http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3013.shtml
It does happen in America: The political trial of Don Siegelman
By Paul Craig Roberts
Online Journal Guest Writer
Feb 29, 2008
Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration.
The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorneys general from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration’s use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor whom "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President Leadership Committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice." [A Republican former AG says Gov. Don Siegelman's case raised red flags, Birmingham News, February 25, 2008]
The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed 60 Minutes to broadcast, on February 24, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. The 60 Minutes segment is so compelling that the Republican-owned CBS affiliate in Alabama, WHNT, blacked out the broadcast, offering a lame excuse of technical problems that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned news media in Alabama worked hand in glove with the political prosecution to ruin Siegelman.
The injustice done by the US Department of Justice [sic] to Siegelman is so crystal clear that a participant in Karl Rove’s plan to destroy Siegelman can’t live with her conscience. Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for Rove, testified to the House Judiciary Committee and went public on 60 Minutes. Simpson said she was told by Bill Canary, the chief GOP political operative in Alabama, that "my girls can take care of Siegelman." Canary’s "girls" are two US attorneys in Alabama, both appointed by President Bush. One is Bill Canary’s wife, Leura Canary. The other is Alice Martin. According to Harper’s Scott Horton, Martin is known for her abusive and wrongful prosecutions.
What was the "crime" for which Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted? You will not believe this. Scrushy’s firm made a contribution to the Alabama Educational Trust, a charitable organization, to retire debt associated with the Alabama education lottery proposal. Scrushy was a member of Alabama’s Certificate of Need board, a nonpaid group that oversaw hospital expansion. Scrushy had been a member of the board through the terms of the prior three governors, and Siegelman asked him to serve another term.
Federal prosecutors claimed that Scrushy’s charitable contribution was a bribe to Siegelman in exchange for being appointed to the Certificate of Need board. In the words of federal prosecutor Stephen Feaga, the contribution was "given in exchange for a promise for an official act."
Feaga’s statement is absolute nonsense. It is well known that Scrushy had served on the board for years, felt he had done his duty, and wanted off the board. It was Siegelman who convinced Scrushy to remain on the board. Moreover, Scrushy gave no money to Siegelman. The money went to a charitable foundation.
As a large number of attorneys have pointed out, every US president appoints his ambassadors and cabinet members from people who have donated to his campaign. Under the reasoning applied in the Siegelman case, every president, cabinet member and ambassador should be in federal prison.
How in the world did a jury convict two men of a non-crime?
The answer is that the US attorney used Governor Siegelman’s indicted young assistant, Nick Bailey, to create the impression among some of the jury that "something must have happened." Unbeknownst to Siegelman, Bailey was extorting money or accepting bribes from Alabama businessmen in exchange for state business. Bailey was caught. Presented with threats of a long sentence, Bailey agreed to testify falsely that Siegelman came out of a meeting with Scrushy and showed Bailey a $250,000 check he had accepted in exchange for appointing Scrushy to the Certificate of Need board. Prosecutors knew that Bailey’s testimony was false, not only because they had Bailey rewrite his testimony several times and rehearsed him until he had it down pat, but also because they had the check. The records show that the check, written to a charitable organization, was cut days after the meeting from which Siegelman allegedly emerged with check in hand.
In video documentaries available online, Bailey’s friend, Amy Methvin, says that Bailey told her that he was going to parrot the prosecutors’ line, "pay for play," "quid pro quo." Methvin says Bailey went into a speech about money exchanged for favors. "You sound like a robot," Methvin told him. "You would have it memorized, too, if you had heard the answers as many times as I have heard the answers," Bailey replied.
The prosecutors also had help from some jurors. On a WOTM Special Report hosted by former US Attorney Raymond Johnson, Alabama lawyer Julian McPhillips produced emails from two jurors about influencing other jurors in order to achieve a conviction. Jurors are not supposed to discuss a case outside the court or to consider information other than what is presented in court and allowed by the judge. The outside communication among the jurors is sufficient to declare a mistrial.
However, Federal District Judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee, ignored the tainted jury. Fuller himself was part of the prosecution. He bore a strong grudge against Siegelman. Fuller had been an Alabama district attorney before Bush made him a federal judge. Fuller’s successor as district attorney was appointed by Siegelman and produced evidence that Fuller had defrauded or attempted to defraud the state retirement system.
Despite his known animosity toward Siegelman, Fuller refused to recuse himself from Siegelman’s trial. According to the WOTM Special Report, Fuller owns a company that was receiving federal money during Siegelman’s trial. Fuller did not disclose this conflict of interest. Everyone knew the trial was Karl Rove’s effort to rid the Republicans of the candidate they could not beat, and the Republican judge presiding over the trial had a company whose coffers were being filled with federal money.
The Justice [sic] Department’s answer to the exposure of its frame-up of Siegelman is that Siegelman was indicted by career prosecutors and convicted in a fair trial by a jury of his peers. These claims are no more truthful than anything else the DOJ says. Horton reports that career prosecutors advised against the case, concluded it was a political vendetta and walked away from it. Canary’s "girls" were "flailing about trying to find loyal troopers who would shut up and do what is expected of them," a category into which Scott Horton says Louis Franklin and his deputy Stephen Feaga fell. The jurors were presented with Bailey’s perjury suborned by the US attorney‘s office and misled about what the testimony actually meant.
Horton says the case was "pressed forward with brute political force." According to Horton, Leura Canary refused to recuse herself despite her obvious conflict of interest. After she was forced to recuse herself, she continued to control the case from her office. In Horton’s words: "Her husband was managing the campaign against Siegelman and leaks from the investigation were emanating from someone at his address. But beyond this, her husband, Bill Canary, had a long, well established, close working relationship with Karl Rove covering work he did in Washington and Alabama over a period of more than 17 years. Leura and Billy Canary were close friends of, and socialized with, Karl Rove."[Career Prosecutors Opposed Siegelman Case, Harpers, October 29, 2007]
The Bush Justice Department first went after Siegelman during his 2002 reelection campaign. When Siegelman was first elected in 1998, the Republican Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor, began investigating Siegelman. There was nothing to investigate, but his "investigation" was the entry for Leura Canary, who federalized the "investigation." Politically motivated leaks from the "investigation" were used in an effort to defeat Siegelman’s reelection.
It almost worked, but Siegelman narrowly won.
Unable to defeat Siegelman even with leaks from a phony investigation designed to smear him, the Republicans decided to steal the election. After all districts had reported the vote count, Siegelman thanked the voters for reelecting him and went to bed. During the night the Republicans, with no Democratic voting officials present, "recounted" the ballots in Baldwin County. Six thousand Siegelman votes that had been reported disappeared in the recount. The next morning Republican Bob Riley declared himself the winner.
The theft was so hastily arranged that the thieves forgot to change any of the other vote outcomes on the ballots. All other races had the same totals as originally reported, a statistical impossibility had there actually been a computer glitch as the election thieves claimed.
The Republican attorney general, Pryor, refused a recount. The Republican Justice [sic] Department and Republican federal judges looked the other way, as did the Republican propaganda sheets that masquerade as news media in Alabama.
President Bush rewarded William Pryor for his service by making him a federal judge in a recess appointment, as he could not be confirmed by the US Senate. According to MSNBC and other reports, investigations had produced more serious charges against Pryor than against Siegelman, but Pryor, being a chief Republican operative, was immune from prosecution.
The case against Siegelman was drawn out in the media for two more years in the hopes of smearing him forever. When Leura Canary’s false case was finally brought to court, Federal District Judge U.W. Clemon threw it out of court. Clemon cited an assistant US attorney and an assistant state attorney general for contempt of court. All charges against Siegelman and his co-defendants were dropped on October 5, 2004.
Vindicated, Siegelman began his campaign for recovering the governorship in 2006. The word came from Washington to get Siegelman at all costs. Siegelman was indicted a second time on October 26, 2005, costing him the Democratic primary. The jury twice deadlocked and was twice sent back by Siegelman’s adversary, Judge Fuller. With charges of jury tampering in the air, Siegelman was acquitted of 25 counts and found guilty of "pay for play." Judge Fuller had Siegelman handcuffed and manacled and immediately whisked off to prison for a seven-year sentence. Normally a non-dangerous person is left at liberty while the case is being appealed.
The Siegelman case makes it clear exactly what Bush, Rove, and the disgraced Bush flunky, Alberto Gonzales, intended by firing the eight Republican US attorneys. These eight refused to politicize their office by falsely prosecuting Democrats in order to achieve a Rovian political agenda. Apparently, there were only eight honest persons among the 1,200 Republican US attorneys. Bush, Rove, and Gonzales had no problem with the other 1,192.
Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts said that justice in America today is about political agendas, "not about convicting real criminals." Butts said that Siegelman’s attorneys and allies expect reprisals from the US attorney’s office and Alabama’s Republican establishment.
Karl Rove refused to testify about the case before Congress.
On February 25, Fox "News" gave Karl Rove airtime in which to deny the accusations and evidence against him, which he did.
The Department of Justice [sic] refuses to release Siegelman trial documents to Congress.
Siegelman’s family home was broken into.
Siegelman’s attorney’s office was broken into and ransacked.
Jill Simpson’s house was burned down, and her car was run off the road.
This is the way "justice" works in Bush Republican Amerika.
Author’s note: Scott Horton, Harper’s Online, has reported extensively and courageously on the frame-up of Don Siegelman. Raw Story has a multi-part report by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane. The "60 Minutes" broadcast is available from YouTube as is the WOTM Special Report. YouTube also has a multi-part documentary on Richard Scrushy. Brad Blog provides good coverage including a MSNBC broadcast on the Siegelman prosecution which traces it back to Karl Rove. Ernest Partridge’s Online Journal account provides additional information including the conclusion of a study by Professors Donald Shields and John Cragan that the Bush Justice (sic) Department has investigated seven times more Democratic than Republican officials. More information is available online for interested readers.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, is forthcoming from Random House in March, 2008.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center forStrategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Anderson Silva is the new Mike Tyson
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dw-silva022808
Anderson Silva is the new Mike Tyson
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
It started with a kick to the head. Then a wicked three-punch combo and soon another powerful kick, then a right cross, then a crushing upper cut and then finally an absolutely vicious knee to the face.
