Saturday, March 31, 2012

Actress sues over vodka ad that sparked backlash




(Reuters) - The maker of Belvedere Vodka has been sued by an actress who said her likeness was used without permission in a print advertisement that she said appeared to glorify a possible rape.


The ad, briefly posted on Belvedere's Facebook and Twitter pages on March 23 before the company took it down and issued an apology, prompted a backlash in online and other media.


It depicts a frightened-looking woman appearing to try to escape from the arms of a smiling man. The tagline reads: "Unlike some people, Belvedere always goes down smoothly."


In her lawsuit filed Thursday, plaintiff Alicyn Packard accused Moet Hennessy USA Inc, a unit of LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA, of negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriating her likeness.


"While defendants have apologized to nearly everyone else, and admitted the offensiveness of the advertisement, they have yet to apologize to plaintiff," who has become "the face of the Belvedere advertising campaign that jokes about rape," the complaint said.


The lawsuit, filed in a California state court in Los Angeles, seeks compensatory and punitive damages.


Moet Hennessy did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment. Jeffrey Gersh, a lawyer for Packard, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


According to the complaint, the photo of Packard was a screenshot from a video from Strickly Viral Productions.


In that video, she and the man -- her friend and Strickly Viral owner Chris Strickland -- are asked by her parents to recreate a pose from a photo taken when they were young.


In its apology posted on its website, Belvedere called the ad "offensive" and "completely inappropriate," and said it pulled the ad the day it was posted.


Belvedere Vodka has more than 936,000 Facebook fans and more than 10,300 Twitter followers.


The case is Packard v. Moet Hennessy USA Inc et al, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. BC481858.


(Reporting By Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Martha Graybow and Gerald E. McCormick)



Source & Image : Yahoo

Lawsuit says Simply Orange juice not so simple




(Reuters) - Coca-Cola Co's Simply Orange juice brand isn't simply orange juice, according to a lawsuit filed against the beverage company on Friday.


Instead, the lawsuit in an Illinois federal court claims that the product undergoes extensive processing, and is dependent upon added aroma and flavoring in a way not found in nature. The plaintiff, a consumer, accuses Coca-Cola of fraud, and seeks class action status.


The consumer, Randall Davis, had bought the product - whose label says "100% Pure Squeezed Orange Juice" - at stores "for personal, family, or household purposes," the lawsuit said.


Coca-Cola spokeswoman Susan Stribling said the company's Simply and Minute Maid juices are properly labeled in full accordance with FDA regulations.


"This lawsuit has nothing to do with misleading consumers and everything to do with lining class action lawyers' pockets," Stribling said. "It is a meritless case against which we will vigorously defend ourselves."


Lawsuits against food and beverage companies over alleged misleading marketing have drawn more attention, with sometimes dubious results for the plaintiffs.


A suit accusing Taco Bell of misrepresenting the amount of beef in its products received national headlines last year. But Taco Bell vehemently disputed the claims, which were soon voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff.


The latest lawsuit said that chemically engineered "flavor packs" are added to Simply Orange, in order to mimic the flavor of natural orange juice. Consumers are willing to pay a premium price for Simply Orange, due in part to their false belief in the freshness of the product, the lawsuit said.


"Coca-Cola misrepresented that Simply Orange was 100% pure and natural orange juice when in fact it was not," the lawsuit said.


The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois is Randall Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Coca-Cola Company, 12-cv-02391.


(Reporting By Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Richard Chang)



Source & Image : Yahoo

Keith Olbermann: Machine Gun for Hire

Given Keith Olbermann’s abrupt removal at Current and his typically temperate response — “Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently” — it seems as if his next stop will be a puppet show shot from a basement somewhere. He’ll never work in this town, or any other, again, right?

Wrong. Many of his past employers will testify to his unmanageability and unpleasantness, but the fact of the matter is that somewhere, sometime, after some kind of cooling-off period, Mr. Olbermann will be coming to a television near you.

That has less to do with the greater fool theory, which suggests that there will always be someone naïve enough to think that they can accomplish what others have not — that is, make Mr. Olbermann behave like a professional when he is not on the air. (Remember that former Vice President Al Gore and Joel Hyatt — two of the principals at Current — blew through many stop signs to get to Mr. Olbermann. They made very hopeful statements when the deal was cut, which were followed by very frustrated noises thereafter.)

No, the mistake that the executives at Current made was to think that by giving Mr. Olbermann a stake in the enterprise and a title of chief news officer, he would forgo the drama that has characterized his stints at CNN, Fox, ESPN and MSNBC. After all, you can’t rail against the Man when you are the Man.

But Mr. Olbermann is talent, and a big baby to boot — any reporter who has covered him could tell you all about that — so the idea that he would default to the good of the many over the needs of the one is just not in his nature. The title was used as leverage, nothing more, when Mr. Olbermann became dissatisfied and starting communicating with his employers through lawyer letters months ago. Mr. Olbermann is a ferocious fan of team sports, but that’s not how he plays the game.

