've got to use a combination of a certain number of words, they're not even the same in the two sentences, it's absurd. I mean, the White House should be doing something better than wiki searches on a 500-page book. After a week, that's all they came up with. CURRY: Well, they've actually come up with more. So let me – let's get to it one by one because we do have some time here, not a lot of time. SUSKIND: Right, sure, not a problem. CURRY: You write that the President tried to navigate the economic crisis, as he was trying to do this, you write that, quote, “His authority was systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers.” For example, you report that the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner actually ignored the President's order to create a plan to do something about Citigroup. And so, what I'm wondering is, just yesterday, Geithner said that these reports in your book, quote, “bear no resemblance to the reality.” Did Geithner ignore the President or didn't he? SUSKIND: Geithner clearly, clearly slow-walked the President, meaning that he did not move as the President hoped he would, some would say he ignored the President. This is not just reflected in Tim Geithner's conversation with me because he responded to that, it's all in the book, the response, but also memos, internal memos in the White House from Pete Rouse, which talk about how Treasury slow-walked the President. They didn't like what the President was deciding, they simply ignored it, they buried it bureaucratically. And the President responds to that in our interview. He doesn't disagree with that, he says it was hard, these were difficult decisions, and yes, the bureaucracy didn't do what I wanted them to do. The fact is, Ann, almost everything in the book is responded to in the book. Toward the end, everybody was asked about these comments and they respond in the book. CURRY: Well, let's talk some more about the comments. But you know, the White House communications director Dan Feiber told us at NBC News that these comments that I just attributed to talked about with Timothy Geithner are absolutely 100% not true. So they are saying that they're not true. SUSKIND: He is disagreeing with Tim Geithner's rendering in “Confidence Men.” We talked about 35 minutes through this whole issue of Citi. Everyone was essentially quoted and sourced on the Citibank issue. I think the real issue is whether the White House will respond to whether the President is still getting gamed by his advisers or not. The evidence is that he's not. And in our interview, me and the President, he said, “Look, I've grown into this office.” It took a while, he was a new president with very little experience. He came in, in a crisis, but I think the whole point of the book is the evolution of Barack Obama to now and the President is quite forceful. In a way saying, 'I'm the president, people hoped I would be,' and that is – that's part of what the book says. CURRY: Well the book also quotes this comment by Pete Orszag, we just heard about it in Chuck Todd's report, saying that Larry Summers, the former director of the National Economic Council, often relitigated the President's decisions and said at one point, “We're home alone, there's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.” In response to your portrayal in your book, Larry Summers has said, “The hearsay attributed to me is a combination of fiction, distortion, and words taken out of context. I have always believed that the President has led this country with determined, steady and practical leadership in the economic area.” Did Summers believe that the President was in over his head or didn't he? SUSKIND: It seems that he did. And it seems from the comments from Orszag and others, certainly at the start in the first year in 2009 into early 2010, these sorts of things were part of the prevailing conversation in the White House. When I asked Larry Summers, certainly he was one of the sources for the book, about that quote, I said, 'Look, what did you mean when you said that?' He offers a comment in “Confidence Men” which was, I think, more seasoned and less political than that, and he says, “We were overwhelmed, we had five times as many problems, we didn't have five times as many people.” CURRY: Are you saying he acknowledged that he made this comment to Pete Orszag? Are you saying- SUSKIND: In the- CURRY: To you afterwards, as you spoke to him about it? SUSKIND: He said to me, after we talked, I said, 'What did you say? what did you mean?' He said, “Look I will say this, we had too many things going on and we didn't have enough people and we were overwhelmed.” CURRY: Yeah, but that's not what you're saying here. In this quote, he's questioning if, in fact he said this, he's questioning whether the President was in over his head. Did he step back from that or did he say that's exactly what he was feeling at the time? SUSKIND: In the book, he first said, “I never said it.” And then I said, 'Look, a lot of people heard you say it.' He said, “Okay, here's what I meant. When I said such a thing, this is what I meant.” And that's in the book. I think it's important to note, Ann, that there was enormous cooperation from the White House and they knew virtually everything in this book before it came out and had a chance to respond. CURRY: They say that they cooperated with you because they were concerned about the direction you were taking and they wanted to make sure that you got it right. But let's talk about this one issue, because I want to make sure we get to it. This issue that is perhaps as sensitive as all the things we've said before, is this idea that the White House was a boy's club. And in one story you quote Christina Roehmer, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, as saying, “I felt like a piece of meat,” when she was excluded from a meeting. And also you quote former White House communications director Anita Dunn, quoting her calling the White House, quote, “a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” Now both of these women have subsequently denied making these comments. How do you – how do you respond to that? SUSKIND: Everyone is under a great deal of pressure, it's a political season. The fact of the matter is, all of them said everything, we have extensive notes and tapes for this book. An the fact is, with Anita Dunn, as with most of the other subjects, they were told what would be said next to them, what they said in the book. With Anita, The Washington Post this morning confirms the quote. I had to do something that I've never done before but I said it's a special occasion, which is I let The Washington Post listen to the tape. They're like, 'There it is, clear as a bell.' CURRY: Well, let me just get to that on what's on tape. Because I understand what's on tape is the fact that she said “If it weren't for the President, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace.” That's not quite the same as saying that it's a hostile work environment. She saying if it wasn't for the President it would be a hostile work environment. Did you take liberties with that quote? SUSKIND: Oh, absolutely not. In fact, what I did, as I did with many subjects, I called Anita back at the end and said, 'Look, here is what's going next to your name in the book.' She said, 'Well, you know, can we say looking back rather than in present tense?' We talked about that and ultimately the quote is broken down in terms of the core of the quote that she agreed with. And interestingly, you know, the comments about the President is throughout the book. It's shown that people felt good about the President. Part of why the White House actually pushed me to write about this women's issue in the workplace is they felt the President solved this issue and in large measure the book says the President stepped up here. A key core issue of the book is the President's growth as a boss, as a manager. He had very little experience, he sat all of the sudden atop the most complex managerial organism on the planet. And that's the key to his evolution, he learned how to be the president, how to be the boss. This is a stumbling block along the way. CURRY: I've got to ask you one final question. You know, we did some looking through your book and you do call in your book – you make some mistakes – CNBC reporter Erin Burnett, you called her Erin Burkett, you say the unemployment in June 2009 was 8%, in fact it was 9.5%. You say that the Dow dropped 378 on February 10th, 2009, in fact it dropped 382 points on that date. So do you agree – Jay Carney makes this point – do you agree with him? That if you cannot get these details right, then the broader analysis that you subscribe to, that you put forth in this book, has got to be judged in accordance with that, has got to be questioned. There are inaccuracies in your book. SUSKIND: This is a 500-page book. The fact of the matter is, everything in this book is solid as a brick and we have gone through every little thing that they have found, much of it was changed early, the book was pushed through with great effort, and the fact is, is that this book, like all the books I've written, is densely sourced and the analysis is picture perfect. Everyone in the White House was confronted with this early, they responded in the book, and this is really a portrait, a first portrait of this White House and this president. When this happens, when the curtain is pulled back, they often respond vigorously, they are, and I think that's testimony to the fact that this is really – this is really who they are. CURRY: Well it's touched a nerve, it's not the last we're going to hear about it. Ron Suskind, thank you so much. The book is “The Confidence Men.”