Chris Leben had entered the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s caged octagon in June 2006 boasting a promising future, a 15-1 record and a granite chin. Forty-nine seconds later he was knocked out by Anderson Silva.
The Brazilian, making his UFC debut, had unleashed an explosion of violence so impressive it managed to shock a sport built on explosions of violence.
“I must have said Holy (expletive) 15 times in 49 seconds,” said Dana White, the UFC president.
The crowd at the Hard Rock Casino went nuts. Fellow fighters looking on stood with mouths agape. Announcer Joe Rogan, sounding a little like he couldn’t believe what he had just seen, declared: “this is a different kind of striker.”
Indeed, Silva was. Fight fans have flocked to the UFC in recent years for the non-stop action, colorful personalities and wild brawls, but this seemed like something new. Silva wasn’t just some street fighter; he was a gifted athlete … who could also street fight.
He hit harder than a Vegas hangover but was a Brazilian jiu-jitsu master with fighting flair and a spring in his step. He was a devastating combination of pure grace and unapologetic, unadulterated fury. He didn’t hesitate to go in for the kill, but did it in a way, as brutal as the result was, that belied the old “human cock fighting” label John McCain once placed on this sport before it cleaned up its act.
This was, if you will, kind of beautiful.
The UFC website was besieged by fans demanding Silva, despite being less than a minute into his UFC career, immediately be granted a title shot. White, no dummy, set it up—Silva vs. Rich Franklin, the 19-1 middleweight (185 pound) champion.
It took Silva all of 2:49 to beat the hell out of Franklin in equally brutal fashion, causing the crowd to gasp, scream and roar, all at the same time. The final flurry included a knee to the face breaking Franklin’s nose, an ensuing kick and then another knee to end it.
And with that, it seemed, something had emerged in the fight game that many thought might be lost and gone forever—another Mike Tyson.
Clad mostly in black trunks and black shoes, Tyson exploded into the late 1980s as a boxer who rarely boxed, preferring to stalk an opponent until he all but decapitated him.
It wasn’t just that he won that thrilled fans it was how he won. He became a 37-0 heavyweight champion on the strength of 33 knockouts that were short on subtlety.
They call boxing the “sweet science,” but this was pure primal power. Mike Tyson fights weren’t just fights they were happenings not to be missed; the opening bell serving as the most exciting moment in sports. You couldn’t dare tune in late (he dropped 17 guys in the first round) or ever turn away (one punch could end it).
Every fight was electric, not just in the arena, but on television. It didn’t matter who Tyson was fighting, you tuned in for the carnage, to witness that moment he was seemingly uncaged and sent to the ring.
“When Mike walked out from the dressing room, you know someone was going to get their ass kicked,” said White before pausing. “God, I loved Mike Tyson.”
Not since Ali was the sport bigger, fans feasting on raw blood lust. There was simply nothing like Tyson then. There certainly has been nothing like him since.
But soon Tyson unraveled and the most exciting moment in American sports became Barry Bonds in a batter’s box or Michael Jordan in the open court or any other take your pick moment.
With the sagging fortunes of boxing it didn’t even seem possible that a “fighter” could regain such a title.
White, once a boxing trainer and gym owner, had even abandoned the sport to help turn the UFC into a sensation. He had felt that same energy on a number of cards, fans jacked to see Chuck Liddell or Randy Couture.
But as big as those guys had gotten, as intense and memorable as their battles were, there still hadn’t been that tour de force, that quick strike, overwhelming, indomitable presence who upon leaving his dressing room you knew, absolutely knew, was about to deliver a beating. The how would surprise, even if the what was expected.
And now here was this 6-foot-2 Brazilian nicknamed Spider, attacking like a pit bull. Here was, A different kind of striker.
“It is the magic hour,” Silva said of his aggressive style through a translator. “I train really hard and it all comes out, all the hard work really comes out. I just go.”
So now here was a guy who White had high hopes for when he signed him from a rival organization, just overwhelming the competition, never letting any of his five UFC fights last past the middle of the second round.
“This guy has come into the UFC and literally walked through the division,” White said. “He walked into the octagon like he owned it.”
Just like Tyson, it wasn’t that he won, but how he won. Different sport, same principle.
Silva says he was a big Tyson fan growing up but he laughs at the comparison. “Why not Roy Jones, Jr.?” he said Thursday. “Why not Michael Jordan?”
Considering the sad state of Tyson’s life, who can blame him? The thing is, other than the Tyson-esque destruction Silva produces when the fight is on, he has nothing in common with Iron Mike.
His long, lanky frame bears little resemblance to Tyson’s intimidating stocky block of power. He smiles a lot, dances often and carries himself with the care-free attitude. He loves Spider-Man, once worked at Burger King and according to the London Daily Star, after granting Franklin a title rematch and then painfully annihilating him again, apologized for administering the whipping—“I am so sorry I had to do that to you again.”
A former Brooklyn purse snatcher he’s not.
“Mike was a guy you’d be scared to meet,” White said. “Anderson Silva is the sweetest guy in the world.
“At least,” White continued, “until he steps into the octagon to finish you.”
Silva will meet PRIDE middleweight champion Dan Henderson Saturday in Columbus, Ohio, in a title unification match.
Online, the secondary market has a single seat going for up to $1,000. Hotel rooms anywhere near downtown Columbus were gone weeks ago. Millions more are expected to watch around the world via pay per view and the internet. (Disclosure, Yahoo! Sports is an online partner with UFC).
The UFC in particular and mixed martial arts in general, is big business. Its pay per view buys surpassed boxing a couple years back and show no signs of slowing. Silva is its best fighter, ranked the No. 1 pound-for-pound fighter in the world regardless by almost everyone, including Yahoo! Sports.
But as fast as the sport is growing, Silva is anything but a household name. Mainstream media still mostly ignore the sport and as old and stagnant as boxing may be, in terms of publicity, its ceiling remains far higher than the UFC. If a boxer was doing what Silva was doing, everyone would know him.
Of course, no one would have an easy time marketing a 32-year-old from Curitiba, Brazil, who speaks no English. Great orator is not a term ever used to describe Tyson (“I’ll fade into Bolivian”), but you could still put him on Jay Leno’s couch. Silva has no such option.
Which might make this phenomenon even better.
He’s captured the imagination of fans purely on his performance. He is the antithesis of the modern sports star, far too many of whom are little more than marketing sensations and Nike commercials, more sizzle than steak.
Silva is doing this the old-fashioned way, one ass kicking at a time.
“Fight fans don’t care what he has to say, they care how he fights,” said White. This is a nice sentiment but he knows it’ll be a struggle to turn this guy into the kind of crossover star Americans Liddell, Couture and Tito Ortiz became.
Still, the proof is in the poundings.
“I will fight anybody, anytime, any place for any reason,” Silva said.
Henderson, a hard-hitting former Olympic wrestler considered the second best middle weight in the world, is the next “anybody.” This will be Silva’s sternest UFC test and if he can dominate Henderson, there is no logical opponent on the horizon.
“If this guy walks through Dan Henderson like he’s walked through everyone else in the UFC, I don’t know if anyone will ever beat Anderson Silva,” White said. Henderson’s strategy is simple; don’t get caught up in the electricity of the Tyson moment, then avoid getting knocked out long enough to get Silva to the ground and hope he can wear him down wrestling.
The big question with Silva is whether he can stand a long fight; a question, of course, that exists solely because he crushes everyone so quickly.
“He’s definitely beatable,” Henderson said, undaunted. “I’m going out there to beat him up.”
A lot of guys used to say that about Tyson, too.
Dan Wetzel is Yahoo! Sports national columnist.
Anderson Silva is the new Mike Tyson
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
It started with a kick to the head. Then a wicked three-punch combo and soon another powerful kick, then a right cross, then a crushing upper cut and then finally an absolutely vicious knee to the face.
Chris Leben had entered the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s caged octagon in June 2006 boasting a promising future, a 15-1 record and a granite chin. Forty-nine seconds later he was knocked out by Anderson Silva.
The Brazilian, making his UFC debut, had unleashed an explosion of violence so impressive it managed to shock a sport built on explosions of violence.
“I must have said Holy (expletive) 15 times in 49 seconds,” said Dana White, the UFC president.
The crowd at the Hard Rock Casino went nuts. Fellow fighters looking on stood with mouths agape. Announcer Joe Rogan, sounding a little like he couldn’t believe what he had just seen, declared: “this is a different kind of striker.”
Indeed, Silva was. Fight fans have flocked to the UFC in recent years for the non-stop action, colorful personalities and wild brawls, but this seemed like something new. Silva wasn’t just some street fighter; he was a gifted athlete … who could also street fight.
He hit harder than a Vegas hangover but was a Brazilian jiu-jitsu master with fighting flair and a spring in his step. He was a devastating combination of pure grace and unapologetic, unadulterated fury. He didn’t hesitate to go in for the kill, but did it in a way, as brutal as the result was, that belied the old “human cock fighting” label John McCain once placed on this sport before it cleaned up its act.
This was, if you will, kind of beautiful.
The UFC website was besieged by fans demanding Silva, despite being less than a minute into his UFC career, immediately be granted a title shot. White, no dummy, set it up—Silva vs. Rich Franklin, the 19-1 middleweight (185 pound) champion.
It took Silva all of 2:49 to beat the hell out of Franklin in equally brutal fashion, causing the crowd to gasp, scream and roar, all at the same time. The final flurry included a knee to the face breaking Franklin’s nose, an ensuing kick and then another knee to end it.
And with that, it seemed, something had emerged in the fight game that many thought might be lost and gone forever—another Mike Tyson.
Clad mostly in black trunks and black shoes, Tyson exploded into the late 1980s as a boxer who rarely boxed, preferring to stalk an opponent until he all but decapitated him.
It wasn’t just that he won that thrilled fans it was how he won. He became a 37-0 heavyweight champion on the strength of 33 knockouts that were short on subtlety.
They call boxing the “sweet science,” but this was pure primal power. Mike Tyson fights weren’t just fights they were happenings not to be missed; the opening bell serving as the most exciting moment in sports. You couldn’t dare tune in late (he dropped 17 guys in the first round) or ever turn away (one punch could end it).
Every fight was electric, not just in the arena, but on television. It didn’t matter who Tyson was fighting, you tuned in for the carnage, to witness that moment he was seemingly uncaged and sent to the ring.