He is the equivalent of a supremely talented left-handed pitcher with a strong arm — and some obvious control issues — that can give whatever team hires him a lot of quality innings. On the bench and off the field? He will complain about his coach, his teammates, the quality of the field and the stadium lights.

He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.

That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.

The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN.

Which brings us back to Mr. Olbermann. Anchoring a show on television looks easy. Buy a nice suit, get a nice haircut and read the words on the prompter in the right order with some semblance of conviction. But it’s not. As cable stations proliferate, the desperate search for people who can credibly show up every night — or not, as Mr. Olbermann was frequently on strike at Current — and hold an audience’s attention will only become more acute. Mr. Olbermann has a terrible relationship with actual humans, but a very good relationship with the camera.

When I was working on a magazine piece about Mr. Olbermann, we went to a Yankees game and he explained the camera voodoo:

“Mechanically, if you look very carefully in a camera, it has a series of reflections and dimensions to it, you can look past that,” he said. He holds up his hands in the shape of a box. “Here’s the camera, here’s the front of the camera, here’s the lens of the camera, but if you look deeply enough, you can see the inner rings at the far end of the lens and maybe a glimmer of light very deep in the distance. You can always see something that might be an inch or two below the surface. Whenever I can, I try to focus there, not on the prompter or the front of the lens.”

Maybe that’s overexplaining something that is actually innate, but history has shown that even though Mr. Olbermann’s employers do not like him, the camera, and the people at the other end, like him just fine. IAs Jonathan Wald, the producer for Piers Morgan put it, somewhat more industrially, in a tweet on Saturday night, “Stars star and producers produce.”

And that means he will find work. He is a free agent in a business that is remarkably akin to pro sports, full of divas who are great at hitting the curve or making impossible catches, but baffled by the rest of life. Think Terrell (“I love me some me”) Owens. Or Randy Moss. Or Babe Ruth. Or Ted Williams. Jerks, louts and narcissists, all tolerated because within the four corners of the diamond, the football field and, yes, the television studio, they can do what others cannot.

So some executives will eventually plug their noses and write a check and a contract that they hope will contain Mr. Olbermann’s less attractive aspects. He and they will say that this time it will be different, and it may be. Just don’t expect him to be part of the team.



Source & Image : New York Times

Obama pushes Congress on millionaires' tax




WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to increase taxes on millionaires, reviving a proposal he first pitched last September that aims to draw sharp election-year lines between the president and the Republican opposition.

The plan, scheduled for a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate on April 16, stands little chance of passing in Congress. But it is a prominent symbol of the efforts the president and congressional Democrats are making to portray themselves as champions of economic fairness. Republicans dismiss the idea as a political stunt with little real effect on the budget.

"We don't envy success in this country. We aspire to it," Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address. "But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead — not just a few."

Obama calls the plan the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers. Many wealthy taxpayers earn investment income, which is taxed at 15 percent. Obama has proposed that people earning at least $1 million annually — whether in salary or investments — should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The push for the Buffett Rule comes as millions of Americans focus on their taxes with the approach of this year's April filing deadline.

It also draws renewed attention to the effective tax rate of Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, a millionaire who is paying 15.4 percent in federal taxes for 2011 on income mostly derived from investments.

By contrast, the top nominal rate for taxpayers with high incomes derived from wages, not investments, is 35 percent.

In his remarks Saturday, the president encouraged listeners to pressure their members of Congress "to stop giving tax breaks to people who don't need them."

While the plan would force millionaires and billionaires to part with more of their money, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enacted, legislation reflecting Obama's proposal would collect $47 billion through 2022 — a trickle compared with the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.

Obama also renewed his call for ending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000. Those breaks, enacted during President George W. Bush's first term, expire at the end of this year.

"Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years," Obama said. "Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary. Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, the tax rates for middle-class families have barely budged."

The new effort comes just days after the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance Obama-initiated legislation that would have ended $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil and gas companies. Two Republicans voted with Obama and four Democrats voted against him.

In the Republican address, House Speaker John Boehner challenged Obama to get behind energy proposals backed by House Republicans, sustaining a GOP drive to blame the administration for high gas prices in an election year. Boehner called for more oil and gas production in federal lands and for a freeze in new regulations over refineries.

He criticized Obama for pushing the anti-oil subsidy bill and for pressing Senate Democrats to vote down an effort to jump-start an oil pipeline project from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. He said Obama, in a meeting with congressional leaders a month ago, had shown a willingness to embrace some House Republican energy ideas.

"It was a new sign of hope, but unfortunately, only a brief one," Boehner said.

"The pain at the pump is an urgent issue for hardworking taxpayers and it deserves the same urgency from leaders here in Washington," he added.



Source & Image : Yahoo

Computer Science for the Rest of Us





READING, writing and — refactoring code?


Many professors of computer science say college graduates in every major should understand software fundamentals. They don’t argue that everyone needs to be a skilled programmer. Rather, they seek to teach “computational thinking” — the general concepts programming languages employ.


In 2006, Jeannette M. Wing, head of the computer science department at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote a manifesto arguing that basic literacy should be redefined to include understanding of computer processes. “Computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone, not just for computer scientists,” she wrote. “To reading, writing and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability.”


There is little agreement within the field, however, about what exactly are the core elements of computational thinking. Nor is there agreement about how much programming students must do, if any, in order to understand it.


Most important, the need for teaching computational thinking to all students remains vague.


At the college level, computer science courses intended for non-majors run a gamut. In some classes, students start coding right away with a mainstream language. Others exclude programming and examine social and ethical issues related to computer use.


At Carnegie Mellon, students who are not computer science majors are invited to try “Principles of Computation.” It starts with a history of computation, but in Week 2, students start learning the programming language Ruby. Then the course covers iteration, recursion, random number generators and other topics.


Tom Cortina, who teaches the course, says that some students perceive the programming as challenging, especially those who aren’t majoring in a field of science, technology, engineering or mathematics and are not accustomed to “the preciseness required.”


At Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., Mark D. LeBlanc, a professor of computer science, teaches “Computing for Poets.” The only prerequisite, according to the course syllabus, is “a love of the written (and digital) word.”


Professor LeBlanc has his students learn the basics of Python, another modern language used in the software industry. But this course is tied to two courses offered by the English department on J.R.R. Tolkien and Anglo-Saxon literature. Students in the computing course put concepts to immediate use by analyzing large bodies of text. The syllabus is more like what one would find for a humanities course.


“In the class, we take on big problems,” Professor LeBlanc says. “The majority of the students are overwhelmed — ‘Where do we start?’ ” This provides opportunities to illustrate the concept of decomposition, which he describes as “breaking a large problem into small manageable problems.”


Professor LeBlanc estimates that just 5 percent of students who enroll each semester find it “worse than a foreign language” and drop the course. He believes that most graduates of Wheaton, a liberal arts college, will work in fields where they must learn how to program. The liberal arts college offers “a safe place to be a novice,” he says.


At many other campuses, computer science departments introduce computational thinking by sparing students from learning an industrial-strength programming language in order to try applying the general concepts. Instead, students learn visual scripting languages that produce interactive animation. Scratch, which was developed for elementary and middle-school students, is one such language.


Marie desJardins, a computer science professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, says her department uses Scratch in its “Introduction to Computers and Programming” course, in which students can try a few basic concepts. About 25 percent of the semester is spent on programming.


Explaining why Scratch is used at the college level, she says that all students arrive on campus having taken high school classes in English, math, biology and so on, but that many have not taken a computer science class.


Michael Littman, who leads the computer science department at Rutgers University, agrees. “Computational thinking should have been covered in middle school, and it isn’t,” he says. “So we in the C.S. department must offer the equivalent of a remedial course.”


At Grinnell College in Iowa, students can take “The Digital Age,” which covers the “great ideas in the field of computer science, focusing on underlying algorithmic principles and social implications.” But it does not entail learning a programming language.


“ ‘Literacy’ implies reading and writing, so ‘computer literacy’ suggests that writing programs is a required skill for activity under this name,” says Henry M. Walker, a computer science professor at Grinnell. “However, general citizens may or may not have to write programs to function effectively in this technological age.” He prefers to promote “computer fluency,” attainable without assignments in programming.


Someday, the understanding of computational processes may be indispensable for people in all occupations. But it’s not yet clear when we’ll cross that bridge from nice-to-know to must-know.



Source & Image : New York Times

Stricken cruise ship repaired, heading to Malaysia




MANILA, Philippines (AP) — A cruise ship with 1,000 people on board that had drifted for 24 hours after being disabled by a fire was headed toward Malaysia following repairs, the Philippine coast guard said Saturday.

The Azamara Quest that had embarked on a 17-day Southeast Asian cruise was left drifting in southern Philippine waters after a fire broke out Friday night. The flames engulfed one of the ship's engine rooms but were quickly extinguished, the ship's operator said. Five crew members suffered smoke inhalation, including one who was seriously injured and needed hospital care.

The ship informed the coast guard late Saturday that its power and propulsion had been restored and it was moving slowly toward Sandakan, its next destination after it left Manila Thursday, spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Algier Ricafrente said.

Azamara Club Cruises, the ship's operator, said in a statement Saturday night that the ship was sailing at a top speed of only 6 knots (11 kilometers or 6.9 miles per hour) and was expected to reach Sandakan "within 24 to 48 hours."

It said company president Larry Pimentel will meet personally with the passengers and crew in Sandakan.

The company said the rest of the cruise would be canceled. It said it will fully refund the passengers as a "gesture of goodwill" and provide each guest with a future cruise certificate for the amount paid for the aborted voyage.

It was the latest in a series of accidents hitting luxury cruise liners since January, when the Costa Concordia capsized off the coast of Italy, killing 32 people.

The Azamara Quest is carrying 590 passengers and 411 crew members. Operator Azamara Club Cruises is part of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

More than one third, or 201, of the passengers on board are American, and nearly a third, or 119, of the crew are Filipinos, according to lists of passenger and crew nationalities provided by the ship captain to the coast guard.

The passengers are from 25 countries and include 98 from Britain, 89 from Australia, 45 from Canada, 39 from Germany, 32 from Austria, 16 from Belgium, 14 from New Zealand and 14 from Switzerland.

The other crew members include 58 Indians and 50 Indonesians.

The vessel had left Hong Kong on Monday. The ship made a port call in Manila and left for Sandakan on Thursday. It was scheduled to make several stops in Indonesia before arriving in Singapore on April 12.

But instead the stricken ship drifted Saturday in the Sulu Sea about 130 kilometers (70 nautical miles) south of the Philippines' Tubbataha Reef, Ricafrente said. The area lies between the Philippines and the island of Borneo, which is divided between Malaysia and Indonesia.

A woman from Kailua-Kuna, Hawaii, who said she is one of the passengers, posted an entry on Azamara's Facebook page after Internet service was restored on the ship, praising the crew's handling of the situation.

"No A/C yet but everyone is fine," she said. "Cannot say enough about this Captain and the crew. They have been absolutely wonderful keeping us updated constantly with the good or the bad. ... Sorry that we cannot finish our cruise, but we will back ASAP."

She said the crew worked with very little rest "to keep us all in good spirits, well fed and comfortable."

There was a jar where passengers could place donations to help the injured crewman who was in serious condition, she said.

Ricafrente said that no distress call was received and there would be an investigation.

A Philippine coast guard vessel approached the Azamara Quest, but the ship's captain sent an email to the coast guard saying that it needed no assistance and that everything was "under control."

Engineers on Saturday morning restored electricity in the ship to re-establish air conditioning, running water, plumbing, refrigeration and food preparation, the company said.

The ship's senior physician, Oliver Gilles, said that the crew member who was in serious condition suffered "prolonged heat and smoke exposure."

A month after 32 people died when the Costa Concordia ran aground and capsized off the western coast of Italy, a fire on the Costra Allegra left that ship without power and adrift in waters known to be prowled by pirates in the Indian Ocean for three days.

Both Costa ships are part of Costa Crociere, SpA, a subsidiary of Carnival Corp., the world's largest cruise operator.

___

Online: http://www.azamaraclubcruises.com/about-azamara/travel-alerts



Source & Image : Yahoo

Nightclub's 'Food Stamp Friday' Hits New Low in Exploitation





COMMENTARY | Just when I think I've seen the tackiest in marketing ploys, some company comes along and proves me wrong. The Rose Supper Club (a.k.a. nightclub) in Montgomery, Ala., is hosting "Food Stamp Friday" where folks get free cover charge and shots if they show their Electronic Benefits Transfer (food stamps) card, says The Daily Caller. And on Good Friday, too. It doesn't get much lower than this.



Apparently, event planners thought they were being inclusive by inviting and honoring those who partake of government benefits. Party-goers won't be able to use their cards to pay for booze, the coordinators assure us (I should hope not). Also, under SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) guidelines they probably can't buy food either. I'm not sure how Alabama does it, but in Michigan, only some disabled and senior food stamp users qualify for restaurant benefits and then only from certain vendors (mostly fast food places).



Rose Supper Club's food stamp fests have been called insensitive to those on welfare. Honestly, I don't care as much about that as I do them capitalizing on government benefits and encouraging users to do likewise.



We had our fill of that kind of thinking in Michigan. Gas stations and casinos were able to offer cash machines that accepted EBT cards. The Kalamazoo Gazette says the state nixed that plan (and rightly so) because some users were buying cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets with their benefits. There are no clear laws on how cash benefits are to be spent and few boundaries on food stamps either (most all food qualifies). I think if we taxpayers must foot the bill we should expect some common sense about how our money is spent, though. I'm careful with my money. I don't smoke, party or gamble. Even if I did, I don't want others doing these things on my dime.



Granted, just because someone gets welfare doesn't mean they can't ever have fun. Most of us have a vice or two; receiving government assistance doesn't preclude that. The "Food Stamp Friday" goes overboard. It's an outrageous juxtaposition of need-based government program with drunken bash. Food stamps are supposed to be a safety net for those in need. Exploiting food stamps for a drunken bash is unconscionable.





Source & Image : Yahoo

Out of One Frying Pan, and Into Another







 


ONE afternoon in February, Ahmass Fakahany, a financier by training, was contemplating the economics of forks.


Baguette forks, to be precise — two silver ones on a table at Osteria Morini, a redoubt of one of New York’s pasta gods, the chef Michael White.


To the untrained eye, the forks looked identical. “The difference,” Mr. Fakahany said, reaching for one, “is this one costs $4.50 less.”


It’s not what you might expect in this refuge of Emilia-Romagna, where the talk tends more toward lumache al verde and petroniana than to the price of flatware. But then, Mr. Fakahany isn’t what you might expect here, either.


 After a lucrative — and quite controversial — career at Merrill Lynch, Mr. Fakahany, 53, is bringing a Wall Street sensibility to a business that can make investment banking seem easy by comparison: running restaurants. And, so far, he’s been very, very good at it.


In three years, he and Mr. White have a swiftly growing restaurant empire rivaling those of the celebrity chefs Mario Batali and Daniel Boulud. Mr. Fakahany and Mr. White now run acclaimed Manhattan restaurants like Marea, on Central Park South, and Ai Fiori, tucked away on the second floor of the luxurious Setai Fifth Avenue hotel. They have expanded to Hong Kong, and there is talk of Istanbul, too. This year, they hope to open at least five more restaurants, in locations as varied as the East Village of Manhattan and the Las Vegas Strip.


What is so remarkable about their success is that, in the restaurant game, failure is as common as kitchen burns. Nationwide, most new restaurants close within their first year — industry experts put the failure rate at anywhere from 60 to 80 percent.


How have these guys done it? It helps that Mr. White is widely considered to be one of New York’s hottest chefs. But it also reflects what Mr. Fakahany, the money man in this operation, is doing outside the kitchen.


Consider those forks. By switching to the cheaper ones, Mr. Fakahany said, Osteria Morini, in SoHo, would save thousands of dollars.


But that’s not all. He has hired back-office staff from places like Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital to help him watch expenses. Some general managers and sommeliers receive deferred cash bonuses, à la Wall Street, in order to reduce turnover. To hold down bills for cabs, black cars and couriers, Mr. Fakahany hired his former driver at Merrill Lynch to shuttle around most everything, from clients to crates of wine.


And, because he knows that a blowout on the expense account can irk corporate bean counters, he’s willing to cut executives a bit of slack. In Wall Street fashion, he is sometimes willing to do a trade — his food and wine in exchange for something other than cash or credit. For instance, he recently turned a $4,500 dinner bill from a group of British Airways executives into nine plane tickets. He used those tickets to reward his staff at the Altamarea Group, the restaurant company that he and Mr. White run out of a SoHo loft.


Altamarea is growing so fast that some industry insiders even wonder whether it will turn out to be the Merrill Lynch of the city’s restaurant scene — a company that, like Merrill, ends up overreaching, with disastrous results.


Mr. Fakahany says that’s nonsense. Since 2008, he says, Altamarea’s revenue has surged roughly 250 percent a year. In 2011, the company, which is privately held, had revenue of almost $50 million, up from just $3 million in 2008, he says. Marea, its flagship, generates $50,000 to $60,000 in revenue a day, and Ai Fiori isn’t far behind. As for profit, Mr. Fakahany says the company has double-digit margins, but he wouldn’t elaborate.


After starting with high-end restaurants, the company is adding more mid-range restaurants, like Nicoletta, a pizzeria in the East Village that is expected to open in May.


“I am believer in what we are doing,” he says. “We are developing distinct brands where we can open multiple restaurants, lowering costs as we go.” 


IT’S been quite a journey for Mr. Fakahany, who saw the financial crisis up close at Merrill. He was a top deputy to E. Stanley O’Neal, who was in charge during the firm’s disastrous push into mortgage investments.


“I have a lot of regrets, and there are things I wish we would have done,” Mr. Fakahany says. “There are no heroes in the Merrill story.” 


Still, Mr. Fakahany did well for himself at Merrill, where his posts included chief financial officer and co-president. Last year, he won a $1.2 million arbitration award against the firm, which is now part of Bank of America, over his compensation. Since 2004, he has sold shares in Merrill that are valued at $13.1 million, according to Insider Score, which tracks stock sales of corporate insiders.



Source & Image : New York Times

Congress gets rough treatment at Supreme Court




WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court left little doubt during last week's marathon arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul that it has scant faith in Congress' ability to get anything done.

The views about Congress underlay questions from justices who appear to be on both sides of the argument over the constitutionality of the law's key provision, the individual insurance requirement, as well as whether the entire law should be thrown out if the mandate is struck down.

The comments were particularly striking from the conservative justices who have called on unelected judges to show deference to the actions of elected officials.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who appeared strongly in favor of striking down the entire law, was the most outspoken in his disdain for the branch of government that several justices can see from their office windows.

"You can't repeal the rest of the act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It's not a matter of enacting a new act. You've got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So the rest of the act is going to be the law," Scalia said, explaining it might be better to throw the whole thing out.

Justice Anthony Kennedy draw laughs when he asked a lawyer describing what Congress would want the court to do, "Is that the real Congress or a hypothetical Congress?"

Several justices joined in the courtroom's laughing reaction when the lawyer leading the challenge to the law appeared to suggest Congress could pass new legislation "in a couple of days," if the court wiped away the entire law.

The justices thus seemed to be thinking along the same lines as the public, according to polls that show Congress' standing at historic lows.

That outlook, more prevalent among the conservatives than the liberals on the court, is one reason that the Obama administration's lawyers ran into such stiff resistance in questions from the bench.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. repeatedly invoked Congress' power under the Constitution to take aggressive action to deal with health care, which makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy, and with the problem of 50 million people who lack insurance but whose health costs are being passed on to taxpayers and those with insurance.

The court, Verrilli said at the end of Tuesday's argument session, "has a solemn obligation to respect the judgments of the democratically accountable branches of government."

Certainly, the liberal justices appeared to agree with Verrilli that Congress, then under Democratic control, did not exceed its power.

Now, Congress is essentially locked in a stalemate, with power divided between Republicans who control the House and a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Chances are slim that Congress would act to restore any parts of the law that the court might strike down, even noncontroversial provisions.

The bleak prospect for legislation is one reason why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg urged a cautious approach to a raft of provisions, many already in effect, that have nothing to do with the insurance requirement, including changes to benefits for victims of black lung disease.

"So why should we say, it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job," Ginsburg told Paul Clement, the lawyer representing states opposed to the law. "And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."

Put another way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "Why we should involve the court in making the legislative judgment?"

Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond who previously served as a Scalia law clerk at the court, said he was surprised by the conservative justices who revealed no apparent trepidation about getting rid of the entire law.

"That would be a very muscular exercise of judicial power," Walsh said.

Scalia has a long history of calling for restraint on the part of unelected judges, and telling people who want changes in the law to go first to their elected representatives.

"You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility," Scalia said in a 2005 speech in Washington, an example of the kind of remarks he has made many times over his more than 25 years as a justice. "Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?"

But he and Kennedy both suggested that it would be more respectful to Congress to give it a blank slate than to hand it back a massive law, with its key provisions excised.

"Do you really think that that is somehow showing deference to Congress and respecting the democratic process? It seems to me it's a gross distortion of it," Scalia said.

Kennedy envisioned an outcome in which the insurance requirement is struck down, but the court leaves in place other requirements forcing insurers to accept people regardless of existing medical conditions and to limit the premiums for older people.

"We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than striking the whole," he said.



Source & Image : Yahoo

So, Where Does Keith Olbermann Go Now?




So, Where Does Keith Olbermann Go Now?

Perpetual bridge-burner Keith Olbermann set ablaze another viaduct Friday with his acrimonious departure from Al Gore's Current TV network. After his bad breakups at MSNBC and ESPN, who will take the liberal firebrand now? Sure, he's a difficult person to work with but his cocksure belligerence is perfect for television and Olbermann's got too much fight in him to just fade away. Here's our landscape of career options for him:


RELATED: The Competing Theories for Fox News's Success



CBS: Not impossible. According to The New Yorkerthe network reached out to him in 2005 as a permanent replacement for Dan Rather as the anchor of the CBS Evening News. It never panned out and the network opted for Katie Couric. While the expression of interest could hint that the network could reconsider him for some position, a statement by Sandy Socolow, Walter Cronkite's final executive producer, suggests the network would never take the risk at a news gig. “Oh, no, no, no, he’s not a newsman,” she said. “He’s not a reporter. I’ve never seen anything that he’s done that was original, in terms of the information." Still, that doesn't mean Olbermann couldn't go back to his sports anchor roots and find a home at CBS Sports.


RELATED: Michael Steele Officially Joins MSNBC



News Corp: Don't bet on it. Not only has Olbermann spent most of his career bashing News Corp's subsidiaries such as Fox News, Olbermann left Rupert Murdoch's Fox Sports acrimoniously and Murdoch told The New Yorker "I fired him... He's crazy." Also, if Bill O'Reilly holds any sway there, Olbermann won't be anywhere near a job. Upon his departure from MSNBC, O'Reilly said the network lost a "hateful commentator." 


RELATED: This Is Fox News's Christmas Card



HBO: Not impossible. If the premium cable network wanted a less funny, newsier voice to add to its lineup, Olbermann would be the guy. He certainly would fit with its liberal programming bent.


RELATED: Criticism Over American Networks' Late Arrival to Libya Coverage



ESPN: Forget about it. When Olbermann walked out at the end of his 1997 contract with ESPN, an ESPN official was quoted saying Olbermann "didn't burn the bridges here, he napalmed them." 


RELATED: New Numbers on Fox News's Phone Hacking Coverage



MSNBC: Forget about itBy all accounts, Olbermann drove MSNBC executives and his underlings up the wall. The straw that broke the camel's back was thought to be MSNBC suspending him for donating to Democratic candidates without notifying his bosses but elsewhere, sticky personnel issues were cited. 


CNN: Not impossible. Olbermann started at CNN in 1981 as a freelance sports reporter and returned to the network in 2002. As New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman has detailed, CNN has aggressively considered Olbermann as a hire in the past but ultimately decided he was too left-of-center for the brand. Though it's not a full-time job, it's not too far-fetched to envision him as a liberal contributor.  


KOTV? Not impossible. Will Keith pull a Glenn Beck and launch his own subscriber-based digital venture? It certainly worked for Beck, as GBTV was reportedly on track to take in $20 million in revenue for its debut year. But would if Olbermann worked for himself, who would he fight with?



Source & Image : Yahoo

Alaska, Exxon deal opens way for LNG exports




ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska has reached a settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp and its partners to develop a huge, long-fallow oil and gas field, possibly paving the way for a $26 billion pipeline and an export plant for liquefied natural gas.


The settlement, which resolves a long-running lease dispute over the Point Thomson field about 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay, could allow for exports of liquefied natural gas via tanker to Asia and may boost Alaskan oil production after decades of decline.


In exchange for continued lease control, operator Exxon and partners BP and ConocoPhillips have agreed to build a pipeline from the field to deliver 70,000 barrels per day of liquids into the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.


The settlement also calls for the companies to produce 10,000 barrels per day of natural-gas condensates by the winter of 2015-16, state officials said.


The deal is a boon for TransCanada , which plans to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the south coast, feeding a possible export plant that would ship gas to thirsty markets in Asia.


Alaska Governor Sean Parnell said the companies had agreed to work with TransCanada Corp on the new pipeline project, which proposes to export gas just as Alaska's 40-year-old and only existing LNG plant at Kenai closes down.


Point Thomson holds about 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and the companies are expected to join a growing list of U.S. projects aiming to export LNG as domestic production soars. However, it is not yet clear how many of those projects U.S. regulators will ultimately approve.


"Alaska's resources will be produced from Point Thomson rather than remaining locked underground," Parnell said at a news conference in Anchorage.


The field has been the subject of years of dispute, with the state saying the companies have delayed meaningful development of the liquids.


State officials started legal action to take back the leases in 2006 and had said they planned to auction them off to other developers. The companies took legal action to stop that termination, including a lawsuit that reached the state Supreme Court.


Resolving the Point Thomson lease dispute will help the parties progress toward a long-desired North Slope natural gas pipeline, according to the settlement agreement.


"A Major Gas Sale off the North Slope of Alaska is a primary goal of the Parties," said the agreement, released by state officials. "The Parties believe settlement of the Point Thomson litigation will assist in progressing a Major Gas Sale."


TransCanada said its Alaska pipeline project, which could take gas from Point Thomson, would concentrate on the LNG export option.


Alaska Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan said the settlement required the three companies -- the major North Slope oil producers -- to reach specific development goals in order to keep their leases.


"The companies are on the clock ... the settlement has many dates and timelines that have to be met," Sullivan said. "Without production, the leases at Point Thomson will terminate," he said.


(Writing by Edward McAllister; Editing by Dale Hudson and Mark Porter)



Source & Image : Yahoo

Exclusive: Soros' son strikes out on his own




NEW YORK (Reuters) - The upheaval within billionaire investor George Soros' firm continues as one of his sons is separating some of his personal fortune to manage it himself.


Jonathan Soros, who stepped down in September from day-to-day management of Soros Fund Management LLC, plans to hire at least one of his father's key employees, say two people familiar with the situation.


The two sources said Soros' son intends to set up his own family office - something the Soros Fund converted to last year - with the help of David Kulsar, currently chief risk officer for the Soros Fund.


"Jonathan wants to manage some of his own money so the (Soros Fund) family office has made that accommodation for him," said a source familiar with the situation but who was not authorized to discuss the matter.


Jonathan Soros, who was a law clerk for a federal judge before joining with his brother Robert in 2002 to oversee the management of Soros Fund, did not return calls or emails seeking comment. He currently is a senior fellow with the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank group in New York.


Kulsar, who also did not return a phone call seeking comment, worked in risk management for John Meriweather's JWM Partners before joining the Soros Fund. Meriweather founded Long-Term Capital Management, the hedge fund whose collapse in 1999 sparked fears of a financial crisis.


YEAR OF CHANGE


There's no indication of a family feud between father and son - Jonathan Soros continues as chairman of his father's foundation. But the move comes after a year of a big changes and significant losses at the $25 billion firm founded by the elder Soros, a wealthy liberal philanthropist who rose to investing fame on his big bet against the British pound.


These developments are part of an ongoing series of structural changes as the Soros fund evolves as a family office, one of the sources familiar with the matter said.


Last summer, the Soros Fund announced it was returning some $1 billion to investors and would cease to operate as a hedge fund and would convert to a family office. The switch enabled the Soros Fund to avoid the March 30 deadline for registering as an investment manager with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


The firm now mainly manages money for the elder Soros, family and his foundation. George Soros has five children.


The changes continued in September with Scott Bessent, a former Soros disciple, returning to the firm to become chief investment officer and taking over the daily management of the firm from Soros' sons Jonathan and Robert.


Behind the scenes, it also was a rough year for the firm's main investment portfolio, the Quantum Fund. The fund declined about 15 percent last year, say two people familiar with the firm's performance who did not want to be identified because they don't speak for the firm.