Continue reading …

When the Westboro Baptist Church decided to protest the Foo Fighters concert in Kansas City on the grounds that their music promoted fornication and homosexuality, the band came up with a counter-protest of their own. The musicians—dressed in hillbilly costumes from a recent promo video—performed their song “Keep…

Continue reading …
The Engadget Show is live tonight, with Jonathan Coulton, Maker Faire, Keepon, and more!

We’re getting closer! We’re shooting tonight at 6PM ET, and if you’re lucky enough to be in NYC we have a few tickets left over. If you’d like to attend, e-mail jon dot turi at engadget dot com including your full name and confirmation that you can show up tonight. Do it quick enough and we’ll save you a seat. If, however, you’re not lucky enough to join in on the fun in person in NYC, you can follow from home right here . We have an interview with musician / internet sensation Jonathan Coulton , who will be discussing his viral rise to the top of the guitar-playing YouTube masses and treating us to a familiar song or two. We’ll also be traveling to Maker Faire in NYC to take a look at robots, racing turtle shells, fire breathing iron dragons, and a lot of 3D printers. And Make:Live co-hosts Matt Richardson and Becky Stern will be joining us live in the studio to discuss some of their favorite DIY projects. Then we’ll be paid a visit by the creators of the Keepon, to discuss the origins of their adorable little dancing ‘bot. Tim will take a trip through the mean streets of New York City on the Grace One electric bike and Brian will pop by Frog’s Manhattan location to take a look at the company’s latest industry-defining designs. Subscribe to the Show: [ iTunes ] Subscribe to the Show directly in iTunes (M4V). [ Zune ] Subscribe to the Show directly in the Zune Marketplace (M4V). [ RSS M4V ] Add the Engadget Show feed (M4V) to your RSS aggregator and have it delivered automatically. The Engadget Show is live tonight, with Jonathan Coulton, Maker Faire, Keepon, and more! originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:09:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …

John Travolta’s collection of vintage cars, while still impressive, is a little smaller than it was a few days ago. A thief made off with the actor’s 1970 Mercedes Benz 280-SL after he left it on a residential street in Santa Monica for 10 minutes while visiting a Jaguar dealership,…

Continue reading …

Don T Ask Don T Tell

No Comment
Don T Ask Don T Tell

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy ends – 5:30 am EXCLUSIVE Preview : ‘The Strange History of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (VIDEO) Webcast: Chaz Bono on Dancing with the Stars; DADT Repealed Panicnfreakout says: RT @ whitehouse As of 12:01 am, the repeal of the discriminatory law known as ‘ Don ’ t Ask , Don ’ t Tell ’ finally & formally takes effect. #DADT

Continue reading …
Legal aid reforms minister has £250,000 invested in firms with insurance interests