“When Mike walked out from the dressing room, you know someone was going to get their ass kicked,” said White before pausing. “God, I loved Mike Tyson.”
Not since Ali was the sport bigger, fans feasting on raw blood lust. There was simply nothing like Tyson then. There certainly has been nothing like him since.
But soon Tyson unraveled and the most exciting moment in American sports became Barry Bonds in a batter’s box or Michael Jordan in the open court or any other take your pick moment.
With the sagging fortunes of boxing it didn’t even seem possible that a “fighter” could regain such a title.
White, once a boxing trainer and gym owner, had even abandoned the sport to help turn the UFC into a sensation. He had felt that same energy on a number of cards, fans jacked to see Chuck Liddell or Randy Couture.
But as big as those guys had gotten, as intense and memorable as their battles were, there still hadn’t been that tour de force, that quick strike, overwhelming, indomitable presence who upon leaving his dressing room you knew, absolutely knew, was about to deliver a beating. The how would surprise, even if the what was expected.
And now here was this 6-foot-2 Brazilian nicknamed Spider, attacking like a pit bull. Here was, A different kind of striker.
“It is the magic hour,” Silva said of his aggressive style through a translator. “I train really hard and it all comes out, all the hard work really comes out. I just go.”
So now here was a guy who White had high hopes for when he signed him from a rival organization, just overwhelming the competition, never letting any of his five UFC fights last past the middle of the second round.
“This guy has come into the UFC and literally walked through the division,” White said. “He walked into the octagon like he owned it.”
Just like Tyson, it wasn’t that he won, but how he won. Different sport, same principle.
Silva says he was a big Tyson fan growing up but he laughs at the comparison. “Why not Roy Jones, Jr.?” he said Thursday. “Why not Michael Jordan?”
Considering the sad state of Tyson’s life, who can blame him? The thing is, other than the Tyson-esque destruction Silva produces when the fight is on, he has nothing in common with Iron Mike.
His long, lanky frame bears little resemblance to Tyson’s intimidating stocky block of power. He smiles a lot, dances often and carries himself with the care-free attitude. He loves Spider-Man, once worked at Burger King and according to the London Daily Star, after granting Franklin a title rematch and then painfully annihilating him again, apologized for administering the whipping—“I am so sorry I had to do that to you again.”
A former Brooklyn purse snatcher he’s not.
“Mike was a guy you’d be scared to meet,” White said. “Anderson Silva is the sweetest guy in the world.
“At least,” White continued, “until he steps into the octagon to finish you.”
Silva will meet PRIDE middleweight champion Dan Henderson Saturday in Columbus, Ohio, in a title unification match.
Online, the secondary market has a single seat going for up to $1,000. Hotel rooms anywhere near downtown Columbus were gone weeks ago. Millions more are expected to watch around the world via pay per view and the internet. (Disclosure, Yahoo! Sports is an online partner with UFC).
The UFC in particular and mixed martial arts in general, is big business. Its pay per view buys surpassed boxing a couple years back and show no signs of slowing. Silva is its best fighter, ranked the No. 1 pound-for-pound fighter in the world regardless by almost everyone, including Yahoo! Sports.
But as fast as the sport is growing, Silva is anything but a household name. Mainstream media still mostly ignore the sport and as old and stagnant as boxing may be, in terms of publicity, its ceiling remains far higher than the UFC. If a boxer was doing what Silva was doing, everyone would know him.
Of course, no one would have an easy time marketing a 32-year-old from Curitiba, Brazil, who speaks no English. Great orator is not a term ever used to describe Tyson (“I’ll fade into Bolivian”), but you could still put him on Jay Leno’s couch. Silva has no such option.
Which might make this phenomenon even better.
He’s captured the imagination of fans purely on his performance. He is the antithesis of the modern sports star, far too many of whom are little more than marketing sensations and Nike commercials, more sizzle than steak.
Silva is doing this the old-fashioned way, one ass kicking at a time.
“Fight fans don’t care what he has to say, they care how he fights,” said White. This is a nice sentiment but he knows it’ll be a struggle to turn this guy into the kind of crossover star Americans Liddell, Couture and Tito Ortiz became.
Still, the proof is in the poundings.
“I will fight anybody, anytime, any place for any reason,” Silva said.
Henderson, a hard-hitting former Olympic wrestler considered the second best middle weight in the world, is the next “anybody.” This will be Silva’s sternest UFC test and if he can dominate Henderson, there is no logical opponent on the horizon.
“If this guy walks through Dan Henderson like he’s walked through everyone else in the UFC, I don’t know if anyone will ever beat Anderson Silva,” White said. Henderson’s strategy is simple; don’t get caught up in the electricity of the Tyson moment, then avoid getting knocked out long enough to get Silva to the ground and hope he can wear him down wrestling.
The big question with Silva is whether he can stand a long fight; a question, of course, that exists solely because he crushes everyone so quickly.
“He’s definitely beatable,” Henderson said, undaunted. “I’m going out there to beat him up.”
A lot of guys used to say that about Tyson, too.
Dan Wetzel is Yahoo! Sports national columnist.
UFC lines up blue-chip sponsor
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AsECiEiH6_mDu7MMmaA5re49Eo14?slug=dm-ufcbud022808
UFC lines up blue-chip sponsor
By Dave Meltzer, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
The Ultimate Fighting Championship landed its biggest corporate sponsor today with the announcement of Bud Light as the exclusive beer sponsor of both the UFC and its sister promotion, World Extreme Cagefighting.
“Landing Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light is huge for us, our fighters and especially our fans,” said UFC president Dana White. “We’ve got the No. 1 selling beer in the world and one of the top marketers in all of sports as our sponsor. If our TV ratings, pay-per-view buys and venue sellouts weren’t enough, this definitely cements UFC as a major player in sports business.
When White was on a CNBC special last year about mixed martial arts and being given credit for the success of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it was noted that a major hurdle his company had yet to overcome was getting blue chip corporate sponsors.
White said the company was doing fine on its own and didn’t necessarily need anything like that.
“I knew at the time we were going to get this deal,” said White. “It takes so long to get these deals done.”
Bud Light’s insignia will appear in the center of the mats in UFC and WEC cages as well as on bumpers during UFC pay-per-view events, in the background at weigh-ins and press conferences, as well as being the presenting sponsor of at least two pay-per-view events per year. It will also be the official beer sponsor of UFC Fight Nights on Spike.
The deal goes into effect with UFC 84, which takes place on May 24 from Las Vegas, headlined by B.J. Penn vs. Sean Sherk, Tito Ortiz vs. Lyoto Machida and Wanderlei Silva vs. Keith Jardine. It will also be the official beer sponsor on all WEC events on Versus.
“UFC has developed a huge following in recent years and is wildly popular with the 21-to-34-year-old fans we want to reach,” said Tony Ponturo, vice president of global media and sports marketing for Anheuser Busch, Inc.
“The number of people attending live events, buy the pay-per-views and talking about UFC around the water cooler continues to grow. It’s just a great place for us to be.”
White said Budweiser will also aid in marketing and publicizing the events and gives the company more power in garnering television deals by bringing the major sponsor with them to the table.
Bud Light joins Harley Davidson as the company’s major blue-chip sponsors.
The announcement follows the official announcement that the April 2 live event from Broomfield, CO, will be a live three-hour special. According to Brian Diamond, Senior Vice President of Spike TV, the special was in response to UFC fans contacting the station because the 12-match show featured so many interesting match-ups, and is filled with names developed on Spike’s Ultimate Fighter series.
The live fights will feature former TUF winner Nathan Diaz vs. Kurt Pellegrino, Houston Alexander vs. James Irvin, Karo Parisyan vs. Thiago Alves, Matt Hamill vs. Tim Boetsch and a main event featuring Boston natives and TUF alums Kenny Florian vs. Joe Lauzon. Diamond said they hope to be able to broadcast at least seven fights within the three-hour window. Preliminary matches include Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard, Spencer Fisher vs. Marcus Aurelio, Roman Mitichiyan vs. George Sotirpolous, Din Thomas vs. Josh Neer, Clay Guida vs. Samy Shiavo, Tommy Spear vs. Anthony Johnson and Manny Gamburyan vs. Jeff Cox. Maynard, Mititchiyan, Sotiroplous, Thomas, Spear and Gamburyan were on recent seasons of Ultimate Fighter, Edgar is an undefeated top lightweight contender and Guida, another lightweight, is among the company’s most popular fighters because of an all-out style that resulted in two of the company’s best matches of 2007.
The special, which has already sold out the 6,700-seat arena, airs 7-10 p.m. Eastern time, preceding the debut of the new season of The Ultimate Fighter reality show. The show, featuring coaches Quinton Jackson and Forrest Griffin, has about a week left in filming. After it concludes, Jackson will defend the light heavyweight title against Griffin on July 5 in Las Vegas. The hope is with 13 weeks of the two competing with each other, which will include one episode where the two nearly get into a fight, that it will be the biggest pay-per-view event up to that point of 2007. The formula has worked in building big matches in the past, most notably in 2006 when a Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock match coming off the series did 775,000 buys, still the second best figure in company history.
Diamond said they will take the Ultimate Fight Night shows on a case-by-case as to whether to go three hours or the previous two hours.
White also said that Brock Lesnar, whose debut on Feb. 2 led the company to one of its most successful pay-per-view events in its history, losing to Frank Mir, will have his second UFC fight in August. No opponent has been named but the leading candidate appears to be Justin McCulley.
He also said the most anticipated WEC match thus far, a featherweight title defense by Urijah Faber against Jens Pulver, will take place this summer from Sacramento as a live special on Versus.
Dave Meltzer covers mixed martial arts for Yahoo! Sports. Meltzer, who has published the pro wrestling trade industry publication the Wrestling Observer Newsletter since 1982, began covering MMA with UFC 1 in 1993. He is a graduate of San Jose State University, and has written for the Oakland Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and The National.
UFC lines up blue-chip sponsor
By Dave Meltzer, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
The Ultimate Fighting Championship landed its biggest corporate sponsor today with the announcement of Bud Light as the exclusive beer sponsor of both the UFC and its sister promotion, World Extreme Cagefighting.
“Landing Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light is huge for us, our fighters and especially our fans,” said UFC president Dana White. “We’ve got the No. 1 selling beer in the world and one of the top marketers in all of sports as our sponsor. If our TV ratings, pay-per-view buys and venue sellouts weren’t enough, this definitely cements UFC as a major player in sports business.
When White was on a CNBC special last year about mixed martial arts and being given credit for the success of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, it was noted that a major hurdle his company had yet to overcome was getting blue chip corporate sponsors.
White said the company was doing fine on its own and didn’t necessarily need anything like that.
“I knew at the time we were going to get this deal,” said White. “It takes so long to get these deals done.”
Bud Light’s insignia will appear in the center of the mats in UFC and WEC cages as well as on bumpers during UFC pay-per-view events, in the background at weigh-ins and press conferences, as well as being the presenting sponsor of at least two pay-per-view events per year. It will also be the official beer sponsor of UFC Fight Nights on Spike.
The deal goes into effect with UFC 84, which takes place on May 24 from Las Vegas, headlined by B.J. Penn vs. Sean Sherk, Tito Ortiz vs. Lyoto Machida and Wanderlei Silva vs. Keith Jardine. It will also be the official beer sponsor on all WEC events on Versus.
“UFC has developed a huge following in recent years and is wildly popular with the 21-to-34-year-old fans we want to reach,” said Tony Ponturo, vice president of global media and sports marketing for Anheuser Busch, Inc.
“The number of people attending live events, buy the pay-per-views and talking about UFC around the water cooler continues to grow. It’s just a great place for us to be.”
White said Budweiser will also aid in marketing and publicizing the events and gives the company more power in garnering television deals by bringing the major sponsor with them to the table.
Bud Light joins Harley Davidson as the company’s major blue-chip sponsors.
The announcement follows the official announcement that the April 2 live event from Broomfield, CO, will be a live three-hour special. According to Brian Diamond, Senior Vice President of Spike TV, the special was in response to UFC fans contacting the station because the 12-match show featured so many interesting match-ups, and is filled with names developed on Spike’s Ultimate Fighter series.
The live fights will feature former TUF winner Nathan Diaz vs. Kurt Pellegrino, Houston Alexander vs. James Irvin, Karo Parisyan vs. Thiago Alves, Matt Hamill vs. Tim Boetsch and a main event featuring Boston natives and TUF alums Kenny Florian vs. Joe Lauzon. Diamond said they hope to be able to broadcast at least seven fights within the three-hour window. Preliminary matches include Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard, Spencer Fisher vs. Marcus Aurelio, Roman Mitichiyan vs. George Sotirpolous, Din Thomas vs. Josh Neer, Clay Guida vs. Samy Shiavo, Tommy Spear vs. Anthony Johnson and Manny Gamburyan vs. Jeff Cox. Maynard, Mititchiyan, Sotiroplous, Thomas, Spear and Gamburyan were on recent seasons of Ultimate Fighter, Edgar is an undefeated top lightweight contender and Guida, another lightweight, is among the company’s most popular fighters because of an all-out style that resulted in two of the company’s best matches of 2007.
The special, which has already sold out the 6,700-seat arena, airs 7-10 p.m. Eastern time, preceding the debut of the new season of The Ultimate Fighter reality show. The show, featuring coaches Quinton Jackson and Forrest Griffin, has about a week left in filming. After it concludes, Jackson will defend the light heavyweight title against Griffin on July 5 in Las Vegas. The hope is with 13 weeks of the two competing with each other, which will include one episode where the two nearly get into a fight, that it will be the biggest pay-per-view event up to that point of 2007. The formula has worked in building big matches in the past, most notably in 2006 when a Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock match coming off the series did 775,000 buys, still the second best figure in company history.
Diamond said they will take the Ultimate Fight Night shows on a case-by-case as to whether to go three hours or the previous two hours.
White also said that Brock Lesnar, whose debut on Feb. 2 led the company to one of its most successful pay-per-view events in its history, losing to Frank Mir, will have his second UFC fight in August. No opponent has been named but the leading candidate appears to be Justin McCulley.
He also said the most anticipated WEC match thus far, a featherweight title defense by Urijah Faber against Jens Pulver, will take place this summer from Sacramento as a live special on Versus.
Dave Meltzer covers mixed martial arts for Yahoo! Sports. Meltzer, who has published the pro wrestling trade industry publication the Wrestling Observer Newsletter since 1982, began covering MMA with UFC 1 in 1993. He is a graduate of San Jose State University, and has written for the Oakland Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and The National.
Elite XC deal could change MMA
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=Anr45MfBjhQGR3ZAhS._.uU9Eo14?slug=dm-elitecbs022808
Elite XC deal could change MMA
By Dave Meltzer, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
The entire landscape of mixed martial arts changed today. Maybe.
The announcement that CBS will broadcast live Elite XC shows on Saturday nights in prime time is potentially the biggest deal in the history of the sport in North America.
But no matter what is said about a multi-year commitment and four shows per year, when it comes to television, like everything, it will live and die by the ratings.
“The sport of MMA airing on CBS is the single biggest thing to happen to the sport,” said Elite XC promoter Gary Shaw. That sounds like a promoter over hyping his latest announcement, but if the show is successful, that’s exactly what it will be.
But it’s going to take a huge promotional effort by the network and the company to build the event and make it fly.
Even the most-watched Ultimate Fighting Championship event in history, the Sept. 8 show headlined by Quinton Jackson vs. Dan Henderson in a UFC-Pride light heavyweight championship unification match, drew 4.7 million viewers. While those are great numbers for cable television, they don’t come close to what would be a desirable audience number for CBS, even on a Saturday night.
Within the male 18-34 age group, the big show UFC numbers would be successful on a network level, but MMA at this point has proven to have a narrow reach. It doesn’t do well with older people. It doesn’t do badly with women within the 18-34 group, but for network prime time success, you need to draw strongly in more than one age group.
Boxing’s much-lauded “Contender” series failed on the network level. World Wrestling Entertainment programming, far more popular on cable television than MMA, was successful on NBC in the ’80s, but drew poor numbers the past two years in a similar prime time slot with the revival of “Saturday Night’s Main Event.”
The first Elite XC show, which is tentatively scheduled for April 26th and likely headlined by Kimbo Slice, will either be the most watched MMA event ever in the United States, or it will be a failure. One could make a strong argument that above and beyond UFC’s first live television special in 2005, where Forrest Griffin and Stephan Bonnar became instant stars by having almost the perfect match at the perfect moment for the sport, this is the most important night, going forward, in the sport’s U.S. history.
If the shows get poor ratings, the entire sport will be stigmatized with the idea that it has its cult popularity and is simply cable TV fare. It will be a huge blow for a sport which, with its phenomenal growth over the past few years, has been written up as the next NASCAR. Conversely, successful numbers, particularly if they maintain, will entrench MMA as a major sport in this country.
“Mixed martial arts is one of the fastest growing sports in the country and a wildly popular entertainment vehicle for upscale, young adult audiences,” said Kelly Kahl, senior executive vice president of CBS Primetime. “It’s original programming for Saturday night; it’s live, creating an event-atmosphere; and it’s something that hasn’t been seen on network television, until now.”
It’s not a surprise that CBS made a deal for MMA. Both CBS and NBC negotiated for MMA programming for months. CBS’ interest in UFC predated the writers’ strike, while NBC’s interest picked up with the idea of looking for new live programming during the strike. That CBS went with Elite XC over the established UFC is a surprise, and is believed to have happened because Dana White wouldn’t compromise on giving the network control of the broadcast.
White noted earlier this week, before the deal was announced, that he wasn’t going to sign a bad deal for the company, even with a network station. The control issue also likely cost UFC a deal with HBO last year. UFC’s strategy of playing hardball and trying to get the deal on its terms simply wasn’t going to work with a network, but the gamble was that a big player wouldn’t take the chance with an organization that has nowhere near the name recognition and level of mainstream stars.
Because Showtime, part owner of Elite XC, is part of the Viacom family, which owns CBS, they fell into a deal that as a fledgling group, gives them a level of exposure they couldn’t afford to turn down.
“I don’t know why they didn’t get it,” said Gary Shaw, promoter of Elite XC. “If I had to guess, I’d say that it was Dana White. I don’t know that. I don’t worry about the UFC. If the prom queen wants to go out with me, I don’t ask why she isn’t dating the quarterback. I just show up at 8 p.m. at her door. I’ve said all along I think the UFC is great.
“I like the Fertittas and Marc Ratner (UFC vice president of regulatory affairs) is like a brother to me. But the problem is no fighter can be bigger than Dana White or the UFC. For us, the fighters will always be the biggest stars.”
Shaw’s most successful MMA event was the Feb. 16 show in Miami, which drew a 1.9 rating on Showtime. It was the highest rating for a non-UFC MMA event, largely due to the unique Kimbo Slice vs. Tank Abbott main event. But that’s only 522,000 viewers, and Elite XC will need ten times that audience number, if not more, to do competitive numbers on CBS.
The show also sold out the 6,187-seat BankUnited Center in Miami, which benefited from Slice being a hometown star. For CBS events, Shaw said they are looking at running 15,000-seat arenas with the new Prudential Center in Newark, N.J., being among the venues under consideration for the debut show.
Most of the details of the deal have not been made official. CBS will be paying Elite XC a fee per show. They haven’t agreed to a time slot, although with affiliate news commitments, it would have to be either 8-10 p.m. or 9-11 p.m. The broadcast team hasn’t been agreed to, but both sides will have input into the decision. Shaw said that once the date and the venue are finalized, they would begin finalizing the matches.
Shaw said he expected the shows to be similar to the Elite XC events on Showtime.
“It’s the same type of show,” he said. “I think we do a very good production with competitive fights.”
Another key is that, with so many people watching the first show and presumably so much hype, if someone makes a good showing, they can become an instant star, similar, to what happened to Griffin stemming from the first “Ultimate Fighter” finals. The impact of a great match will be multiplied tenfold.
An unknown fighter who does a sensational finish will almost instantly become one of the best known fighters in the country. A genuine match of the year could end up being the most talked about fight in history. Similarly, the affects of a poor show will be magnified like never before.
But it also adds to an over-saturation problem. UFC is producing roughly two shows per month. Elite is now adding four CBS dates to the 16 or so Showtime dates they had planned for this year. That’s a lot of events in a sport with a finite number of stars, and in which the stars can only fight a few times per year.
