New Rule: If You’re Going to be the Pathetic Laughing Stock Center of a Tawdry, Lie Riddled Sex Scandal, at Least Get Laid
June 11, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Bill Maher slammed Rep. Anthony Weiner for not actually having sex with anyone if he was going to find himself embroiled in a sex scandal, and for taking anyone’s word about who he was actually sexting with during his New Rules segment tonight on Real Time.
Continue reading …
Governor pressed oil boss for investment – a year after his company was responsible for the largest spill in Alaska’s history Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin held private discussions with Tony Hayward, the discredited BP chief executive, to win his support for a 1,700-mile gas pipeline across North America a year after his company’s failure to maintain another pipeline saw it blamed for the biggest oil spill in the state’s history. The revelation is contained in emails released from Palin’s time as governor that were made public following freedom of information requests. Palin’s Alaska Gasline Inducement Act was supposed to encourage energy producers to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline to deliver natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope fields to the US. But the energy companies refused to back the plan, believing it was a bad deal. In June 2007, two months after BP executives first poured cold water on Palin’s bill before an influential Senate hearing, and a year after BP Alaska spilled more than 5,000 barrels of crude oil due to corroded pipes, the confidential emails show Palin was so desperate to talk to Hayward that she readjusted her schedules to take his call. They reveal that Palin instructed her office to ensure that Hayward had all her private and official phone numbers so the call could proceed after his office asked for it to be rearranged. Palin’s office was desperate to get the likes of BP and rival Conoco to back the pipeline, the construction of which would have given Alaska’s first female governor a national profile. But revelations that Palin sought to curry favour with Hayward could now damage any possible presidential ambitions. Hayward became one of the most reviled men in the US following BP’s offshore oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last April, which killed 11 workers. Forced to resign over the scandal, Hayward came under heavy criticism, not least from President Obama, for his handling of the spill, inflaming critics with a series of gaffes that included telling journalists he “just wanted his life back” and suggesting that the Gulf was a “big ocean” in relation to the amount of oil released. Another PR blunder was being photographed on a sailing holiday off the Isle of Wight as experts were proclaiming the spill the “worst in US history”. Internal emails show Hayward followed up the phone conversation with Palin with a further email to the governor explaining that the Alaska gas project was “very important to BP”. In the email, dated 25 June 2007, he says that he has put a BP executive, Andy Inglis, in charge of the project, explaining he has lived and worked in Alaska in the past. Hayward says “Andy” is looking forward to meeting Palin, as is Doug Stuttles, president of BP Exploration Alaska – “our senior representative in Alaska”. Clearly buoyed by the telephone call, Palin fires off an email to a colleague soon after saying “very nice conversation with BP’s Hayward (yest)”. At times, Palin’s desire to cultivate a close relationship with BP appears to threaten a conflict of interest. When she is asked by her office to respond to an email from Rhonda Boyles (a local Republican politician) about who should sit on BP’s Benevolent Giving Board, she fires back: “My sister. If not her, then a missionary friend of mine – I’ll get her name.” The position of Palin’s husband, Todd, who worked for BP until 2009, was also a concern for the governor. In a jokey email sent to a colleague in September 2007 Palin asks: “If we, er, when we get a divorce, does that quell ‘conflict of interest accusations about BP?’ ” The emails suggest Palin’s office was obsessed with BP’s oil and gas production, from which the state of Alaska earns hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues. On 9 May 2008, BP’s Prudhoe Bay field was shut down. Emails show Palin’s office was informed this “will have a 1 to 3 day impact” on output. But BP’s US tax manager, Bernard Hajnay, was quick to inform Palin’s office that the shutdown did not affect other BP operations and they would be “ramping up production over the 1-3 days”. “I think we’re all in agreement that the state not launch a press release until after the company does,” an email circulated among Palin’s office staff states, adding: “Our production forecast anticipated some shut-downs and was ahead before this event. As long as the event does not exceed three days, our FY2008 production forecast is still good.” Palin is also warned in March 2008 that an expert “has emailed me … regarding his claim that BP is restricting the production of oil, causing the State to lose funds. He claims that BP is shorting production 100,000 to 150,000 b/d [barrels per day].” Last month BP was fined $25m and ordered to spend some $60m on improving pipeline safety in Alaska after a 2006 oil spill on the state’s North Slope coastal region. Investigators blamed the leak on a failure to properly inspect and maintain the pipeline to prevent corrosion. Safety concerns concerning BP’s activities were never far away when Palin was governor, even if her office was one of the last places to hear of them. In September 2007, Palin was informed that more than 100 staff contracted to BP and “tasked with