Jonathan Djanogly is piloting controversial proposals which could net insurance industry £1bn a year Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister piloting controversial plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts, which could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of £1bn a year, has stockmarket investments worth at least £250,000 in companies with insurance arms. He is also weighing up proposals which may have a profound effect on his brother-in-law’s business which advertises compensation claims for accidents. Labour wrote to the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, on Monday night to demand an investigation following the Guardian’s inquiry. Djanogly, a Conservative MP the legal services minister, is pushing a bill through parliament which will attempt to slash the budget for legal aid by £350m as well as shifting part of the costs of bringing cases on a “no-win, no-fee” basis from losing defendants to winning claimants. This reduces the costs liabilities of companies and their insurers if they unsuccessfully defend a claim as it will force claimants to pay out of any awarded damages their lawyers’ success fees and insurance policies that cover court costs. Last week the Guardian revealed that the minister could personally profit from the changes. In the past three years Djanogly has been entitled to an average annual payout of £41,000 from being a “minority partner” in his family’s firm of insurance underwriters, The Djanogly Family LLP. The 46-year-old, considered to be one of the 10 richest MPs, is heir to a £300m family fortune and has amassed a sizeable personal stake in the insurance industry. In the most recent declaration of MPs interests he continues to hold shareholdings of worth at least £195,000 in three banks with insurance arms – Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds TSB. He also has at least another £65,000 in Amlin insurance stock. Djanogly also declares in the ministerial register of interests that his “brother-in-law owns ‘Going Legal Ltd’ and ‘Legal Link Introductory Services Ltd’”. Both are claims management companies, which advertise “no-win, no-fee” compensation claims for accidents and charge a referral fee for passing on potential cases to lawyers and insurance firms. According to company accounts, Ben Silk, Djanogly’s brother in law, saw a combined profit from the two firms last year of £130,000. Going Legal, according to its website, deals with employment cases and Legal Link asks: “Suffer an injury caused by someone else?” on its homepage. Both offer 0800 telephone numbers for people to call. The regulation of the claims management industry is part of Djanogly’s ministerial duties. Last week, after pressure from former Labour justice secretary Jack Straw, he announced that “rising insurance costs will be tackled by a ban on referral fees” while admitting there was “no universally recognised definition of ‘referral fees’.” Labour’s justice spokesman, Andy Slaughter, has written to cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell calling for an investigation into Djanogly. Slaughter points out a slew of conflict of interests claims given that the minister has neither resigned or removed himself from discussions from which he could personally profit. The letter argues that the minister’s assertion that his financial interests are in “blind trust/blind management arrangement” does not bear scrutiny as the “minister’s holdings are concentrated into financial services companies with exposure to the insurance market and The Djanogly Family LLP is explicitly set up to act in the insurance and reinsurance market”. Slaughter argues that as Djanogly “did not resign from the LLP and dispose of his interests (he has a) fiduciary duty to promote the interests of The Djanogly Family LLP”. This, says Slaughter, is in conflict with “his duty as a minister to promote the public interest”. Slaughter says “his shareholdings, weighted towards financial services companies and those with insurance interests, are incompatible” with being a minister adding that Djanogly “holds stocks in Lloyds and Tesco, both of which responded to consultation” backing the Jackson changes. The Labour MP adds that “given the minister’s role as regulator of claims management companies and his brother-in-law’s ownership of two claims management companies, it is reasonable to perceive a conflict of interest”. “Given the sums of money involved, the multiple ways in which the minister would benefit from this legislation, this would appear to be a severe breach of the code.” Slaughter says that if the MoJ’s permanent secretary, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, was informed of these arrangements it calls into question his judgment. In some cases when particularly complicated issues surrounding a minister’s investments prove too difficult for his or her own department to resolve the matter is sent to Downing Street. Slaughter notes: “In the event the prime minister was consulted, as per clause 7.9 of the Code, this poses serious questions as to the judgment of the prime minister.” The ministerial code states that “ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests”. It advises ministers to dispose of interests or recuse themselves from discussions and policy if there could be even a perception of a “conflict of interest”. The Cabinet Office said it had received the letter from Labour’s justice team. A spokesman for Djanogly said: “As Mr Djanogly made clear on Friday, his financial interests are a matter of public record, in declarations made both as a minister and as an MP. The government’s reforms to the no-win, no-fee system are based on an independent review by Sir Rupert Jackson.” Djanogly’s Liberal Democrat colleague at the Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, described the Guardian story as an “example of shoddy journalism” at the party fringe on Tuesday in Birmingham saying there was “no breach of the ministerial code”. Djanogly told Radio 4 earlier this year his reforms, based on a report by Lord Justice Jackson in 2010, would change the current system which “help[s] claimants to the detriment of defendants, who would normally be the insurance companies” earlier this year. Experts say the changes to legal aid will benefit the insurance industry, which has to pay out compensation in personal injury cases, by at least “hundreds of millions of pounds”. The Association of British Insurers admits that industry will benefit from the reforms but argue that consumers, not shareholders, will benefit – pointing out that in Ireland similar measures to those contained in the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill saw motor insurance premiums drop by up to 16%. Conservatives guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …