Four people died at an Aurora, Colo., townhome early Saturday morning, including a gunman who barricaded himself inside for hours, police said.
Around 9 a.m., police said the suspect shot at officers from a second-story window. They returned fire, hitting the man. The suspect was pronounced dead in an upstairs bedroom.
Inside the home, police discovered two other men and one woman dead.
Another woman was able to escape early Saturday morning when she jumped from an upstairs window, and called police around 3 a.m., Aurora Police Sgt. Cassidee Carlson told the Denver Post. The woman, who escaped unharmed, told police she saw three bodies that "appeared lifeless," police said.
Several neighboring homes were evacuated and police sent out emergency notifications to neighbors at 3 a.m., KUSA-TV , an NBC affiliate, reported.
“After we arrived on scene, there were no more shots fired up until he fired at us,” Carlson told the Associated Press. “During this time he was all over the house. He moved furniture. He was throwing things. He was agitated. He was irrational.”
Aurora, a Denver suburb, is where a gunman killed 12 people and injured at least 70 others at a movie theater July 20.
[Updated at 1:41 p.m., Jan. 5: Carlson said in an email to the Los Angeles Times that there was no indication the four people had any connection to the theater shooting.]
Police said they told the suspect by phone and a bullhorn to exit the townhome. Police reached him by phone "intermittently" over several hours and the suspect hung up multiple times on hostage negotiators, police said.
Authorities did not release the name of the victims or suspect.
Author’s note: Most people don’t realize that we knew in the 1920s that leaded gasoline was extremely dangerous. And in light of a Mother Jones story this week that looks at the connection between leaded gasoline and crime rates in the United States, I thought it might be worth reviewing that history. The following is an updated version of an earlier post based on information from my book about early 10th century toxicology, The Poisoner’s Handbook.
In the fall of 1924, five bodies from New Jersey were delivered to the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. You might not expect those out-of-state corpses to cause the chief medical examiner to worry about the dirt blowing in Manhattan streets. But they did.
To understand why you need to know the story of those five dead men, or at least the story of their exposure to a then mysterious industrial poison.
The five men worked at the Standard Oil Refinery in Bayway, New Jersey. All of them spent their days in what plant employees nicknamed “the loony gas building”, a tidy brick structure where workers seemed to sicken as they handled a new gasoline additive. The additive’s technical name was tetraethyl lead or, in industrial shorthand, TEL. It was developed by researchers at General Motors as an anti-knock formula, with the assurance that it was entirely safe to handle.
But, as I wrote in a previous post, men working at the plant quickly gave it the “loony gas” tag because anyone who spent much time handling the additive showed stunning signs of mental deterioration, from memory loss to a stumbling loss of coordination to sudden twitchy bursts of rage. And then in October of 1924, workers in the TEL building began collapsing, going into convulsions, babbling deliriously. By the end of September, 32 of the 49 TEL workers were in the hospital; five of them were dead.
The problem, at that point, was that no one knew exactly why. Oh, they knew – or should have known – that tetraethyl lead was dangerous. As Charles Norris, chief medical examiner for New York City pointed out, the compound had been banned in Europe for years due to its toxic nature. But while U.S. corporations hurried TEL into production in the 1920s, they did not hurry to understand its medical or environmental effects.
In 1922, the U.S. Public Health Service had asked Thomas Midgley, Jr. – the developer of the leaded gasoline process – for copies of all his research into the health consequences of tetraethyl lead (TEL).
Midgley, a scientist at General Motors, replied that no such research existed. And two years later, even with bodies starting to pile up, he had still not looked into the question. Although GM and Standard Oil had formed a joint company to manufacture leaded gasoline – the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation - its research had focused solely on improving the TEL formulas. The companies disliked and frankly avoided the lead issue. They’d deliberately left the word out of their new company name to avoid its negative image.
In response to the worker health crisis at the Bayway plant, Standard Oil suggested that the problem might simply be overwork. Unimpressed, the state of New Jersey ordered a halt to TEL production. And because the compound was so poorly understood, state health officials asked the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to find out what had happened.
In 1924, New York had the best forensic toxicology department in the country; in fact,, it had one of the few such programs period. The chief chemist was a dark, cigar-smoking, perfectionist named Alexander Gettler, a famously dogged researcher who would sit up late at night designing both experiments and apparatus as needed.
It took Gettler three obsessively focused weeks to figure out how much tetraethyl lead the Standard Oil workers had absorbed before they became ill, went crazy, or died. “This is one of the most difficult of many difficult investigations of the kind which have been carried on at this laboratory,” Norris said, when releasing the results. “This was the first work of its kind, as far as I know. Dr. Gettler had not only to do the work but to invent a considerable part of the method of doing it.”
Working with the first four bodies, then checking his results against the body of the last worker killed, who had died screaming in a straitjacket, Gettler discovered that TEL and its lead byproducts formed a recognizable distribution, concentrated in the lungs, the brain, and the bones. The highest levels were in the lungs suggesting that most of the poison had been inhaled; later tests showed that the types of masks used by Standard Oil did not filter out the lead in TEL vapors.
Rubber gloves did protect the hands but if TEL splattered onto unprotected skin, it absorbed alarmingly quickly. The result was intense poisoning with lead, a potent neurotoxin. The loony gas symptoms were, in fact, classic indicators of heavy lead toxicity.
After Norris released his office’s report on tetraethyl lead, New York City banned its sale, and the sale of “any preparation containing lead or other deleterious substances” as an additive to gasoline. So did New Jersey. So did the city of Philadelphia. It was a moment in which health officials in large urban areas were realizing that with increased use of automobiles, it was likely that residents would be increasingly exposed to dangerous lead residues and they moved quickly to protect them.
But fearing that such measures would spread, that they would be forced to find another anti-knock compound, as well as losing considerable money, the manufacturing companies demanded that the federal government take over the investigation and develop its own regulations. U.S. President Calvin Coolidge, a Republican and small-government conservative, moved rapidly in favor of the business interests.
The manufacturers agreed to suspend TEL production and distribution until a federal investigation was completed. In May 1925, the U.S. Surgeon General called a national tetraethyl lead conference, to be followed by the formation of an investigative task force to study the problem. That same year, Midgley published his first health analysis of TEL, which acknowledged a minor health risk at most, insisting that the use of lead compounds,”compared with other chemical industries it is neither grave nor inescapable.”
It was obvious in advance that he’d basically written the conclusion of the federal task force. That panel only included selected industry scientists like Midgely. It had no place for Alexander Gettler or Charles Norris or, in fact, anyone from any city where sales of the gas had been banned, or any agency involved in the producing that first critical analysis of tetraethyl lead.
In January 1926, the public health service released its report which concluded that there was “no danger” posed by adding TEL to gasoline…”no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline” as long as workers were well protected during the manufacturing process.
The task force did look briefly at risks associated with every day exposure by drivers, automobile attendants, gas station operators, and found that it was minimal. The researchers had indeed found lead residues in dusty corners of garages. In addition, all the drivers tested showed trace amounts of lead in their blood. But a low level of lead could be tolerated, the scientists announced. After all, none of the test subjects showed the extreme behaviors and breakdowns associated with places like the looney gas building. And the worker problem could be handled with some protective gear.
There was one cautionary note, though. The federal panel warned that exposure levels would probably rise as more people took to the roads. Perhaps, at a later point, the scientists suggested, the research should be taken up again. It was always possible that leaded gasoline might “constitute a menace to the general public after prolonged use or other conditions not foreseen at this time.”
But, of course, that would be another generation’s problem. In 1926, citing evidence from the TEL report, the federal government revoked all bans on production and sale of leaded gasoline. The reaction of industry was jubilant; one Standard Oil spokesman likened the compound to a “gift of God,” so great was its potential to improve automobile performance.
In New York City, at least, Charles Norris decided to prepare for the health and environmental problems to come. He suggested that the department scientists do a base-line measurement of lead levels in the dirt and debris blowing across city streets. People died, he pointed out to his staff; and everyone knew that heavy metals like lead tended to accumulate. The resulting comparison of street dirt in 1924 and 1934 found a 50 percent increase in lead levels – a warning, an indicator of damage to come, if anyone had been paying attention.
It was some fifty years later – in 1986 – that the United States formally banned lead as a gasoline additive. By that time, according to some estimates, so much lead had been deposited into soils, streets, building surfaces, that an estimated 68 million children would register toxic levels of lead absorption and some 5,000 American adults would die annually of lead-induced heart disease. As lead affects cognitive function, some neuroscientists also suggested that chronic lead exposure resulted in a measurable drop in IQ scores during the leaded gas era. And more recently, of course, researchers had suggested that TEL exposure and resulting nervous system damage may have contributed to violent crime rates in the 20th century.
Images: 1) Manhattan, 34th Street, 1931/NYC Municipal Archives 2) 1940s gas station, US Route 66, Illinois/Deborah Blum
(Reuters) – As political experts assess Republican Mitt Romney‘s failed U.S. presidential bid, an analysis of how his campaign and President Barack Obama‘s winning team used cable TV to target ads at specific groups of voters may offer some valuable tips for the future.
During the final weeks before the November 6 election, with polls showing a tight race, Obama’s campaign exploited cable TV’s diverse lineup to target women on channels such as Food Network and Lifetime and men on networks such as ESPN.
The Obama team used the fragmentation of cable TV’s audience to its fullest advantage to target tailored messages to voters in battleground states.
Meanwhile, Romney’s campaign relied on a more traditional mass saturation of broadcast TV. The Romney camp was entirely dark on cable TV for two of the campaign’s last seven days.
“We don’t know why. This was a week before the election and you’re in the fight for your life,” said Timothy Kay, political director for NCC Media, a cable TV industry consortium.
The race had narrowed to key counties in several battleground states, the kind of isolation ideally suited for cable’s geographical targeting and niche-marketing capabilities.
Republican Party operatives dismayed by Romney’s defeat continue to debate what went wrong in a campaign awash in cash and run by a candidate with a business background. The former Massachusetts governor’s campaign, like Democrat Obama‘s, spent a record-setting amount of cash; in Romney’s case, it was $ 580 million in 20 months.
Obama’s campaign outspent Romney’s campaign on advertising by as much as $ 200 million, according to a Reuters analysis. But when spending by pro-Romney and pro-Obama outside groups is considered, Romney had the edge in overall TV advertising spending.
Republican consultants and advertising experts said Romney had enough money to compete with Obama’s final advertising effort. Yet Obama cruised to a commanding Electoral College victory after a final concentration on a small group of battleground states.
“In market after market, the Obama campaign ended up putting more ads on target than the Romney campaign did,” said Ken Goldstein, president of Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, a nonpartisan consulting firm that tracked political ads and worked with both campaigns.
Stephanie Kincaid, who managed Romney’s advertising campaign, declined to answer questions and referred inquiries to top Romney campaign officials Stuart Stevens and Russell Schriefer, her bosses at The Stevens and Schriefer Group, a political consulting firm. They did not respond to phone calls.
OBAMA’S ADVANTAGE
Cable television political advertising jumped from $ 136 million in 2006 to $ 650 million in 2012, although broadcast TV still garnered 80 percent of the campaign advertising spending last year.
Even with major broadcast networks and their affiliates, the Obama campaign appeared to out-perform the Romney camp.
A campaign spending review shows the Obama camp frequently spent far less than Romney for ads aired by the same stations during the same shows.
For example, a review of TV station filings with the Federal Communications Commission showed Romney, on the Sunday before Election Day, paid $ 1,100 for an ad aired during CBS’s “Face the Nation” program on WRAL in Raleigh, North Carolina. Obama paid $ 200 for a comparable ad on the same station during the same program.
Part of the reason for the Obama campaign’s pricing advantage is that the president faced no Democratic primary challenge and was able to buy autumn TV time months in advance when the slots – like airline tickets – were discounted. Romney faced a tough battle for the Republican nomination.
The Romney campaign also simply did not have enough bodies to handle the labor-intensive business of planning, negotiating and placing ads on hundreds of TV stations simultaneously, according to several Republican consultants and media analysts who asked not to be identified.
Obama’s campaign had 30 full-time media buyers. The Romney campaign relied heavily on a single person, Kincaid, with help from one or two others from time to time, according to sources close to the campaign. Senior officials with the campaign declined to discuss its advertising staffing.
“It’s the equivalent of having a budget the size of a Coca- Cola commercial campaign and having two people managing it, where a Madison Avenue agency might have 50 people,” said NCC’s Kay. Kincaid and her small staff were overwhelmed, according to numerous political vendors who dealt with them.
Jim Margolis, an Obama campaign senior adviser whose firm GMMB handled its advertising, said the campaign also took advantage of information provided by companies like Rentrak Corp, a Portland, Oregon-based company that monitors the digital boxes attached to TVs in households using satellite dishes.
EXPLOITING FRAGMENTATION
In the past, political advertisers relied on the major networks rather than cable TV in a quest to reach the most television viewers.
But cable TV’s increasing popularity has brought dramatic fragmentation to television viewership. In many markets, cable offers a hundred or more channels, giving advertisers a chance to target specific demographics.
For instance, the Obama campaign identified zip codes surrounding Ohio tire-manufacturing plants and purchased cable ads touting Obama’s efforts to block tire imports from China.
Obama ran 600,000 cable ads to the Romney’s 300,000 around the nation during the campaign, said NCC’s Kay. Obama’s cable TV push started in April. Romney’s began in September.
Obama’s team also mixed and matched its messages to sharpen the appeal in key counties.
“My impression was there was much more examination and analytics done with the Obama campaign,” Kay said. “The Romney campaign had the same rigid schedule in every state.”
(Reporting by Marcus Stern in Washington and Tim McLaughlin in Boston; Editing by Claudia Parsons, Marilyn W. Thompson and Will Dunham)
TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News
Title Post: Analysis: Obama’s ad team used cable TV to outplay Romney Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/analysis-obamas-ad-team-used-cable-tv-to-outplay-romney/ Link To Post : Analysis: Obama’s ad team used cable TV to outplay Romney Rating: 100%
based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews. Author: Fluser SeoLink Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment
One consequence of our elders’ extended lifespans is that we half expect them to keep chugging along forever. My father, a busy yoga practitioner and blackjack player, celebrated his 90th birthday in September in reasonably good health.
So when I had the sad task of letting people know that Murray Span died on Dec. 8, after just a few days’ illness, the primary response was disbelief. “No! I just talked to him Tuesday! He was fine!”
And he was. We’d gone out for lunch on Saturday, our usual routine, and he demolished a whole stack of blueberry pancakes.
But on Wednesday, he called to say he had bad abdominal pain and had hardly slept. The nurses at his facility were on the case; his geriatrician prescribed a clear liquid diet.
Like many in his generation, my dad tended towards stoicism. When he said, the following morning, “the pain is terrible,” that meant agony. I drove over.
His doctor shared our preference for conservative treatment. For patients at advanced ages, hospitals and emergency rooms can become perilous places. My dad had come through a July heart attack in good shape, but he had also signed a do-not-resuscitate order. He saw evidence all around him that eventually the body fails and life can become a torturous series of health crises and hospitalizations from which one never truly rebounds.
So over the next two days we tried to relieve his pain at home. He had abdominal x-rays that showed some kind of obstruction. He tried laxatives and enemas and Tylenol, to no effect. He couldn’t sleep.
On Friday, we agreed to go to the emergency room for a CT scan. Maybe, I thought, there’s a simple fix, even for a 90-year-old with diabetes and heart disease. But I carried his advance directives in my bag, because you never know.
When it is someone else’s narrative, it’s easier to see where things go off the rails, where a loving family authorizes procedures whose risks outweigh their benefits.
But when it’s your father groaning on the gurney, the conveyor belt of contemporary medicine can sweep you along, one incremental decision at a time.
All I wanted was for him to stop hurting, so it seemed reasonable to permit an IV for hydration and pain relief and a thin oxygen tube tucked beneath his nose.
Then, after Dad drank the first of two big containers of contrast liquid needed for his scan, his breathing grew phlegmy and labored. His geriatrician arrived and urged the insertion of a nasogastric tube to suck out all the liquid Dad had just downed.
His blood oxygen levels dropped, so there were soon two doctors and two nurses suctioning his throat until he gagged and fastening an oxygen mask over his nose and mouth.
At one point, I looked at my poor father, still in pain despite all the apparatus, and thought, “This is what suffering looks like.” I despaired, convinced I had failed in my most basic responsibility.
“I’m just so tired,” Dad told me, more than once. “There are too many things going wrong.”
Let me abridge this long story. The scan showed evidence of a perforation of some sort, among other abnormalities. A chest X-ray indicated pneumonia in both lungs. I spoke with Dad’s doctor, with the E.R. doc, with a friend who is a prominent geriatrician.
These are always profound decisions, and I’m sure that, given the number of unknowns, other people might have made other choices. Fortunately, I didn’t have to decide; I could ask my still-lucid father.
I leaned close to his good ear, the one with the hearing aid, and told him about the pneumonia, about the second CT scan the radiologist wanted, about antibiotics. “Or, we can stop all this and go home and call hospice,” I said.
He had seen my daughter earlier that day (and asked her about the hockey strike), and my sister and her son were en route. The important hands had been clasped, or soon would be.
He knew what hospice meant; its nurses and aides helped us care for my mother as she died. “Call hospice,” he said. We tiffed a bit about whether to have hospice care in his apartment or mine. I told his doctors we wanted comfort care only.
As in a film run backwards, the tubes came out, the oxygen mask came off. Then we settled in for a night in a hospital room while I called hospices — and a handyman to move the furniture out of my dining room, so I could install his hospital bed there.
In between, I assured my father that I was there, that we were taking care of him, that he didn’t have to worry. For the first few hours after the morphine began, finally seeming to ease his pain, he could respond, “OK.” Then, he couldn’t.
The next morning, as I awaited the hospital case manager to arrange the hospice transfer, my father stopped breathing.
We held his funeral at the South Jersey synagogue where he’d had his belated bar mitzvah at age 88, and buried him next to my mother in a small Jewish cemetery in the countryside. I’d written a fair amount about him here, so I thought readers might want to know.
We weren’t ready, if anyone ever really is, but in our sorrow, my sister and I recite this mantra: 90 good years, four bad days. That’s a ratio any of us might choose.
Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”
Poor and homeless people waited for food on Tuesday at a New Delhi temple.
NEW DELHI — India has more poor people than any nation on earth, but many of its antipoverty programs end up feeding the rich more than the needy. A new program hopes to change that.
On Jan. 1, India eliminated a raft of bureaucratic middlemen by depositing government pension and scholarship payments directly into the bank accounts of about 245,000 people in 20 of the nation’s hundreds of districts, in a bid to prevent corrupt state and local officials from diverting much of the money to their own pockets. Hundreds of thousands more people will be added to the program in the coming months.
In a country of 1.2 billion, the numbers so far are modest, but some officials and economists see the start of direct payments as revolutionary — a program intended not only to curb corruption but also to serve as a vehicle for lifting countless millions out of poverty altogether.
The nation’s finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, described the cash transfer program to Indian news media as a “pioneering and pathbreaking reform” that is a “game changer for governance.” He acknowledged that the initial rollout had been modest because of “practical difficulties, some quite unforeseen.” He promised that those problems would be resolved before the end of 2013, when the program is to be extended in phases to other parts of the country.
Some critics, however, said the program was intended more to buy votes among the poor than to overcome poverty. And some said that in a country where hundreds of millions have no access to banks, never mind personal bank accounts, direct electronic money transfers are only one aspect of a much broader effort necessary to build a real safety net for India’s vast population.
“An impression has been created that the government is about to launch an ambitious scheme of direct cash transfers to poor families,” Jean Drèze, an honorary professor at the Delhi School of Economics, wrote in an e-mail. “This is quite misleading. What the government is actually planning is an experiment to change the modalities of existing transfers — nothing more, nothing less.”
The program is based on models in Mexico and Brazil in which poor families receive stipends in exchange for meeting certain social goals, like keeping their children in school or getting regular medical checkups. International aid organizations have praised these efforts in several places; in Brazil alone, nearly 50 million people participate.
But one of India’s biggest hurdles is simply figuring out how to distinguish its 1.2 billion citizens. The country is now in the midst of another ambitious project to undertake retinal and fingerprint scans in every village and city in the hope of giving hundreds of millions who have no official identification a card with a 12-digit number that would, among other things, give them access to the modern financial world. After three years of operation, the program has issued unique numbers to 220 million people.
Bindu Ananth, the president of IFMR Trust, a financial charity, said that getting people bank accounts can be surprisingly beneficial because the poor often pay stiff fees to cash checks or get small loans, fees that are substantially reduced for account holders.
“I think this is one of the biggest things to happen to India’s financial system in a decade,” Ms. Ananth said.
Only about a third of Indian households have bank accounts. Getting a significant portion of the remaining households included in the nation’s financial system will take an enormous amount of additional effort and expense, at least part of which will fall on the government to bear, economists said.
“There are two things this cash transfer program is supposed to do: prevent leakage from corruption, and bring everybody into the system,” said Surendra L. Rao, a former director general of the National Council of Applied Economic Research. “And I don’t see either happening anytime soon.”
The great promise of the cash transfer program — as well as its greatest point of contention — would come if it tackled India’s expensive and inefficient system for handing out food and subsidized fuel through nearly 50,000 government shops.
India spends almost $14 billion annually on this system, or nearly 1 percent of its gross domestic product, but the system is poorly managed and woefully inefficient.
Fear of embarrassment and budget cuts led California parks officials to intentionally conceal millions of dollars in a department account, according to an investigation conducted by the state attorney general's office.
The report, released Friday, is the most detailed official narrative yet regarding the root of the accounting scandal at the parks department.
The scandal broke last summer when it was revealed that the parks department had a hidden surplus of nearly $54 million even though it was threatening to close dozens of facilities.
About $20 million was found in an account where entrance fees and other revenues are deposited. Accounting discrepancies appeared to begin innocently more than a decade ago, leading to fluctuating reports on how much money was in the fund, investigators said.
But in 2002, when the problems were identified, parks officials made a "conscious and deliberate" decision not to reveal the money to officials at the Department of Finance, which plans the state budget.
Multiple high-ranking officials were involved, including the former chief deputy director, Michael Harris, who later lost his job over the scandal. However, the report said it remained unclear whether ousted director Ruth Coleman knew about the accounting problems. Coleman declined to be interviewed for the investigation.
Parks officials didn't report the money because they were concerned that their already reduced budget would be cut even further if the state's number-crunchers knew they had more money in a department account, the report said. Interviews conducted by investigators also showed that officials feared embarrassment if the accounting problems were revealed.
"Throughout this period of intentional non-disclosure, some parks employees consistently requested, without success, that their superiors address the issue," the report said. It wasn't until a new deputy director was installed at the parks department in January 2012 was the issue reported.
Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency, said officials are still determining whether the investigation will result in criminal charges.
John Laird, the resources secretary, said new policies and staff are in place to prevent similar problems in the future.
"It is now clear that this is a problem that could have been fixed by a simple correction years ago, instead of being unaddressed for so long that it turned into a significant blow to public trust in government," Laird, who oversees the parks department, said in a statement.
The rest of the $54 million was found in an account for off-road vehicle parks. Investigators said accounting discrepancies there appeared to be unintentional, and the result of various bookkeeping problems involving loans and tax changes.
For example, a 2010 modification to the gas tax mistakenly pumped millions of excess dollars into the off-road account, the report said. That problem has been fixed and the money has been reallocated, according to the Department of Finance.
The investigation from the attorney general's office is the third review of the parks department in recent weeks. One more report, from the state auditor, is expected to be released.
In reading the coverage of the FTC announcement that it was not going to pursue any real action against Google for favoritism of its own products in the web search market, I was surprised to see how few commentators have raised the point that there can’t be a search “market” when no one pays for that service. And that the users of web search are, in fact, the product that Google sells to the consumers of the market it does monopolize — online advertising. Or the fact that by using its advertising revenues to provide services to users for free or greatly discounted it can collapse those markets and own them as well.
For over a year and a half, many experts who follow the internet economy have wisely pointed out that the real consumers in the online search business are advertisers, not the users who interact with the search engine. One of the most profound “aha” moments for me came when I read Nathan Newman’s article “You’re Not Google’s Customer — You’re the Product: Antitrust in a Web 2.0 World” back in March 2011. He correctly argued that web browser users who interact with Google search are in fact the product that gets sold to the real customer — the online advertiser.
Given that no money changes hands between a web user and Google or any other web search engine provider, there is no search engine market. The information provided by the user is collected by Google and used to match the user with paid ads. The revenue event takes place when the user clicks on a link to an advertiser’s website and at that point, the monetary transaction takes place — between Google and the advertiser. In Newman’s most recent article (FTC “Brought Forth a Couple of Mice” in Slapping Google on the Wrist), he makes many of the same points again.
So for the FTC to consider the users of search engines as consumers, when these users do not pay for the web search session, seems incredibly misguided. It is not surprising that the FTC had a tough time determining harm to the consumer when they have been looking at the wrong consumer all this time.
Yet, there are at least two areas where there is a clear consumer-provider relationship, where there is evidence of harm and yet the FTC has completely ignored the markets.
Advertisers Are Harmed by Google’s Search Monopoly
While web search engine users pay nothing to conduct an online search, advertisers pay dearly for premier ad placement beside the search results in the hope that the user will click on their link, go to their site and buy their product or service. This is a great model since end users are matched up with relevant ads based on the keywords that are used in the search. Yet there is a dark side to this model. Given that Google has a monopoly position in online search, advertisers really have no other choice when it comes to buying effective online ads. As more advertisers use Google AdWords, the cost per click for each keyword goes up as more companies vie for user eyeballs. This scramble for placement “above the fold” drives the price for keywords ever higher in a land grab for attention. With no other viable alternative for search engine advertising, the prices spiral upward at alarming rates. The result is that advertisers pay more and more for advertising while getting no improvement in the quality of click-throughs. And Google sits back and simply collects the cash.
I know for my own business, the cost per click for Google AdWords has gone up substantially over the last six years. I spend more on AdWords now than I do for healthcare plans (and we all know how expensive healthcare plans are).
The New York Times ran a very interesting series on this phenomenon. In the words of Sharon Geltner, an analyst at the Small Business Development Center, “AdWords can bleed many a small business dry.”
Plus you now have a situation where Google is entering new markets and is able to give its new offerings free prime advertising placement while its competitors have to pay substantial fees for similar placement. Just try doing a Google search for “smartphone” or “cloud computing” or “web apps” and see where Google’s ads appear. Note that this is subtly different than the search bias that the FTC looked into. In my opinion, this is much worse.
So for advertisers, you could definitely build a case that Google is harming consumers (i.e., businesses placing ads) by exploiting its monopoly in the web search space to drive up the price of advertising. But it appears the FTC does not care about this type of “consumer.”
Google Apps Customers Will Ultimately Be Harmed
While advertising makes up 96 percent of Google’s revenue, Google does generate some revenue selling Google Apps to business, education and government customers. Many customers have welcomed the extremely low (or even free as is the case in education) per-user prices that Google charges for Google Apps which includes Gmail, Drive and other cloud-based services. Yet again, there is a dark side to this model. Google is running a well-known tactic of using profits from a monopoly business (online advertising) to subsidize a low-priced offering in an adjacent market (cloud-based productivity applications such as e-mail and document management) with the goal of driving out competitors who are not able to cross-subsidize their offerings. At the moment, consumers only see the short-term positive side, which is lower pricing. But once the other competitors are driven out of the new market, Google will be left as the only competitor and will be free to raise prices, dictate the features or reduce investment – all of which will ultimately harm consumers.
There are other areas of potential harm to these consumers related to privacy and the use of personal user or business information in order to enhance Google’s advertising business. This is particularly an issue for government customers who are storing sensitive government and taxpayer data in these services. Many, including myself, have written about these data protection issues and this has been an area of focus for regulators around the world.
Again, the FTC has passed up the opportunity to investigate these Google consumer relationships and the potential long-term harm of Google’s business practices.
With the FTC case closed, the ball is now in the court of European regulators and many state attorneys general. It will be interesting to see if these regulators “get it” and will focus on the harm to the real consumers of Google’s offerings: advertisers and Google Apps customers.
Doug Miller is an independent IT consultant who specializes in cloud computing, enterprise migration, mobility and competitive strategy. He is a regular contributor to SafeGov.org and NewInformationEconomy.com.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Oscar-winning actress Helen Mirren finally got her wish on Thursday, receiving a star along the Hollywood Walk of Fame right next to dashing fellow Briton Colin Firth.
“I couldn’t be prouder and more happy that I’m actually going to finally lie next to Colin Firth, something I’ve been wanting to do for a very long time,” Mirren said wryly.
Mirren, 67, who won the best actress Oscar for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in 2006′s “The Queen,” was honored with the iconic terrazzo and brass star along Hollywood Boulevard in the historical heart of the U.S. film industry.
Mirren’s star, the 2,488th since the Walk of Fame began in 1958, serves as a de facto lifetime achievement award for those in the entertainment industry.
Firth, who received his Walk of Fame star in 2011, won an Oscar as best actor for his portrayal of Britain’s King George VI in 2010′s “The King Speech.”
“Well I’m very pleased and proud and I think it’s very good for the British monarchy that here on Hollywood Boulevard, the King and the Queen are going to actually sleep together, for the rest of history,” said Mirren said at the unveiling.
The actress posed for photographers lying on her side next to her star and blew kisses to the crowd.
Writer and director David Mamet introduced Mirren.
“Helen’s performances reap higher praise than being praised, they’re loved,” Mamet said.
“And by one who’s had the absolute kick of working with her, I want to say as (British poet) Rupert Brooke said, somewhere there will be a little piece of foreign ground that is always a bit of England, and that’s right there,” Mamet said.
Mirren is starring alongside Al Pacino in Mamet’s upcoming TV film about troubled music producer Phil Spector’s murder trial.
The Hollywood Walk of Fame is administered by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.
(Reporting by Alan Devall, writing by Eric Kelsey, editing by Jill Serjeant and Sandra Maler)
Celebrity News Headlines – Yahoo! News
Title Post: Helen Mirren “happy” her Hollywood star next to Colin Firth’s Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/helen-mirren-happy-her-hollywood-star-next-to-colin-firths/ Link To Post : Helen Mirren “happy” her Hollywood star next to Colin Firth’s Rating: 100%
based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews. Author: Fluser SeoLink Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment
The Food and Drug Administration on Friday proposed two sweeping rules aimed at preventing the contamination of produce and processed foods, taking a long-awaited step toward codifying the food safety law that Congress passed two years ago.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
A new rule imposed by the F.D.A. would establish different standards for ensuring the purity of water that touches fruits and vegetables.
The proposed rules represent a sea change in the way the agency polices food, a process that currently involves swinging into action after food contamination has been identified rather than protecting against it before it hits grocery shelves.
“These new rules really set the basic framework for a modern, science-based approach to food safety and shifts us from a strategy of reacting to problems to a strategy for preventing problems,” Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the F.D.A., said in an interview.
The F.D.A. is responsible for the safety of about 80 percent of the food that the nation consumes. The remainder of the burden falls to the Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for meat, poultry and some eggs. One in six Americans becomes ill from eating contaminated food each year, the government estimates; of those, roughly 130,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.
Congress passed the groundbreaking Food Safety Modernization Act in 2010 after a wave of incidents involving tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands of people and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.
But it took the Obama administration two years to move the rules through the F.D.A., prompting accusations by advocates that the White House was more concerned about protecting itself from Republican criticism than about public safety.
Mr. Taylor said, however, that the delay was a function of the wide variety of foods that the rules had to encompass and the complexity of the food system. “Anything that is important and complicated will always take longer than you would like,” he said.
The first rule would require manufacturers of processed foods sold in the United States to identify, adopt and carry out measures to reduce the risk of contamination. Food companies also would be required to have a plan for correcting any problems that might arise and for keeping records that F.D.A. inspectors could use for audit purposes.
One such preventive measure might be the roasting of raw peanuts at a temperature guaranteed to kill salmonella bacteria, which has been a problem in nut butters in recent years. Roasted nuts might then be sequestered from incoming raw nuts to further reduce the risk of contamination, said Sandra B. Eskin, director of the safe food campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts.
“This is very good news for consumers,” Ms. Eskin said. “We applaud the administration’s action, which demonstrates its strong commitment to making our food safer.”
The second rule would apply to the harvesting and production of fruits and vegetables in an effort to combat the bacterial contamination that has arisen over the last decade, particularly from E. coli, a bacterium that is transmitted through feces. It would address what advocates refer to as the “four Ws” — water, waste, workers and wildlife.
Farmers would establish different standards for ensuring the purity of water that touches, say, lettuce leaves and the water used to saturate soil, which will only nourish plants through their roots.
A farm or plant where vegetables are packaged might, for example, add lavatories to ensure that workers do not urinate in fields and post signs similar to those in restaurants that remind employees to wash their hands.
The food industry cautiously applauded the arrival of the proposed rules, with most companies and industry groups noting that they would be poring over them and making comments as necessary in the coming weeks.
“Consumers expect industry and government to work together to provide Americans and consumers around the world with the safest possible products,” the Grocery Manufacturers Association said in a statement. “FSMA and its implementation effort can serve as a role model for what can be achieved when the private and public sectors work together to achieve a common goal.”
The association noted that the F.D.A. will have to issue more than 50 regulations to fully carry out the new law.
FOR many of the wealthy, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed this week by Congress, is aptly named.
For estate and gift taxes in particular, all but the richest of the rich will probably be able to protect their holdings from taxes, now that Congress has permanently set the estate and gift tax exemptions at $5 million (a level that will rise with inflation).
“You could say this eliminates the estate tax for 99 percent of the population, though I’ve seen figures that say 99.7 or 99.8,” said Richard A. Behrendt, director of estate planning at the financial services firm Baird and a former inspector for the Internal Revenue Service. “From a policy point of view, the estate tax is not there for raising revenue. It’s there for a check on the massive concentration of wealth in a few hands, and it will still accomplish that.”
And while Congress also agreed to increase tax rates on dividends and capital gains to 20 percent from 15 percent for top earners — in addition to the 3.8 percent Medicare surcharge on such earnings — the rates are still far lower than those on their ordinary income. For the earners at the very top, whose income comes mostly from their portfolios of investments, and not a paycheck like most of the rest of us, this is a good deal.
The estate tax, once an arcane assessment, has been in flux and attracting significant attention since 2001. That was when the exemption per person for the estate tax began to rise gradually from $675,000, with a 55 percent tax for anything above that amount, to $3.5 million in 2009 with a 45 percent tax rate for estates larger than that. Estate plans were written to account for the predictable increases in exemptions.
Then in 2010, contrary to what every accountant and tax lawyer I spoke to at the time believed would happen, the estate tax disappeared. Congress and President Obama could not reach an agreement on the tax. So that year, for the first time since 1916, Americans who died were not subject to a federal estate tax. (Their estates still paid state estate taxes, where they existed, and other taxes, including capital gains, on the value of the assets transferred.)
At the end of 2010, President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner reached an agreement that was just as unlikely as the estate tax expiring in the first place: the new exemption was $5 million, indexed to inflation, with a 35 percent tax rate on any amount over that, and it would last for two years. The taxes and exemptions for gifts made during someone’s lifetime to children and grandchildren were also raised to the same level, from $1 million and a 55 percent tax above that.
As I have written many times, this was a far better rate and exemption than anyone expected. It also created a deadline of Dec. 31, 2012, for people who could make a major gift up to the exemption level or above the amount and pay the low gift tax.
Using the gift exemption was enticing because it meant those assets would appreciate outside of the estate of the person making the gift. Even paying the tax became attractive to the very rich because of how estate and gift taxes are levied. Take, for example, someone who has used up his exemption and wants to give an heir $1 million. The amount it would take to accomplish this differs depending on when it is given. In life, it would cost $1.4 million because the 40 percent gift tax is paid like a sales tax. If it was given after death, the estate would have to set aside about $1.65 million after the 40 percent estate tax was deducted. But this presented a conundrum: while it may make perfect sense to give away a lot of money during your lifetime and save on estate taxes, it means ceding control of cash, securities or shares now. What if you end up needing them? It wasn’t an easy decision, and it led to a fourth-quarter rush.
As of this week, this is no longer an issue. The estate and gift tax exemptions are permanently set at the same $5 million level, indexed for inflation, and the tax rate above that exemption is 40 percent, up from 35 percent. With indexing, the exemption is already about $5.25 million per person — double for a couple — and it will rise at a rate that means most Americans will continue to avoid paying any federal estate tax.
Justin Bieber and his collection of exotic cars have been tantalizing targets for celebrity photographers ever since the young singer got his driver's license.
A video captured the paparazzi chasing Bieber through Westside traffic in November. When Bieber's white Ferrari stops at an intersection, the video shows the singer turning to one of the photographers and asking: "How do your parents feel about what you do?"
A few months earlier, he was at the wheel of his Fisker sports car when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled him over for driving at high speeds while trying to outrun a paparazzo.
This pursuit for the perfect shot took a fatal turn Tuesday when a photographer was hit by an SUV on Sepulveda Boulevard after taking photos of Bieber's Ferrari. And the singer now finds himself at the center of the familiar debate about free speech and the aggressive tactics of the paparazzi.
Since Princess Diana's fatal accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, California politicians have tried crafting laws that curb paparazzi behavior. But some of those laws are rarely used, and attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of others.
On Wednesday, Bieber went on the offensive, calling on lawmakers to crack down.
"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves," he said in a statement.
It remained unclear if any legislators would take up his call. But Bieber did get some support from another paparazzi target, singer Miley Cyrus.
She wrote on Twitter that she hoped the accident "brings on some changes in '13 Paparazzi are dangerous!"
Last year, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out charges related to a first-of-its-kind anti-paparazzi law in a case involving Bieber being chased on the 101 Freeway by photographer Paul Raef. Passed in 2010, the law created punishments for paparazzi who drove dangerously to obtain images.
But the judge said the law violated 1st Amendment protections by overreaching and potentially affecting such people as wedding photographers or photographers speeding to a location where a celebrity was present.
The L.A. city attorney's office is now appealing that decision.
Raef's attorney, Dmitry Gorin, said new anti-paparazzi laws are unnecessary.
"There are plenty of other laws on the books to deal with these issues. There is always a rush to create a new paparazzi law every time something happens," he said. "Any new law on the paparazzi is going to run smack into the 1st Amendment. Truth is, most conduct is covered by existing laws. A lot of this is done for publicity."
Coroner's officials have not identified the photographer because they have not reached the next of kin. However, his girlfriend, Frances Merto, and another photographer identified him as Chris Guerra.
The incident took place on Sepulveda Boulevard near Getty Center Drive shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday. A friend of Bieber was driving the sports car when it was pulled over on the 405 Freeway by the California Highway Patrol. The photographer arrived near the scene on Sepulveda, left his car and crossed the street to take photos. Sources familiar with the investigation said the CHP told him to leave the area. As he was returning to his vehicle, he was hit by the SUV.
Law enforcement sources said Wednesday that it was unlikely charges would be filed against the driver of the SUV that hit the photographer.
Veteran paparazzo Frank Griffin took issue with the criticism being directed at the photographer as well as other paparazzi.
"What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances and the war photographer who steps on a land mine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road?" said Griffin, who co-owns the photo agency Griffin-Bauer.
"The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Both young men have left behind mothers and fathers grieving and there's no greater sadness in this world than parents who have to bury their children."
Others, however, said the death focuses attention on the safety issues involving paparazzi
"The paparazzi are increasingly reckless and dangerous. The greater the demand, the greater the incentive to do whatever it takes to get the image," said Blair Berk, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented numerous celebrities. "The issue here isn't vanity and nuisance, it's safety."
A federal appeals court’s August ruling in which it said the federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued won’t be appealed to the Supreme Court, attorneys in the case said Thursday.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this summer reversed the first and only case that successfully challenged then-President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program. In December, the San Francisco-based appeals court — the nation’s largest — declined to revisit its decision — making the case ripe for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellate decision overturned a lower court decision in which two American attorneys — who were working with the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — were awarded more than $20,000 each in damages and their lawyers $2.5 million in legal fees after a years-long, tortured legal battle where they proved they were spied on without warrants.
Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, said in a telephone interview that he would lose in the Supreme Court with its “current composition.”
“It would be a risky endeavor to take this case to this Supreme Court,” he said.
Eisenberg’s legal strategy means that the appellate court’s decision remains binding only in the 9th Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Had the Supreme Court ruled against Eisenberg, a nationwide precedent would be set.
“At some point down the line, a case could end up in a different circuit that would not be bound by the 9th Circuit ruling,” Eisenberg said. By that time, he said, perhaps a more willing Supreme Court would be sitting.
Eisenberg sued under domestic spying laws Congress adopted in the wake of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate scandal. The government appealed their victory, and the appeals court dismissed the suit and reversed the damages.
The appellate court had ruled that when Congress wrote the law regulating eavesdropping on Americans and spies, it never waived sovereign immunity in the section prohibiting the targeting Americans without warrants. That means Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws.
Congress authorized Bush’s spy program in 2008, five years after the illegal wiretapping involved in this case. Last week, Congress reauthorized it for another five years.
The Bush spy program was first disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005, and the government subsequently admitted that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on Americans’ telephone calls without warrants if the government believed the person on the other end was overseas and associated with terrorism. The government also secretly enlisted the help of major U.S. telecoms, including AT&T, to spy on Americans’ phone and internet communications without getting warrants as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law at the center of the al-Haramain dispute.
A lower court judge found in 2010 that two American lawyers’ telephone conversations with their al-Haramain clients in Saudi Arabia were siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. The government subsequently declared the group a terror organization. The eavesdropping allegations were initially based on a classified document the government accidentally mailed to the former al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawyers Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor.
The document was later declared a state secret, removed from the long-running lawsuit and has never been made public. With that document ruled out as evidence, the lawyers instead cited a bevy of circumstantial evidence that a trial judge concluded showed the government illegally wiretapped the lawyers as they spoke on U.S. soil to Saudi Arabia.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Country-pop star Taylor Swift‘s “Red” finished 2012 atop the Billboard 200 album chart on Thursday, claiming the No. 1 spot for the fourth consecutive week.
It was the album’s seventh non-consecutive week at No. 1 on the chart as post-holiday digital sales accounted for more than half of its 241,000 units sold, according to figures from Nielsen SoundScan.
Swift, 23, has now topped the Billboard album chart for 24 weeks in her four-album career, tying Adele for the most weeks by a female artist at number one on the chart since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales figures for Billboard in 1991.
The soundtrack to the big screen adaptation of Broadway musical “Les Miserables” jumped 31 spots to number two on the album chart. It sold 136,000 units and was buoyed by a full week on the chart and the release of the film in movie theaters on December 25.
British boy band One Direction placed third with “Take Me Home,” while singer Bruno Mars‘ “Unorthodox Jukebox” and rapper T.I.’s “Trouble Man: Heavy Is the Head” round out the top five.
U.S. album sales for last week were up 27 percent compared to the same week in 2011, at 9.77 million units.
The post-Christmas week, in which many cashed in their holiday gift cards, saw a record for digital song downloads in a week as a total of 55.74 million tracks were downloaded, besting the previous record of 47.73 million from the same week in 2008.
(Reporting by Eric Kelsey; Editing by Sandra Maler)
Music News Headlines – Yahoo! News
Title Post: Taylor Swift’s ”Red” holds down top spot on Billboard chart Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/taylor-swifts-red-holds-down-top-spot-on-billboard-chart/ Link To Post : Taylor Swift’s ”Red” holds down top spot on Billboard chart Rating: 100%
based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews. Author: Fluser SeoLink Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment
Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.
Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.
The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.
“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.
Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.
Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.
As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.
Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.
“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”
A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.
In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.
Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.
Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.
On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.
But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.
Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.
Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.
The driller whose floating Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew out in 2010 to cause the nation’s biggest oil spill has agreed to settle civil and criminal claims with the federal government for $1.4 billion, the Justice Department announced Thursday.
The Deepwater Horizon exploded, burned and sank in April 2010. Eleven men were killed and millions of gallons of oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico and fouled the shores of coastal states. The Macondo well was owned by British oil giant BP, which settled its own criminal charges and some of its civil charges in November for $4.5 billion.
While this settlement resolves the government’s claims against Transocean, that company and the others involved in the spill still face the sprawling, multistate civil case, which is scheduled to begin in February in New Orleans. In a deal filed in federal court in New Orleans, a subsidiary, Transocean Deepwater, agreed to one criminal misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act and will pay a fine of $100 million. Over the next five years, the company will pay record civil penalties of $1 billion under the act. Transocean also agreed to pay the National Academy of Sciences and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation $150 million each. Those funds will be applied to oil spill prevention and response in the Gulf of Mexico and natural resource restoration projects. The agreement will be subject to public comment and court approval. The company agreed to five years of monitoring of its drilling practices and improved safety measures.
In a statement, Transocean Ltd., the Switzerland-based parent of the rig owner, said that the company thought these were “important agreements” and called them a “positive step forward” that were “in the best interest of its shareholders and employees.” Of the 11 men killed on the rig, the company said, “Their families continue to be in the thoughts and prayers of all of us at Transocean.”
The company announced in September that it had set an “estimated loss contingency” of $1.5 billion against the Justice Department’s claims.
Shares of Transocean Ltd. rose nearly 3 percent on the news, to close at $49.20.
In a statement, Lanny A. Breuer, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, seemed to suggest that Transocean played a subservient and lesser role in the disaster to that of BP: “Transocean’s rig crew accepted the direction of BP well site leaders to proceed in the face of clear danger signs — at a tragic cost to many of them.” He said that the $1.4 billion “appropriately reflects its role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.”
Under a law passed last year, 80 percent of the penalty will be applied to projects for restoring the environment and economies of Gulf states.
That fact was applauded by a coalition of Gulf coast restoration groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Audubon Society. A joint statement called this “a great day for the Gulf environment and the communities that rely on a healthy ecosystem for their livelihoods.”
Still, the penalty struck some experts in environmental law as somewhat light. David M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section from 2000 to 2007, praised the size of the civil settlement, which he said “reflects the scope of the Gulf oil spill tragedy.”
He argued, however, that the criminal penalty should have been at least as onerous, “given Transocean’s numerous failures to drill in a safe manner, which cost 11 workers their lives and billions of dollars in damages to communities along the Gulf.” The settlement, he said, should have included seaman’s manslaughter charges, which were part of the BP settlement.
As for the company’s role in following the lead of BP, he said, “following orders is not a defense to criminal charges.”
At the Environmental Protection Agency, Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the office of enforcement and compliance assurance, called the settlement “an important step” toward holding Transocean and others involved in the spill accountable. “E.P.A. will continue to work with D.O.J. and its federal partners to vigorously pursue the government’s claims against all responsible parties and ensure that we are taking every possible step to restore and protect the Gulf Coast ecosystem,” she said.
The multistate trial over claims in the Deepwater Horizon cases that have not been settled are scheduled to begin in February. Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy, lawyers who represent the steering committee of plaintiffs in the cases, said that Thursday’s settlement did not change the case, and that the plaintiffs thought that BP, Transocean and Halliburton “will be found grossly negligent” at trial.
For its part, BP continued its longstanding argument that the accident, in the words of the spokesman Geoff Morrell, “resulted from multiple causes, involving multiple parties,” and that other companies had to shoulder their share of the blame. Transocean, Mr. Morrell said in a statement, “is finally starting, more than two-and-a-half years after the accident, to do its part for the Gulf Coast.” He then turned his attention to the other major contractor on the well, and said, “Unfortunately, Halliburton continues to deny its significant role in the accident, including its failure to adequately cement and monitor the well.”
Beverly Blohm Stafford, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said that the company “remains confident that all the work it performed with respect to the Macondo well was completed in accordance with BP’s specifications for its well construction plan and instructions,” and so Halliburton, she said was protected from liability through indemnity provisions of its drilling contract. “We continue to believe that we have substantial legal arguments and defenses against any liability and that BP’s indemnity obligation protects us,” she said. “Accordingly we will maintain our approach of taking all proper actions to protect our interests.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie delivered a spirited condemnation of Republican House leadership for its reluctance to vote on a relief bill for Hurricane Sandy.
WASHINGTON – Enraged over Congress' failure to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey unloaded Wednesday on House Speaker John A. Boehner and Republican lawmakers in Washington for putting "palace intrigue" ahead of their official responsibilities.
Washington politicians "will say whatever they have to say to get through the day," Christie said, adding that, as a governor, he had "actual responsibilities" -- "unlike people in Congress."
Christie, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, reserved his most blistering words for the Republican House speaker. He described Boehner, variously, as selfish, duplicitous and gutless for reversing course at the last minute on Tuesday night and refusing to allow a vote on a $60-billion aid package before the current Congress adjourned.
PHOTOS: Scenes from the fiscal cliff
Christie said that as a result of "the speaker’s irresponsible action," there will be further delay in federal disaster aid to New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and other areas hit by the October storm. He pointed out that it had been 66 days since the storm hit and that areas struck by other hurricanes in recent years had received relief packages in far less time.
However, as outrage continued to pour in from elected officials in the affected area, Boehner agreed to hold a vote Friday to direct needed resources to the National Flood Insurance Program. And on Jan. 15, the first full legislative day of the 113th Congress, the House will consider the remaining supplemental request for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.
But that came after Christie dished out his cold outrage on members of his own party.
"Shame on you. Shame on Congress," Christie said at a news conference in Trenton, the state capital. "It's absolutely disgraceful, and I have to tell you, this used to be something that was not political. Disaster relief was something you didn't play games with." But "in this current atmosphere, [it's] a potential piece of bait for the political game. It is why the American people hate Congress."
At another point, he said of Republicans in Congress: "We've got people down there who use the citizens of this country like pawns on a chessboard."
PHOTOS: 2016 presidential possibilities
"My party was responsible for this," Christie said, charging "one set of Republicans was trying to prove something to another set," and that Boehner was trying to "prove something. I hope he accomplished it."
Christie, whose disaster-relief-themed efforts to reach across partisan lines to President Obama in the days leading up to the election angered many Republicans, said he did not think that was a factor in Boehner's decision.
But the governor, who delivered the keynote address at last summer's Republican National Convention and has helped raise money in recent years for fellow members of the party, did not rule out retaliating against his enemies in Washington.
"We'll see. Primaries are an ugly thing," he said.
[For the Record, 1:46 p.m. PST Jan. 2: This post has been updated to include the House's new plan to vote on Sandy aid.]
Foursquare has loads of data on users’ habits, but the information it can share with merchants has been tightly limited. Until now.
The mobile check-in service has quietly updated its privacy policy to say the company will share your history of visits with any merchant you check in to, allowing everyone from your local baker to your neighborhood dive bar to your favorite national pharmacy chain to see just how often you’ve been visiting their venue in recent days, months, or possibly years.
Take, for example, the owner of your favorite bar. Under the old system, if you checked in once at 11 p.m. and again the next day at noon, the owner would only know you are a repeat customer if he checked Foursquare’s database before 3 p.m. on the second day. Even then, he’d only see that you had visited once before; he wouldn’t know it was barely 12 hours prior. Under the new policy, the bar owner will be able to take his time checking the Foursquare database, and Foursquare is empowered to show him the exact date and time of all your prior visits. If the owner can put a name, face, and detailed dossier to his die-hard customers, he will have even greater incentive to buy Foursquare ads, which can be targeted at regulars. That means more revenue for Foursquare, which has reportedly had trouble convincing investors to support its $760 million venture capital valuation.
Foursquare’s current privacy policy and an accompanying document allow merchants to see limited information about you if you’ve checked in within the last three hours or if you’re one of their 10 most frequent visitors. In those situations, the merchant can see your total number of check-ins along with your name, photo, and linked accounts, like Twitter or Facebook.
Under the new privacy policy set to take effect Jan. 28, far fewer limits are placed on those same merchants. They will be able to see information on more customers, according to an e-mail Foursquare sent to users Dec. 31, being able to see everyone who checked in over an unspecified period longer than the current three hours.
Foursquare also isn’t specifying any limits on how much of your history will be visible to places where you’ve checked in. In a new section of the privacy policy about sharing with “Businesses, Locations, Events and Brands,” the company simply says that “when you check-in to a particular location that is a ‘claimed location’ your check-ins are shared with that location in order for it to better provide services to you.” An accompanying FAQ, linked in the privacy policy, provides little more detail, saying only that merchants can see “who has recently checked into their location and/or event as well as a list of frequent visitors to their location.”
Foursquare told users about its expanded sharing of personal information over the holidays, strongly hinting that it wanted to keep the change quiet. Like other media outlets, Wired has been unable to reach the company for more specifics on the change. The last thing Foursquare wants is for users to worry about privacy and stop checking in. At the same time, CEO Dennis Crowley has said Foursquare is trying to find new ways to leverage its huge trove of user data, a key asset as the company, backed by more than $70 million in venture capital, tries to turn a profit.
As Foursquare tries to make more money by sharing more information, it is wise to be wary of blowback. Much more than Facebook or Twitter, Foursquare is the social network people take with them into bars, nightclubs, and other semi-private, semi-shady venues. And no one wants a drinking buddy who blabs.
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Moviegoers rushing out to catch “Django Unchained” or “The Hobbit” over New Year’s should consider packing an overnight bag.
The average length of a holiday movie has been larded up by nearly 10 minutes since 2011, according to a survey of the running times of the top 10 box office films of the final weekend of the year. They ran well over two hours.
Moreover, the top 10 grossing holiday movies of 2012 were nearly 25 minutes longer than they were just two years ago.
Of the five top earners last weekend, only one film, the family flick “Parental Guidance,” clocks in at under two hours. In contrast, three of those movies, “Django Unchained,” “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and “Les Misérables,” eat up roughly 160 minutes of ticket-buyers’ time.
And that group doesn’t even take into account hits like “Skyfall” (143 minutes), “The Avengers” (143 minutes) and “The Dark Knight Rises” (165 minutes) or limited release films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” (160 minutes), all of which boast the kind of languorous pacing usually reserved for a David Lean epic.
The capacious running times are testing moviegoers’ patience, as well as bladders. In the Los Angeles Times Monday, Steven Zeitchik bemoaned the series of false endings in films like “Lincoln” and “Life of Pi.” He argued that several accomplished filmmakers are piling on the climaxes and prolonging the ending credits in a way that undermines the emotional impact of their word.
“Hollywood films are struggling to find the exit,” Zeitchik wrote. “Stories that seem to end, end again, and then end once more. Climactic scenes wind down, then wind up. Movies that appear headed for a satisfying resolution turn away, then try to stumble back.”
Also crying out for a bloodier approach in the editing suite was Variety’s Josh Dickey. The swollen run times aren’t just artistically necessary, he noted – they actually damage a film’s box-office take.
“It turns out that a long runtime causes no positive or negative reaction during a film’s marketing period,” Dickey wrote. “And for really big event movies, viewers sometimes feel a longer movie gave them their money’s worth (call it the TGI Friday’s portion-size effect). But once a film gets playing, social response suggests long length can stall its word-of-mouth momentum, usually emerging as secondary complaint – but a persistent one.”
It’s certainly true that exhibitors favor shorter running times for films, because it allows them to cram in more showings on a given day. Despite Dickey’s fears, however, the expansive lengths of movies like “Lincoln” (145 minutes) and “Les Misérables” (157 minutes) haven’t scared off moviegoers.
Both movies will likely gross more than $ 100 million domestically.
Overall, the domestic box office is poised to shatter records with $ 10.8 billion in revenue. Attendance will also likely be up 6 percent by the time 2012 wraps up.
Admittedly, surveying the top 10 grossing films of a particular calendar weekend is a small sample size, but it does appear that audiences and critics are noticing that they are checking their watches more frequently as they follow Bilbo’s adventures in Middle-Earth or Jean Valjean’s travails.
It’s not clear, however, that this is a seasonal anomaly. A decade ago, films like “Gangs of New York” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” similarly strained audience’s endurance. The average length of the top 10 films during 2002 was 126.6 minutes, just two minutes shorter than the average this year.
WASHINGTON — In a long-awaited interpretation of the new health care law, the Obama administration said Monday that employers must offer health insurance to employees and their children, but will not be subject to any penalties if family coverage is unaffordable to workers.
The requirement for employers to provide health benefits to employees is a cornerstone of the new law, but the new rules proposed by the Internal Revenue Service said that employers’ obligation was to provide affordable insurance to cover their full-time employees. The rules offer no guarantee of affordable insurance for a worker’s children or spouse. To avoid a possible tax penalty, the government said, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer affordable coverage to those employees. But, it said, the meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”
The new rules, to be published in the Federal Register, create a strong incentive for employers to put money into insurance for their employees rather than dependents. It is unclear whether the spouse and children of an employee will be able to obtain federal subsidies to help them buy coverage — separate from the employee — through insurance exchanges being established in every state. The administration explicitly reserved judgment on that question, which could affect millions of people in families with low and moderate incomes.
Many employers provide family coverage to full-time employees, but many do not. Family coverage is much more expensive, and the employee’s share of the premium is typically much larger.
In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.
Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.
In its proposal, the Internal Revenue Service said, “Coverage for an employee under an employer-sponsored plan is affordable if the employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage does not exceed 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income.”
The rules, though labeled a proposal, are more significant than most proposed regulations. The Internal Revenue Service said employers could rely on them in making plans for 2014.
In writing the law, members of Congress often conjured up a picture of employees working year-round at full-time jobs. But in drafting the rules, the I.R.S. wrestled with the complex reality of part-time, seasonal and temporary workers.
In addition, the administration expressed concern that some employers might try to evade the new requirements by firing and rehiring employees, manipulating their work hours or using temporary staffing agencies. The rules include several provisions to prevent such abuse.
The law says an employer with 50 or more full-time employees may be subject to a tax penalty if it fails to offer coverage to “its full-time employees (and their dependents).”
Employers asked for guidance, and the Obama administration provided it, saying that a dependent is an employee’s child under the age of 26.
“Dependent does not include the spouse of an employee,” the proposed rules say.
Thus, employers must offer coverage to children of an employee, but do not have to make it affordable. And they do not have to offer coverage at all to the spouse of an employee.
The administration said that the rules — which apply to private businesses, nonprofit organizations and state and local government agencies — would require changes at many work sites.
“A number of employers currently offer coverage only to their employees, and not to dependents,” the I.R.S. said. “For these employers, expanding their health plans to add dependent coverage will require substantial revisions to their plans.”
In view of this challenge, the agency said it would grant a one-time reprieve to employers who fail to offer coverage to dependents of full-time employees, provided they take steps in 2014 to come into compliance. Under the rules, employers must offer coverage to employees in 2014 and must offer coverage to dependents as well, starting in 2015.
The new rules apply to employers that have at least 50 full-time employees or an equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees. A full-time employee is a person employed on average at least 30 hours a week. And 100 half-time employees are considered equivalent to 50 full-time employees.
Thus, the government said, an employer will be subject to the new requirement if it has 40 full-time employees working 30 hours a week and 20 half-time employees working 15 hours a week.