Even with the deal giving his company the largest television exposure in a business where television exposure is the life blood, Shaw doesn’t feel Elite XC is on the verge of leapfrogging UFC as the top promotion.
“No, I’m a realist,” he said. “UFC is No. 1. I am Pepsi to their Coke, Avis to their Hertz.”
Elite XC deal could change MMA
By Dave Meltzer, Yahoo! Sports
2-28-8
The entire landscape of mixed martial arts changed today. Maybe.
The announcement that CBS will broadcast live Elite XC shows on Saturday nights in prime time is potentially the biggest deal in the history of the sport in North America.
But no matter what is said about a multi-year commitment and four shows per year, when it comes to television, like everything, it will live and die by the ratings.
“The sport of MMA airing on CBS is the single biggest thing to happen to the sport,” said Elite XC promoter Gary Shaw. That sounds like a promoter over hyping his latest announcement, but if the show is successful, that’s exactly what it will be.
But it’s going to take a huge promotional effort by the network and the company to build the event and make it fly.
Even the most-watched Ultimate Fighting Championship event in history, the Sept. 8 show headlined by Quinton Jackson vs. Dan Henderson in a UFC-Pride light heavyweight championship unification match, drew 4.7 million viewers. While those are great numbers for cable television, they don’t come close to what would be a desirable audience number for CBS, even on a Saturday night.
Within the male 18-34 age group, the big show UFC numbers would be successful on a network level, but MMA at this point has proven to have a narrow reach. It doesn’t do well with older people. It doesn’t do badly with women within the 18-34 group, but for network prime time success, you need to draw strongly in more than one age group.
Boxing’s much-lauded “Contender” series failed on the network level. World Wrestling Entertainment programming, far more popular on cable television than MMA, was successful on NBC in the ’80s, but drew poor numbers the past two years in a similar prime time slot with the revival of “Saturday Night’s Main Event.”
The first Elite XC show, which is tentatively scheduled for April 26th and likely headlined by Kimbo Slice, will either be the most watched MMA event ever in the United States, or it will be a failure. One could make a strong argument that above and beyond UFC’s first live television special in 2005, where Forrest Griffin and Stephan Bonnar became instant stars by having almost the perfect match at the perfect moment for the sport, this is the most important night, going forward, in the sport’s U.S. history.
If the shows get poor ratings, the entire sport will be stigmatized with the idea that it has its cult popularity and is simply cable TV fare. It will be a huge blow for a sport which, with its phenomenal growth over the past few years, has been written up as the next NASCAR. Conversely, successful numbers, particularly if they maintain, will entrench MMA as a major sport in this country.
“Mixed martial arts is one of the fastest growing sports in the country and a wildly popular entertainment vehicle for upscale, young adult audiences,” said Kelly Kahl, senior executive vice president of CBS Primetime. “It’s original programming for Saturday night; it’s live, creating an event-atmosphere; and it’s something that hasn’t been seen on network television, until now.”
It’s not a surprise that CBS made a deal for MMA. Both CBS and NBC negotiated for MMA programming for months. CBS’ interest in UFC predated the writers’ strike, while NBC’s interest picked up with the idea of looking for new live programming during the strike. That CBS went with Elite XC over the established UFC is a surprise, and is believed to have happened because Dana White wouldn’t compromise on giving the network control of the broadcast.
White noted earlier this week, before the deal was announced, that he wasn’t going to sign a bad deal for the company, even with a network station. The control issue also likely cost UFC a deal with HBO last year. UFC’s strategy of playing hardball and trying to get the deal on its terms simply wasn’t going to work with a network, but the gamble was that a big player wouldn’t take the chance with an organization that has nowhere near the name recognition and level of mainstream stars.
Because Showtime, part owner of Elite XC, is part of the Viacom family, which owns CBS, they fell into a deal that as a fledgling group, gives them a level of exposure they couldn’t afford to turn down.
“I don’t know why they didn’t get it,” said Gary Shaw, promoter of Elite XC. “If I had to guess, I’d say that it was Dana White. I don’t know that. I don’t worry about the UFC. If the prom queen wants to go out with me, I don’t ask why she isn’t dating the quarterback. I just show up at 8 p.m. at her door. I’ve said all along I think the UFC is great.
“I like the Fertittas and Marc Ratner (UFC vice president of regulatory affairs) is like a brother to me. But the problem is no fighter can be bigger than Dana White or the UFC. For us, the fighters will always be the biggest stars.”
Shaw’s most successful MMA event was the Feb. 16 show in Miami, which drew a 1.9 rating on Showtime. It was the highest rating for a non-UFC MMA event, largely due to the unique Kimbo Slice vs. Tank Abbott main event. But that’s only 522,000 viewers, and Elite XC will need ten times that audience number, if not more, to do competitive numbers on CBS.
The show also sold out the 6,187-seat BankUnited Center in Miami, which benefited from Slice being a hometown star. For CBS events, Shaw said they are looking at running 15,000-seat arenas with the new Prudential Center in Newark, N.J., being among the venues under consideration for the debut show.
Most of the details of the deal have not been made official. CBS will be paying Elite XC a fee per show. They haven’t agreed to a time slot, although with affiliate news commitments, it would have to be either 8-10 p.m. or 9-11 p.m. The broadcast team hasn’t been agreed to, but both sides will have input into the decision. Shaw said that once the date and the venue are finalized, they would begin finalizing the matches.
Shaw said he expected the shows to be similar to the Elite XC events on Showtime.
“It’s the same type of show,” he said. “I think we do a very good production with competitive fights.”
Another key is that, with so many people watching the first show and presumably so much hype, if someone makes a good showing, they can become an instant star, similar, to what happened to Griffin stemming from the first “Ultimate Fighter” finals. The impact of a great match will be multiplied tenfold.
An unknown fighter who does a sensational finish will almost instantly become one of the best known fighters in the country. A genuine match of the year could end up being the most talked about fight in history. Similarly, the affects of a poor show will be magnified like never before.
But it also adds to an over-saturation problem. UFC is producing roughly two shows per month. Elite is now adding four CBS dates to the 16 or so Showtime dates they had planned for this year. That’s a lot of events in a sport with a finite number of stars, and in which the stars can only fight a few times per year.
Even with the deal giving his company the largest television exposure in a business where television exposure is the life blood, Shaw doesn’t feel Elite XC is on the verge of leapfrogging UFC as the top promotion.
“No, I’m a realist,” he said. “UFC is No. 1. I am Pepsi to their Coke, Avis to their Hertz.”
At the High Court, Damage Control
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703207.html
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Perhaps, though, his consternation was misplaced. Everybody knows the wheels of justice turn slowly, but in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, things have dragged on so long that Lady Justice's blindness could reasonably be attributed to cataracts.
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs -- mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans -- have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages -- a record level, for a record disaster -- and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill "destroyed an entire regional economy." Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. "What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages," Fisher argued.
Several justices, however, seemed more concerned about the emotional distress of the Exxon executives. "I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation" responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wagging his finger at Fisher as he challenged the lawyer's argument, charged that "the corporation's responsibility or complicity or culpability is simply not relevant under your theory of the case."
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
Fisher tried to deflect some of the more barbed questions -- "I don't want to act like a dog chasing his tail here, Justice Kennedy . . . I'm not going to fight you on that" -- but it was clear that the court's main motive in hearing this case was to cut the jury award. When Fisher said he thought the justices had agreed to hear the case because of an unsettled aspect of maritime law, Scalia cut him off.
"That," the justice said, "and $3.5 billion."
One thing working in the Valdez victims' favor: Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. Also in the plaintiffs' favor: No justice, with the possible exception of Scalia and the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas, liked Exxon's assertion that no punitive damage is legitimate.
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."
Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon's lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: "So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?"
Dellinger licked his lips frequently and drank generously from his water glass. "Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong and paid dearly for it," he pleaded to the justices.
It seemed likely Exxon would have to pay more for it -- though not terribly much. The court's dealmakers, Kennedy and David Souter, floated the idea that punitive damages could be double the amount of compensatory damages -- about $800 million, instead of the $2.5 billion ordered by the appellate court. Souter wondered aloud whether "we've simply got to come up with a number."
The notion of the justices pulling a number out of thin air seemed a bit too neat for an oil spill that spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaska's coastline. But then the argument had less to do with the dead marine animals and ruined fishermen than with an obscure maritime law case from 1818 called The Amiable Nancy-- or, as Scalia put it, the "Amiable Whatever It Is."
As the justices probed the intricacies of the laws of the sea, Ginsburg discussed Rule 50. Kennedy invoked Instruction 30, Instruction 33 and Instruction 36. Spectators showed evidence of drowsiness. Reporters yawned -- at least until they were jolted awake by an alarming prospect raised by Ginsburg, who spoke about "a new trial" and the "next time around."
A new trial? After 19 years of legal fighting? Out on the plaza after the argument, Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt."
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Perhaps, though, his consternation was misplaced. Everybody knows the wheels of justice turn slowly, but in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, things have dragged on so long that Lady Justice's blindness could reasonably be attributed to cataracts.
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs -- mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans -- have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages -- a record level, for a record disaster -- and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill "destroyed an entire regional economy." Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. "What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages," Fisher argued.
Several justices, however, seemed more concerned about the emotional distress of the Exxon executives. "I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation" responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wagging his finger at Fisher as he challenged the lawyer's argument, charged that "the corporation's responsibility or complicity or culpability is simply not relevant under your theory of the case."
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
Fisher tried to deflect some of the more barbed questions -- "I don't want to act like a dog chasing his tail here, Justice Kennedy . . . I'm not going to fight you on that" -- but it was clear that the court's main motive in hearing this case was to cut the jury award. When Fisher said he thought the justices had agreed to hear the case because of an unsettled aspect of maritime law, Scalia cut him off.
"That," the justice said, "and $3.5 billion."
One thing working in the Valdez victims' favor: Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. Also in the plaintiffs' favor: No justice, with the possible exception of Scalia and the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas, liked Exxon's assertion that no punitive damage is legitimate.
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."
Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon's lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: "So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?"
Dellinger licked his lips frequently and drank generously from his water glass. "Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong and paid dearly for it," he pleaded to the justices.