corrosion prevention work” were being laid off, prompting consternation in her office. Palin asked her source how he heard the news. “It was third-hand,” Palin is told. “A former staffer with a buddy on the [North] Slope told me. His contact is somebody at BP that’s up there … and the BP person learned of it this afternoon.” An email from a Palin aide to the governor refers to a letter from Chuck Hamel, an oil industry expert, who complains to the governor that an official investigation into a fire involving BP on 6 August 2007 “only supported BP’s position and did not adequately review the severity of BP’s failed preventative maintenance”. The aide proposes to Palin that her office confirm “it is looking into the issue.” As media outlets pored over the 24,000 emails released, conservatives bombarded newspapers and rightwing websites with complaints that Palin had been singled out for special treatment. Greta van Susteren, a Fox News journalist and one of the few members of the media trusted by Palin, labelled her treatment “a media colonoscopy” and suggested some news organisations were on “a mission to destroy”. Sarah Palin emails Sarah Palin BP Alaska Oil and gas companies Oil Pollution BP oil spill United States Oil spills Jamie Doward Ewen MacAskill Richard Rogers guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Problems compounded by brother David Miliband’s leaked speech on economy and deficit reduction Ed Miliband will tomorrow attempt to stem growing doubts about his leadership with an assault on Britain’s “take what you can” culture which is open to exploitation by benefit cheats and unscrupulous bankers. After a week of criticism of his performance, and damaging leaks, some senior Labour figures are advising Miliband that he must “up his game” in the next few months if he is to avoid a full-blown leadership crisis later this year. One ally of Miliband, whose troubles deepened with a poor Commons performance last Wednesday, told the Observer that unless he could turn his fortunes round by the end of the autumn party conference, his support would drain away. Others say Miliband has until next May’s local elections to show he has a programme for Labour that the party can rally around and the personality to shine in the job. Miliband’s inner circle dismissed talk of unrest and whispering campaigns against the leader, saying he was “getting on with the job of focusing on the important issues facing the country”. Yesterday, however, Miliband’s problems appeared to grow with the leak of a speech that his brother David, the former foreign secretary, had intended to deliver last autumn if he had won the leadership. In the speech David planned to take an arguably tougher line than his brother on deficit reduction, saying it was the most important issue facing the country. Following the leak the Labour leader received welcome support from former environment minister Michael Meacher who said David Miliband would have taken Labour down a disastrous route. “He would have taken the party to near-extinction, by adopting the [George] Osborne cut-and-slash strategy in full, and indeed perhaps going even further,” said Meacher. Labour strategists are worried that Miliband will be further criticised for lacking hard ideas on how to cut the welfare bill when the party votes against the coalition’s changes in the Commons this week. To counter such concerns Miliband will use tomorrow’s speech to claim that in government his party would pursue a more radical reform of the welfare state than the coalition. Rather than seeking mere cuts, he will say that Labour would look to restore the link between people’s contribution and their eligibility for assistance from the welfare state. A source said that Miliband would provide details of a series of measures that a government he leads would look to promote. “It is not just financial contributions we are talking about but contributions to the society they live in,” the source added. Miliband will also claim his party will tackle the City’s bonus culture, which the last government allowed to go unchecked. He will say: “The hardest truth is that too many people feel we became the party of those at the top and bottom who were not showing responsibility and shirking this duty: from bankers who caused the global financial crisis to some of those on benefit who were abusing the system because they could work – but didn’t. “Labour, a party founded by hard-working people for hard-working people, was seen by some – however unfairly – as the party of those ripping off society. A ‘take what you can’ culture which began in the 1980s was allowed to continue, unchecked, under the last government.” With reference to Lord Mandelson’s admission in 1998 that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, Miliband will risk controversy by saying: “I’m not only relaxed about them getting rich,” he will say. “I applaud it.” Ed Miliband Labour party leadership Labour David Miliband Toby Helm Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Well, here’s an interesting little email (PDF) in the newly-released Sarah Palin collection . In late June, 2008 around the time oil prices skyrocketed due to what we now understand to be rampant speculation, Koch Industries reached out to Lisa Murkowski and used her to reach out to Sarah Palin. Here’s the text of Murkowski’s letter to Palin: While I know it may seem paradoxical for an oil refinery to be facing significant losses at this time of record crude oil and gasoline/diesel prices, I am writing to ask you and your administration to immediately undertake a new review of the equity of the state’s current royalty oil contract with Flint Hills Resources , which runs the state’s largest oil refinery at North