The poor performance came in a year when the average hedge fund declined about 5 percent in 2011.


The Quantum Fund also took a big write-down on a $200 million investment it has with Philip Falcone's Harbinger Capital Management hedge fund, something Reuters previously has reported. Harbinger fell about 47 percent as Falcone's big bet on building a wireless network called LightSquared appears to be faltering.


The Soros firm ended a rough year by laying off a handful of analysts and portfolio managers. In December, a Soros spokesman called the layoffs part of the normal course of business at the firm.


(Reporting by Matthew Goldstein and Jennifer Ablan; Additional reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss; Editing by Edward Tobin, Gary Hill)



Source & Image : Yahoo

Why Gas Prices Are Out of Any President’s Control





EVERYONE knows it’s dangerous to ingest gasoline or to inhale its fumes. But I am starting to believe that merely thinking about the price of gasoline can damage cognitive processing. Thus I may be risking some of my precious few remaining brain cells by writing about that topic.


Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no.


Consider a recent poll of a panel of economists conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where I teach. (Disclosure: I am a member of the panel; the other respondents are well-respected economists from top universities with varying political views.) The 41 panel members were asked whether they agreed with the following statement: “Changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies.”


Not a single member of the panel disagreed with the statement.


Here is why: Oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer but a small supplier. We consume about 20 percent of the world’s oil but hold only 2 percent of the oil reserves. That means we are, in economics jargon, “price takers.” Domestic production has increased during the Obama administration, but it has had minimal effects on global prices because, as producers, we are just too small to matter much. And even if domestic oil companies further increased production, they would sell to the highest global bidder.


If you’re not convinced by economic theory or the opinions of economists, consider some recent history. Presumably, no one would call President George W. Bush unfriendly to the oil industry. Yet the price of gasoline rose steadily during most of his administration. In February 2001, just after Mr. Bush took office, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05. Still think presidents and oil-friendly policies can determine oil prices?


It’s true that by the end of the Bush presidency, prices had fallen back to $1.69, as oil prices plummeted with the rest of the global economy. But I think we can all agree that a global financial crisis is too high a price to pay for cheap gasoline.


Still, Republican presidential candidates are blaming the policies of President Obama for the current high level of gasoline prices. Mitt Romney has said that the president should fire three of his cabinet members for failing to get oil prices down.


(On Friday, the president moved forward in imposing sanctions that are limiting the supply of Iranian oil in world markets.)


Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, has promised us $2.50-a-gallon gasoline. But if we can suspend the law of supply and demand, why stop with gasoline? Why not $2.50 for one-carat diamonds, steak dinners and 18-year-old Scotch whiskey?


Although the United States cannot unilaterally lower the price of oil, it can reduce its consumption, by using oil more efficiently and by developing alternative sources of fuel. For example, the Obama administration has raised the corporate average fuel economy standards imposed on automakers. If consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, demand for gasoline falls, as does the burden imposed by high gas prices. But while such rules help, they are not the best way of achieving societal goals.


A better approach would be to gradually raise the gasoline tax to levels similar to those in Western Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are the norm. N. Gregory Mankiw — the Harvard economist who advises Mr. Romney and is a fellow contributor to the Economic View column — has long advocated such a policy. I agree with him, as do most other economists.


For evidence, note that the economists in that same University of Chicago poll were asked whether they agreed with this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.”


On this question, there was just a single negative vote. Yet in our current political climate, making the sensible suggestion that we gradually raise the tax on gasoline — or impose a broader system of carbon taxes — is ridiculed, and no one running for president can safely make such a proposal. At least two of the candidates have shown that they understand the underlying economics. In the past, both President Obama and Mr. Romney have acknowledged that higher gas prices have an upside: they give car owners the right incentives, and if the high prices stem in part from higher fuel taxes, the deficit can be trimmed. But such obviously true statements are now considered almost unpatriotic, equivalent to cheering against the U.S.A. in the Olympics.


THE confused public debate on this topic is representative of a more general problem. The voting public is not very good at attributing credit and blame to presidents. They get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly. The same applies to coaches, C.E.O.’s, parents and anyone else in charge. Leaders are important but not omnipotent.


So, to evaluate a leader, we must determine the factors over which that leader has a modicum of control. If you hate the Obama health care program and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, by all means give the president a big share of the blame. And if you love them, give him some credit. What makes no sense is to blame the president for rising gas prices, where he has virtually no control, but not to give him some credit for rising stock prices and an improved labor market, domains where his policies — along with those of the Federal Reserve and Congress — are more likely to have had an effect.


When we make our choice on Election Day, we should consider that the winner will have an important impact on policies in many areas: health care, distribution of the tax burden, Supreme Court nominations, and abortion rights. The candidates’ differences on those issues should be driving our decision, not the wishful thinking that a president can simply lower the price of gasoline. Or Scotch, alas.



Source & Image : New York Times