It seemed likely Exxon would have to pay more for it -- though not terribly much. The court's dealmakers, Kennedy and David Souter, floated the idea that punitive damages could be double the amount of compensatory damages -- about $800 million, instead of the $2.5 billion ordered by the appellate court. Souter wondered aloud whether "we've simply got to come up with a number."
The notion of the justices pulling a number out of thin air seemed a bit too neat for an oil spill that spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaska's coastline. But then the argument had less to do with the dead marine animals and ruined fishermen than with an obscure maritime law case from 1818 called The Amiable Nancy-- or, as Scalia put it, the "Amiable Whatever It Is."
As the justices probed the intricacies of the laws of the sea, Ginsburg discussed Rule 50. Kennedy invoked Instruction 30, Instruction 33 and Instruction 36. Spectators showed evidence of drowsiness. Reporters yawned -- at least until they were jolted awake by an alarming prospect raised by Ginsburg, who spoke about "a new trial" and the "next time around."
A new trial? After 19 years of legal fighting? Out on the plaza after the argument, Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt."
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
http://www.gregpalast.com/exxon-suxx-mccain-duxx
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
by Greg Palast
For TomPaine.com and OurFuture.org
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Nineteen goddamn years is enough. I’m sorry if you don’t like my language, but when I think about what they did to Paul Kompkoff, I’m in no mood to nicey-nice words.
Next month marks 19 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped its load of crude oil across the Prince William Sound, Alaska. A big gooey load of this crude spilled over the lands of the Chenega Natives. Paul Kompkoff was a seal-hunter for the village. That is, until Exxon’s ship killed the seal and poisoned the rest of Chenega’s food supply.
While cameras rolled, Exxon executives promised they’d compensate everyone. Today, before the US Supreme Court, the big oil company’s lawyers argued that they shouldn’t have to pay Paul or other fishermen the damages ordered by the courts.
They can’t pay Paul anyway. He’s dead.
That was part of Exxon’s plan. They told me that. In 1990 and 1991, I worked for the Chenega and Chugach Natives of Alaska on trying to get Exxon to pay up to save the remote villages of the Sound. Exxon’s response was, “We can hold out in court until you’re all dead.”
Nice guys. But, hell, they were right, weren’t they?
But Exxon didn’t do it alone. They had enablers. One was a failed oil driller named “Dubya.” Exxon was the second largest contributor to George W. Bush’s political career. Enron was firstr. They were a team, Exxon and Enron.
To protect their corporate backsides, Enron’s Chairman Ken Lay, prior to his felony convictions, funded a group called Texans for Law Suit Reform. The idea was to prevent consumers, defrauded stockholders and devastated Natives from suing felonious corporations and their chiefs.
When Dubya went to Washington, Enron and Exxon got their golden pass in the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, as the court heard Exxon’s latest stall, Roberts said, in defense of Exxon’s behavior in Alaska, “What more can a corporation do?”
The answer, Your Honor, is plenty.
For starters, Mr. Roberts, Exxon could have turned on the radar. What? On the night the Exxon Valdez smacked into Bligh Reef, the Raycas radar system was turned off. Exxon shipping honchos decided it was too expensive to maintain it and train their navigators to use it. So, the inexperienced third mate at the wheel was driving the supertanker by eyeball, Christopher Columbus style. I kid you not.
Here’s what else this poor ‘widdle corporation could do: stop lying.
On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil.
Paul’s gone – buried with Exxon’s promises. But the oil’s still there. Go out to Chenega lands today. At Sleepy Bay, kick over some gravel and it will smell like a gas station.
Tort Tart
What the heck does this have to do with John McCain?
The Senator is what I’d call a ‘Tort Tart.’ Ken Lay’s “Law Suit Reform” posse was one of the fronts used by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists waging war on your day in court. Their rallying cry is ‘Tort Reform,’ by which they mean they want to take away the God-given right of any American, rich or poor, to sue the bastards who crush your child’s skull through product negligence, make your heart explode with a faulty medical device, siphon off your pension funds, or poison your food supply with spilled oil.
All of the Democratic candidates have seen through this ‘tort reform’ con – and so did a Senator named McCain who, in 2001, for example, voted for the Patients Bill of Rights allowing claims against butchers with scalpels. Then something happened to Senator McCain: the guy who stuck his neck out for litigants got his head chopped off when he ran for President in the Republican Party. One lobbyists’ website blasted McCain’s “go-it-alone moralism.”
So the Senator did what I call, The McCain Hunch. Again and again he grabbed his ankles and apologized to the K Street lobbyists, reversing his positions on, well, you name it. In 2001, he said of Bush’s tax cuts, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans.” Now, in bad conscience, the Senator vows to make these tax cuts permanent.
On “Tort Reform,” the about-face was dizzying. McCain voted to undermine his own 2001 Patients Bill of Rights with votes in 2005 to limit suits to enforce it. He then added his name to a bill that would have thrown sealhunter Kompkoff’s suit out of federal court.
In 2003, McCain voted against Bush’s Energy Plan, an industry oil-gasm. This week, following Exxon’s report that it sucked in $40.6 billion in earnings, the largest profit haul in planetary history, Senators Clinton, Obama and several others in both parties sponsored a bill to require a teeny sliver of oil industry super-profits go to alternative energy sources. Technically, it involved ending a $14 billion tax giveaway granted oil companies by the Bush Administration in 2004. Senator McCain wouldn’t support George and his oil patch buddies then. But now, Candidate McCain won’t back the repeal of this gawdawful tax break.
In this showdown with Big Oil, McCain is AWOL, missing in action.
Well, Paul, at least you were spared this.
I remember when I was on the investigation in Alaska, bankrupted fishermen, utterly ruined – Kompkoff’s co-plaintiffs in the suit before the Supreme Court – floated their soon-to-be repossessed boats into the tanker lanes with banners reading, “EXXON SUXX.”
To which they could now add, about a one-time stand-up Senator: “McCain duxx.”
***
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his investigative reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
by Greg Palast
For TomPaine.com and OurFuture.org
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Nineteen goddamn years is enough. I’m sorry if you don’t like my language, but when I think about what they did to Paul Kompkoff, I’m in no mood to nicey-nice words.
Next month marks 19 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped its load of crude oil across the Prince William Sound, Alaska. A big gooey load of this crude spilled over the lands of the Chenega Natives. Paul Kompkoff was a seal-hunter for the village. That is, until Exxon’s ship killed the seal and poisoned the rest of Chenega’s food supply.
While cameras rolled, Exxon executives promised they’d compensate everyone. Today, before the US Supreme Court, the big oil company’s lawyers argued that they shouldn’t have to pay Paul or other fishermen the damages ordered by the courts.
They can’t pay Paul anyway. He’s dead.
That was part of Exxon’s plan. They told me that. In 1990 and 1991, I worked for the Chenega and Chugach Natives of Alaska on trying to get Exxon to pay up to save the remote villages of the Sound. Exxon’s response was, “We can hold out in court until you’re all dead.”
Nice guys. But, hell, they were right, weren’t they?
But Exxon didn’t do it alone. They had enablers. One was a failed oil driller named “Dubya.” Exxon was the second largest contributor to George W. Bush’s political career. Enron was firstr. They were a team, Exxon and Enron.
To protect their corporate backsides, Enron’s Chairman Ken Lay, prior to his felony convictions, funded a group called Texans for Law Suit Reform. The idea was to prevent consumers, defrauded stockholders and devastated Natives from suing felonious corporations and their chiefs.
When Dubya went to Washington, Enron and Exxon got their golden pass in the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, as the court heard Exxon’s latest stall, Roberts said, in defense of Exxon’s behavior in Alaska, “What more can a corporation do?”
The answer, Your Honor, is plenty.
For starters, Mr. Roberts, Exxon could have turned on the radar. What? On the night the Exxon Valdez smacked into Bligh Reef, the Raycas radar system was turned off. Exxon shipping honchos decided it was too expensive to maintain it and train their navigators to use it. So, the inexperienced third mate at the wheel was driving the supertanker by eyeball, Christopher Columbus style. I kid you not.
Here’s what else this poor ‘widdle corporation could do: stop lying.
On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil.
Paul’s gone – buried with Exxon’s promises. But the oil’s still there. Go out to Chenega lands today. At Sleepy Bay, kick over some gravel and it will smell like a gas station.
Tort Tart
What the heck does this have to do with John McCain?
The Senator is what I’d call a ‘Tort Tart.’ Ken Lay’s “Law Suit Reform” posse was one of the fronts used by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists waging war on your day in court. Their rallying cry is ‘Tort Reform,’ by which they mean they want to take away the God-given right of any American, rich or poor, to sue the bastards who crush your child’s skull through product negligence, make your heart explode with a faulty medical device, siphon off your pension funds, or poison your food supply with spilled oil.
All of the Democratic candidates have seen through this ‘tort reform’ con – and so did a Senator named McCain who, in 2001, for example, voted for the Patients Bill of Rights allowing claims against butchers with scalpels. Then something happened to Senator McCain: the guy who stuck his neck out for litigants got his head chopped off when he ran for President in the Republican Party. One lobbyists’ website blasted McCain’s “go-it-alone moralism.”
So the Senator did what I call, The McCain Hunch. Again and again he grabbed his ankles and apologized to the K Street lobbyists, reversing his positions on, well, you name it. In 2001, he said of Bush’s tax cuts, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans.” Now, in bad conscience, the Senator vows to make these tax cuts permanent.
On “Tort Reform,” the about-face was dizzying. McCain voted to undermine his own 2001 Patients Bill of Rights with votes in 2005 to limit suits to enforce it. He then added his name to a bill that would have thrown sealhunter Kompkoff’s suit out of federal court.
In 2003, McCain voted against Bush’s Energy Plan, an industry oil-gasm. This week, following Exxon’s report that it sucked in $40.6 billion in earnings, the largest profit haul in planetary history, Senators Clinton, Obama and several others in both parties sponsored a bill to require a teeny sliver of oil industry super-profits go to alternative energy sources. Technically, it involved ending a $14 billion tax giveaway granted oil companies by the Bush Administration in 2004. Senator McCain wouldn’t support George and his oil patch buddies then. But now, Candidate McCain won’t back the repeal of this gawdawful tax break.
In this showdown with Big Oil, McCain is AWOL, missing in action.
Well, Paul, at least you were spared this.