Pole. As you well know the Flint Hills refinery, owned by Koch Industries, is vital to Alaska’s economy for a host of reasons. Not only does the refinery employ 155 residents in the Fairbanks area , one of the largest manufacturing employers left in the state, the refinery also produces significant amounts of aviation fuel, which is one of the key reasons why the state’s air cargo transshipment industry has boomed in the past decade at both the Anchorage and Fairbanks International Airports. Those shipments also constitute a vital revenue source for the state-owned Alaska Railroad. If the refinery were to close due to its losses, or simply convert into a fuel distributor of imported product, it would deny Alaskans of about 60 percent of their locally produced fuel, potentially requiring the state to purchase more expensive fuel from refineries in the Lower 48 States, further hiking prices for gasoline and other fuels – something that simply should not be allowed to happen at this time of record energy prices throughout the State. I understand fully that there have been issues with the willingness of the refinery’s parent company to fully “open their books” so that the state can confirm the actual level of losses that the refinery is facing. I would hope that a confidentiality agreement could be reached quickly should new negotiations open concerning revisions to the 2004 contract so that the State can fully inspect the financial health of the refinery. Given the fundamental importance of the refinery to the state’s economy, I encourage the state to consider contract revision talks that could benefit the State overall and the Fairbanks economy in particular. I know how busy you must be this summer and I thank you for your consideration of this important matter at this time of record fuel prices nationwide. Best wishes. Now, June, 2008 also happened to be when the murmuring for Palin to be nominated as John McCain’s running mate was growing louder and stronger. Interesting timing, that. John Katz, Palin’s federal/state liason and special counsel, wrote this back in response: The bottom line for us is that Tom Irwin and his staff are ready and willing to talk with Koch at any time, the gas pipeline notwithstanding. Recently, Tom stated this publically and, I believe, to Flint Hills directly. However, it is critical that Koch be willing to open its books, and they have been reluctant thus far. At the moment, the State receives a $1 per barrel premium on royalty oil sold to Flint Hills. It is my understanding that the premium has crept up over the years and will likely be reviewed soon. There were also some forwards of a staff conversation mentioned, but not attached. However, there was this comment at the end of Katz’ forward of the entire email exchange to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources: p.s. I don’t normally forward exchanges with staff level people in the delegation, but I wanted you to get a flavor of the impact that Koch has had. That’s certainly an understatement.
Continue reading …
A London dealer has revealed the methods that have enabled him to attribute three unknown works to Charles I’s court painter A leading old masters specialist has surprised the art world by identifying three previously overlooked paintings by the 17th-century artist Anthony van Dyck. Philip Mould, a British dealer who once bought a Gainsborough on eBay for £120, has proved his eagle eye once again with the find, which includes two paintings sold by Christie’s last year as anonymous works. They were estimated to fetch just £20,000 and £8,000 respectively. The third, dismissed as a 19th-century copy, had been relegated to a storeroom of the Bowes Museum in Co Durham. Van Dyck (1599-1641) was the most revered painter in 17th-century Britain, where he was court artist to Charles I. The latest discoveries by Mould, who appears on BBC1′s Antiques Roadshow and has a record of unearthing masterpieces, have been corroborated by other Van Dyck academics. Asked how one of the world’s leading auction houses could have overlooked two works by the Flemish master, Mould told the Observer : “Perhaps Christie’s didn’t have sufficient time to research these pictures.” Although he acknowledged that auctioneers do not have the benefit of cleaning and restoring works, which help to reveal true quality, he added: “As art dealers, we scour daily the world’s auction catalogues for paintings that are … wrongly identified … In any week, our finds might range from a misidentified Tudor icon to a misattributed 18th-century landscape … but by a strange chance we seem to have hit a seam of Van Dycks.” One of the paintings surfaced among artworks that were looted by the Nazis and were auctioned last September by Christie’s in Paris following their return to their original owners, the Rothschilds. Leafing through the catalogue, Mould was struck by a “devastatingly pretty portrait of a girl”. It was described by Christie’s merely as “Flemish School, 17th century, portrait of a young girl with a fan”, discounting its own record that it was once attributed to Van Dyck. The presale estimate of €15,000 to €20,000 (£13,200-£17,600) was a fraction of its value as a Van Dyck. When they saw the photograph, Mould and his colleague Bendor Grosvenor were “90% sure” it was by Van Dyck. Despite layers of dirt, it was “still possible to see that we were dealing with a painting of potentially the very highest quality”, said Mould. “The sitter’s expression alone tells us that this is not a portrait of a miniature adult, as one so often sees in the 17th century, but of a child. Few artists were then capable of such a subtle characterisation – and perhaps the best was Van Dyck.” Such was their excitement that