I remember when I was on the investigation in Alaska, bankrupted fishermen, utterly ruined – Kompkoff’s co-plaintiffs in the suit before the Supreme Court – floated their soon-to-be repossessed boats into the tanker lanes with banners reading, “EXXON SUXX.”
To which they could now add, about a one-time stand-up Senator: “McCain duxx.”
***
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his investigative reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/
Exxon To Press High Court For Award Reversal
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200802270837DOWJONESDJONLINE000650_FORTUNE5.htm
Exxon To Press High Court For Award Reversal In Valdez Suit
February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Exxon Valdez oil spill won't go away.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a $2.5 billion punitive damages case against Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) brought by fishermen and others harmed by the massive oil spill that occurred almost 19 years ago.
The appeal is rife with superlatives. The damages, cut from an original award of $5 billion, is the largest punitive damages award ever approved by a federal appeals court and is in addition to $3.4 billion in separate fines, payments and settlements. The class-action lawsuit represents 32,677 fishermen, individuals and businesses that could get an average of $76,500 each in punitive damages if the award is upheld by the high court. The case has been in litigation for 13 years, a time frame in which the plaintiffs allege 20% of those eligible for damages have died.
In recent years the Supreme Court has in several rulings reined in the scope and size of punitive damages awards against corporations. But how the justices might rule in this particular case isn't clear because maritime law, an obscure and limited field of law governing the sea, has little to say about extracting financial punishments in class-action cases.
Exxon Mobil attacks the award on several fronts, arguing that maritime law doesn't allow punitive damages awards and that the federal Clean Water Act, which guided more than $900 million sanctions and fines related to the spill, also bars the punitive damages award.
"Punitive damages should not have been awarded here because Exxon's payment of $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims payments and other expenses has fully achieved both punishment and deterrence," the company said in a court brief.
The plaintiffs, however, said the award and its size are allowed under a variety of legal precedents. "The award satisfies any set of guideposts this court might apply," attorneys for the plaintiffs said. "The jury had ample reason to reject Exxon's contention that prior penalties and cleanup expenditures had punished and deterred Exxon enough."
The case began in 1994, almost five years after the Valdez supertanker dumped 258,000 barrels of oil into the Prince William Sound after striking a reef when the ship's captain, Joseph Hazelwood, left the ship's bridge with the third mate at the helm. After a lengthy trial, a jury awarded those harmed by the spill $ 287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco first ruled in the case in 2001 when it upheld damages against Exxon Mobil but ordered the trial court to reduce the award. A second appeal to the Ninth Circuit was decided in 2006 that upheld the $2.5 billion punitive damages figure.
More than 20 groups and interested parties filed friend-of-the-court briefs, even though the court's eventual ruling may not extend beyond maritime law. On Exxon Mobil's side, a number of business groups and oil interests urged the Supreme Court to reject the award or, at a minimum, provide guidance on punitive damages awards in shipping cases.
The Alaskan government and congressional representatives filed briefs on the side of the plaintiffs. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, wrote his own brief in which he offered advice to the Supreme Court on why the Clean Water Act doesn't bar the damages award. "In order to preempt long-established common law principles, a statute must provide clear intent to do so," Stevens wrote. "When enacting legislation, Congress is presumed to be aware of and supplementing - not supplanting - existing damages frameworks."
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the appeal without providing an explanation. However, he disclosed in his 2006 financial statements that he holds between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon Mobil stock. With only eight justices hearing the case, a deadlock that allows the lower court ruling to stand is one possible outcome.
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Baker, 07-219. A decision will be released by July.
-By Mark H. Anderson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9254; mark.anderson@dowjones.com
Exxon To Press High Court For Award Reversal In Valdez Suit
February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Exxon Valdez oil spill won't go away.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a $2.5 billion punitive damages case against Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) brought by fishermen and others harmed by the massive oil spill that occurred almost 19 years ago.
The appeal is rife with superlatives. The damages, cut from an original award of $5 billion, is the largest punitive damages award ever approved by a federal appeals court and is in addition to $3.4 billion in separate fines, payments and settlements. The class-action lawsuit represents 32,677 fishermen, individuals and businesses that could get an average of $76,500 each in punitive damages if the award is upheld by the high court. The case has been in litigation for 13 years, a time frame in which the plaintiffs allege 20% of those eligible for damages have died.
In recent years the Supreme Court has in several rulings reined in the scope and size of punitive damages awards against corporations. But how the justices might rule in this particular case isn't clear because maritime law, an obscure and limited field of law governing the sea, has little to say about extracting financial punishments in class-action cases.
Exxon Mobil attacks the award on several fronts, arguing that maritime law doesn't allow punitive damages awards and that the federal Clean Water Act, which guided more than $900 million sanctions and fines related to the spill, also bars the punitive damages award.
"Punitive damages should not have been awarded here because Exxon's payment of $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims payments and other expenses has fully achieved both punishment and deterrence," the company said in a court brief.
The plaintiffs, however, said the award and its size are allowed under a variety of legal precedents. "The award satisfies any set of guideposts this court might apply," attorneys for the plaintiffs said. "The jury had ample reason to reject Exxon's contention that prior penalties and cleanup expenditures had punished and deterred Exxon enough."
The case began in 1994, almost five years after the Valdez supertanker dumped 258,000 barrels of oil into the Prince William Sound after striking a reef when the ship's captain, Joseph Hazelwood, left the ship's bridge with the third mate at the helm. After a lengthy trial, a jury awarded those harmed by the spill $ 287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco first ruled in the case in 2001 when it upheld damages against Exxon Mobil but ordered the trial court to reduce the award. A second appeal to the Ninth Circuit was decided in 2006 that upheld the $2.5 billion punitive damages figure.
More than 20 groups and interested parties filed friend-of-the-court briefs, even though the court's eventual ruling may not extend beyond maritime law. On Exxon Mobil's side, a number of business groups and oil interests urged the Supreme Court to reject the award or, at a minimum, provide guidance on punitive damages awards in shipping cases.
The Alaskan government and congressional representatives filed briefs on the side of the plaintiffs. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, wrote his own brief in which he offered advice to the Supreme Court on why the Clean Water Act doesn't bar the damages award. "In order to preempt long-established common law principles, a statute must provide clear intent to do so," Stevens wrote. "When enacting legislation, Congress is presumed to be aware of and supplementing - not supplanting - existing damages frameworks."
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the appeal without providing an explanation. However, he disclosed in his 2006 financial statements that he holds between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon Mobil stock. With only eight justices hearing the case, a deadlock that allows the lower court ruling to stand is one possible outcome.
The case is Exxon Shipping Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Baker, 07-219. A decision will be released by July.
-By Mark H. Anderson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9254; mark.anderson@dowjones.com
Flooded Village Files Suit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/27alaska.html
February 27, 2008
Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Correction Appended
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate, filed suit in federal court here Tuesday arguing that 5 oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company were responsible for the village’s woes.
The suit is the latest effort to hold companies like BP America, Chevron, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy and the Southern Company responsible for the impact of global warming because they emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases, or, in the case of Peabody, mine and market carbon-laden coal that is burned by others. It accused the companies of creating a public nuisance.
In an unusual move, those five companies and three other defendants — the Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Electric Power and the Conoco Phillips Company — are also accused of conspiracy. “There has been a long campaign by power, coal and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming,” the suit says. The campaign, it says, contributed “to the public nuisance of global warming by convincing the public at large and the victims of global warming that the process is not man-made when in fact it is.”
Kivalina, an Inupiat village of 400 people on a barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and two rivers, is being buffeted by waves that, in colder times, were blocked by sea ice, the suit says. “The result of the increased storm damage is a massive erosion problem,” it says. “Houses and buildings are in imminent danger of falling into the sea.”
The estimated cost of relocating the village is up to $400 million, the suit says.
Some lawyers in the case participated in the long-running litigation against American tobacco companies in the 1990s, and some of the same legal theories echo through the complaint. But the hurdles may be greater than those in the tobacco wars. Global warming is a diffuse worldwide phenomenon; a successful public nuisance case requires that defendants’ behavior be directly linked to the harm.
“Public nuisance law has been used from time immemorial to address issues that have not been addressed by the political branches,” said Kirsten H. Engel, a law professor at the University of Arizona. But Professor Engel added, “It’s very difficult to get a court to jump in here and say that what these companies are doing, and have been doing for years, is unreasonable and creating a public nuisance.”
Two similar lawsuits, one brought by California against six automakers and another by a coalition of Eastern states against utility companies, have been dismissed by federal judges. Both judges said the issues involved were political and did not belong in the courts. Those decisions have been appealed.
Matt Pawa, a lawyer for Kivalina, said this case was different because it sought monetary damages for an injured party. “The kind of harms to property and public welfare caused by global warming are classic public nuisance injuries,” Mr. Pawa said.
He added that the other cases had no conspiracy claims, which he said courts routinely addressed.
Reached late Tuesday, spokesmen for three defendants — Jason Cuevas of Southern, Vic Svec of Peabody and Gantt Walton of Exxon Mobil — said they would not comment on the substance of the lawsuit.
But Mr. Svec said, “Rather than unreasonably suing companies for the weather, we would encourage everyone to join Peabody in supporting aggressive development of carbon capture and storage projects and other technologies that help us provide both energy security and carbon solutions.”
Of the accusation that Exxon Mobil participated in a disinformation campaign, Mr. Walton said, “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand — how to provide the energy to improve living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 28, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article on Wednesday about a lawsuit filed against energy companies by an Alaska Native coastal village that is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate misstated the estimated cost of moving the village. It could cost up to $400 million, not up to $400,000.
February 27, 2008
Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Correction Appended
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate, filed suit in federal court here Tuesday arguing that 5 oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company were responsible for the village’s woes.
The suit is the latest effort to hold companies like BP America, Chevron, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy and the Southern Company responsible for the impact of global warming because they emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases, or, in the case of Peabody, mine and market carbon-laden coal that is burned by others. It accused the companies of creating a public nuisance.
In an unusual move, those five companies and three other defendants — the Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Electric Power and the Conoco Phillips Company — are also accused of conspiracy. “There has been a long campaign by power, coal and oil companies to mislead the public about the science of global warming,” the suit says. The campaign, it says, contributed “to the public nuisance of global warming by convincing the public at large and the victims of global warming that the process is not man-made when in fact it is.”