they dared not hover over it at the sale preview. “You have to look casually and pretend to be interested in a few other duds,” Grosvenor said. Within days, the pair’s detective work had unearthed crucial documentary evidence, including a 200-year-old scholarly study and a 1940s photograph taken by the Nazis which described the painting as a Van Dyck. They also tracked down previous owners, including John Smith, a noted 19th-century connoisseur-dealer, who had detailed the picture, down to the colour of the dress, and noted its sale by Christie’s in 1835 for 169 guineas. Mould unearthed the 1835 sale catalogue that described it as a Van Dyck. All this information gave Mould the confidence to bid way beyond the estimate, although, he admitted, “there is a note of fear that runs through all of us – which is how badly you can screw up if you get it wrong”. As bidding soared to €1m, it became clear that another buyer had recognised the painting’s potential. But Mould won. Days later, his restorer removed dirt and varnish, revealing subtler brush strokes and colours, especially around the eyes. The child’s hands, which in the catalogue photograph lacked the elegance of Van Dyck’s elongated fingers, emerged as sensitively rendered. Now, as a rare Van Dyck child portrait, it is valued at £3.5m. Mould’s second painting had been relegated to Christie’s secondary London saleroom in South Kensington, where the catalogue described it as “Circle of Van Dyck – Head Study of an Old Man”, giving a presale estimate of £5,000 to £8,000. Mould’s research identified it as the head of St Joseph for a lost painting of the holy family, known from a version by the master and his studio assistants in the Manchester Museum. Like the first painting, it was covered in dirt and discoloured varnish. “Nevertheless,” Mould said, “we were struck by its quality as soon as we saw it in the catalogue.” He bought it for £121,250. Conservation confirmed his suspicions. As a Van Dyck oil study, it is worth £350,000. The third picture to be discovered over this 18-month period came to Mould’s attention through the Public Catalogue Foundation’s work in photographing all oil paintings in British public collections. His eye was caught by a picture catalogued as “After Van Dyck, Portrait of Olivia Porter”. It had suffered from clouded varnish and some botched restoration, but the dealer was struck by the sophisticated drapery, colouring and facial expression – all typical of Van Dyck’s female portraits of the 1630s, the artist’s period in England. The painting will be displayed in its unrefined state in a major loan exhibition, Finding Van Dyck, at Philip Mould Fine Paintings in London. Mould, who will present a BBC1 series, Fake or Fortune , from June 19, plans to reveal some of his art sleuth secrets, such as how to “read” through dirt and discoloured varnish, and showing “the risks, the science and the processes” involved in searching for unidentified old masters. Various collectors and national institutions are lending paintings for the exhibition and these will sit alongside other masterpieces, including Van Dyck’s last self-portrait and a Titian. A Christie’s spokesman said: “Attributions can and do change over time. The possible attribution to Van Dyck was considered for both of these works. They were shown to internationally renowned experts and museum curators before they were offered at auction. The public auction saw both works attract determined bidding nonetheless and both works sold for full prices.” Van Dyck Art markets Painting Art Dalya Alberge guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Al-Qaida militant who masterminded attacks on two US embassies in East Africa shot dead by security forces The mastermind of the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa – the attack which brought the al-Qaida terrorist group to global attention – was reported killed in Somalia. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who had a $5m (£3m) price put on his head by US authorities, was widely seen as one of the most wanted Islamic militants in the world. The 1998 attacks killed more than 200 and injured several thousand people. The vast majority of the casualties were local African staff or passers-by caught in the multiple explosions that destroyed the embassies. The then US president Bill Clinton ordered punitive missile strikes into Afghanistan and Sudan following the bombings, which had little effect other than reinforcing the notoriety of those responsible. The news comes six weeks after al-Qaida’s leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a US special forces raid in Pakistan. Last week, Ilyas Kashmiri, another senior militant with ties to al-Qaida, was reported to have been killed. Kenyan police, who cited Somali officials, said on Saturday that Abdullah had been shot dead after he and an associate refused to stop at a checkpoint northwest of Mogadishu earlier last week. The dead man, thought to be 38-years-old, carried a false passport and $40,000 in cash. “We have confirmed he was killed by our police at a control checkpoint this week,” Halima Aden, a senior national security officer in Somalia, told Reuters. “He had a fake South African passport and, of course, other documents. After thorough investigation, we confirmed that it was him,” Aden added. It was not immediately possible to confirm Abdullah’s death independently – though the AFP news agency published images of the face of the dead man which resembled images previously published by US investigators. There was also confusion over what had happened to Abdullah’s remains: some reports said they had been buried and others claimed they had been handed to US authorities. In addition to acting as operational chief for the 1998 attacks, Abdullah is thought to have organised the 2002 attacks on Israeli targets, including a plane, in Mombassa and to have narrowly escaped death in a US air strike in Somalia in 2007. Born in the Comoros Islands, he was educated in Saudi Arabia before travelling to Afghanistan in the early 1990s. He is thought to have been in Mogadishu in 1993 during fighting there. US authorities have steadily tracked down almost all those responsible for the 1998 bombing attacks, and many were brought to trial in the US in 2001. The death of Abdullah will be a loss for al-Qaida in east Africa, where he was active, area but is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall capabilities of the leadership element based in Pakistan. Like most regional branches of al-Qaida, even those violent Islamic extremists in east Africa who have sworn allegiance to Bin Laden have remained largely autonomous. Abdullah was one of the few militants based in Africa who followed a global agenda and who was willing to launch attacks on international targets. al-Qaida Global terrorism Osama bin Laden Bill Clinton Somalia Africa Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media ( President Lieberman was for the expansion of Medicare just three months ago! ) When you’re rich, cruel, going on seventy, childishly resentful and happen to be a Senator, proposals like this come easily. That’s Joe Lieberman, one of the Village Elders. Paul Krugman: So Joe Lieberman is proposing that we raise the Medicare eligibility age . That’s a truly cruel idea; as it happens, I know several people who are hanging on, postponing needed medical care, hoping that they can make it to 65 before something terrible happens. And if I know such people in my fairly sheltered social circles, just imagine how widespread such stories must be. But beyond that, think about what it means to move people out of Medicare into private insurance, if they can get it. Medicare has its problems — but all the evidence says that it is substantially more cost-effective than private insurance. Partly this is because it has lower administrative costs; partly it’s because Medicare is able to use its market power to negotiate lower prices. And the international evidence is overwhelming: single-payer systems are much cheaper than systems centered on private insurance. So think of this as a national interest thing rather than a budget thing: Lieberman is proposing that we move a substantial number of older Americans into a worse, more expensive health care system. Why would you want to do such a thing, as opposed to raising enough additional revenue to keep them on Medicare? I’ll tell you why. Because he’s an attention junkie who hates the people he used to represent and you can just assume that the Sunday talk shows and FOX News will greet him on with open arms and give him a big wet kiss for his valiant effort of “talking to America like an adult.” There was a time not too long ago when he supported the idea of lowering the age to 55. In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added: “My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid… “When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they’re too young to qualify for Medicare. “What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you’re 55 or 60 and you’re without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you’re older … you’re rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money.” With BFF’s like Glenn Beck , it’s not surprising anymore what this gasbag will propose, but there is no excuse to hurt 98% of our population out of some twisted vendetta. How many American seniors would simply die or suffer so much more pain under his plan? Kevin Drum explains, it’s another Paul Ryan Ponzi scheme: Of course, the problem is that controlling spending and revenue levels is a lot easier than controlling cost growth. So, like the proverbial drunk looking under the lamppost for his car keys because the light is better there, that’s where Lieberman is looking. But in the end, it won’t work. It’s true that we’re likely to need ways to cut Medicare’s spending levels and increase its revenue levels, but 80% of our energy should be spent on reining in cost growth. Lieberman’s plan doesn’t. UPDATE: Actually, it’s even worse than this. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would probably be bad for health outcomes and, in the end, might raise Medicare costs, not lower them. Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll have the data and the charts here .
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A day after his campaign staff resigned en masse , Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich attempted to change the subject. “I am a candidate for president of the United States because I think we are in the early stages of the Obama depression,” he told reporters Friday. “I’m prepared to go out and to campaign very intensely but I want a campaign on ideas and on solutions and I want to do it in a way that brings Americans together into a large movement,” ABC News quoted the former House Speaker as saying.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A day after his campaign staff resigned en masse , Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich attempted to change the subject. “I am a candidate for president of the United States because I think we are in the early stages of the Obama depression,” he told reporters Friday. “I’m prepared to go out and to campaign very intensely but I want a campaign on ideas and on solutions and I want to do it in a way that brings Americans together into a large movement,” ABC News quoted the former House Speaker as saying.
Continue reading …