Kivalina, an Inupiat village of 400 people on a barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and two rivers, is being buffeted by waves that, in colder times, were blocked by sea ice, the suit says. “The result of the increased storm damage is a massive erosion problem,” it says. “Houses and buildings are in imminent danger of falling into the sea.”
The estimated cost of relocating the village is up to $400 million, the suit says.
Some lawyers in the case participated in the long-running litigation against American tobacco companies in the 1990s, and some of the same legal theories echo through the complaint. But the hurdles may be greater than those in the tobacco wars. Global warming is a diffuse worldwide phenomenon; a successful public nuisance case requires that defendants’ behavior be directly linked to the harm.
“Public nuisance law has been used from time immemorial to address issues that have not been addressed by the political branches,” said Kirsten H. Engel, a law professor at the University of Arizona. But Professor Engel added, “It’s very difficult to get a court to jump in here and say that what these companies are doing, and have been doing for years, is unreasonable and creating a public nuisance.”
Two similar lawsuits, one brought by California against six automakers and another by a coalition of Eastern states against utility companies, have been dismissed by federal judges. Both judges said the issues involved were political and did not belong in the courts. Those decisions have been appealed.
Matt Pawa, a lawyer for Kivalina, said this case was different because it sought monetary damages for an injured party. “The kind of harms to property and public welfare caused by global warming are classic public nuisance injuries,” Mr. Pawa said.
He added that the other cases had no conspiracy claims, which he said courts routinely addressed.
Reached late Tuesday, spokesmen for three defendants — Jason Cuevas of Southern, Vic Svec of Peabody and Gantt Walton of Exxon Mobil — said they would not comment on the substance of the lawsuit.
But Mr. Svec said, “Rather than unreasonably suing companies for the weather, we would encourage everyone to join Peabody in supporting aggressive development of carbon capture and storage projects and other technologies that help us provide both energy security and carbon solutions.”
Of the accusation that Exxon Mobil participated in a disinformation campaign, Mr. Walton said, “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand — how to provide the energy to improve living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 28, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article on Wednesday about a lawsuit filed against energy companies by an Alaska Native coastal village that is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate misstated the estimated cost of moving the village. It could cost up to $400 million, not up to $400,000.
Chef Lagasse going "Green" in new TV series
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080229/tv_nm/lagasse_dc
Chef Lagasse going "Green" in new TV series
By Kimberly Nordyke
Fri Feb 29, 2008
Celebrity chef Emeril Lagasse will host his own series on Planet Green, an eco-lifestyle cable network set to launch in June.
The daily series, tentatively titled "Emeril Green," will feature Lagasse sharing his ideas with viewers about how to cook healthy meals for their families.
It will be produced in partnership with Whole Foods Market, and will be shot on location, with Lagasse enlisting the help of the Whole Foods team and others to handpick the best ingredients for a particular recipe.
The news follows last week's announcement that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia was acquiring Lagasse's content assets in a $50 million-plus deal. Lagasse also continues to have a relationship with Food Network: although "Emeril Live" ended production last year, "Essence of Emeril" continues, and the network is talking with Lagasse about possible specials or other programs.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Chef Lagasse going "Green" in new TV series
By Kimberly Nordyke
Fri Feb 29, 2008
Celebrity chef Emeril Lagasse will host his own series on Planet Green, an eco-lifestyle cable network set to launch in June.
The daily series, tentatively titled "Emeril Green," will feature Lagasse sharing his ideas with viewers about how to cook healthy meals for their families.
It will be produced in partnership with Whole Foods Market, and will be shot on location, with Lagasse enlisting the help of the Whole Foods team and others to handpick the best ingredients for a particular recipe.
The news follows last week's announcement that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia was acquiring Lagasse's content assets in a $50 million-plus deal. Lagasse also continues to have a relationship with Food Network: although "Emeril Live" ended production last year, "Essence of Emeril" continues, and the network is talking with Lagasse about possible specials or other programs.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Buddy Miles, 60
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-miles28feb28,1,2356173.story
Buddy Miles, 60; drummer with Hendrix, voice of California raisins
From Times Staff and Wire Reports
February 28, 2008
Buddy Miles, the rock and R&B drummer, singer and songwriter whose eclectic career included stints playing with Jimi Hendrix and as the lead voice of the California Raisins, the animated clay figures that became an advertising phenomenon in the late 1980s, has died. He was 60.
Miles died Tuesday of congestive heart failure at his home in Austin, Texas, according to an announcement on his website.
A massive man with a distinctive, sculpted afro, Miles hit his peak of popularity when he joined Hendrix and bassist Billy Cox to form Hendrix's Band of Gypsys, which the New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll called "the first black rock group." Miles had played with Hendrix on the guitarist's influential "Electric Ladyland" album released in 1968.
The Band of Gypsys made just one album, a live set recorded on New Year's Eve in 1969-70, and two of Miles' songs, "Them Changes" and "We Got to Live Together," were included on the album. He gave the recording a memorable drum riff on one of Hendrix's signature songs, "Machine Gun."
But, according to Miles, the Band of Gypsys association was brief and stormy. He told The Times in 1988 that Hendrix's management, not the guitarist himself, fired him within a month of the concert. He thought Hendrix's managers were leery of continuing with an all-black group.
"It had to be a racial thing," Miles told The Times. "I think it had to scare them because of the political aspect at the time."
Miles was born Sept. 5, 1947, in Omaha. He developed an interest in drums at an early age and by 12 was playing in his father's jazz combo. Within a couple of years he was in demand as a session player and a sideman, working with top-name R&B groups, including Ruby and the Romantics and the Delfonics. According to the Rolling Stone encyclopedia, he played on the session that produced the Jaynetts' 1963 hit "Sally Go Round the Roses."
While playing with Wilson Pickett in 1967, he was approached by guitarist Mike Bloomfield, who asked him to join the blues, rock and soul group Electric Flag. Miles played on three of the band's albums before forming his own group, the Buddy Miles Express, in 1968. Next came his association with Hendrix.
Over the years, Miles recorded two albums with Carlos Santana, one of which went platinum, and worked with other leading music figures, including Muddy Waters and John McLaughlin. He re-formed the Buddy Miles Express in the mid-1970s and had a hit with his song "Them Changes."
By the late 1970s, however, Miles' career came to a halt over convictions for grand theft and auto theft. He served time in the California Institution for Men at Chino and at San Quentin State Prison. He was incarcerated until 1985 and formed bands at both prisons.
After he was released, he sang with Santana's group and got the raisin gig while working on an album with the guitarist. The popular television commercials for the California Raisin Advisory Board featured a quartet of singing and dancing Claymation figures with Miles, as Buddy Raisin, doing the lead singing covering Marvin Gaye's "I Heard It Through the Grapevine."
The commercial's popularity spawned a million-selling offshoot album of remakes of rock and soul oldies, "The California Raisins Sing the Hit Songs."
Buddy Miles, 60; drummer with Hendrix, voice of California raisins
From Times Staff and Wire Reports
February 28, 2008
Buddy Miles, the rock and R&B drummer, singer and songwriter whose eclectic career included stints playing with Jimi Hendrix and as the lead voice of the California Raisins, the animated clay figures that became an advertising phenomenon in the late 1980s, has died. He was 60.
Miles died Tuesday of congestive heart failure at his home in Austin, Texas, according to an announcement on his website.
A massive man with a distinctive, sculpted afro, Miles hit his peak of popularity when he joined Hendrix and bassist Billy Cox to form Hendrix's Band of Gypsys, which the New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll called "the first black rock group." Miles had played with Hendrix on the guitarist's influential "Electric Ladyland" album released in 1968.
The Band of Gypsys made just one album, a live set recorded on New Year's Eve in 1969-70, and two of Miles' songs, "Them Changes" and "We Got to Live Together," were included on the album. He gave the recording a memorable drum riff on one of Hendrix's signature songs, "Machine Gun."
But, according to Miles, the Band of Gypsys association was brief and stormy. He told The Times in 1988 that Hendrix's management, not the guitarist himself, fired him within a month of the concert. He thought Hendrix's managers were leery of continuing with an all-black group.
"It had to be a racial thing," Miles told The Times. "I think it had to scare them because of the political aspect at the time."
Miles was born Sept. 5, 1947, in Omaha. He developed an interest in drums at an early age and by 12 was playing in his father's jazz combo. Within a couple of years he was in demand as a session player and a sideman, working with top-name R&B groups, including Ruby and the Romantics and the Delfonics. According to the Rolling Stone encyclopedia, he played on the session that produced the Jaynetts' 1963 hit "Sally Go Round the Roses."
While playing with Wilson Pickett in 1967, he was approached by guitarist Mike Bloomfield, who asked him to join the blues, rock and soul group Electric Flag. Miles played on three of the band's albums before forming his own group, the Buddy Miles Express, in 1968. Next came his association with Hendrix.
Over the years, Miles recorded two albums with Carlos Santana, one of which went platinum, and worked with other leading music figures, including Muddy Waters and John McLaughlin. He re-formed the Buddy Miles Express in the mid-1970s and had a hit with his song "Them Changes."
By the late 1970s, however, Miles' career came to a halt over convictions for grand theft and auto theft. He served time in the California Institution for Men at Chino and at San Quentin State Prison. He was incarcerated until 1985 and formed bands at both prisons.
After he was released, he sang with Santana's group and got the raisin gig while working on an album with the guitarist. The popular television commercials for the California Raisin Advisory Board featured a quartet of singing and dancing Claymation figures with Miles, as Buddy Raisin, doing the lead singing covering Marvin Gaye's "I Heard It Through the Grapevine."
The commercial's popularity spawned a million-selling offshoot album of remakes of rock and soul oldies, "The California Raisins Sing the Hit Songs."
Apropos of Nothing
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/jay_leno.html
Apropos of Nothing
2/27/08
Jay Leno Is About to Get Paid
Today Bill Carter reports in the Times that networks and TV studios are already lining up to snatch Jay Leno away when his Tonight Show contract concludes at the end of 2009. Leno, who has been slated to be replaced by Conan O'Brien at that time, can contractually begin to negotiate in November 2009; nevertheless, plenty of money and perks are already on the table, including a reported $40 million a year from Sony — who also plan to build Leno his own theater on the studio's lot. (For Jay Leno!!) Given that the competition in 2009 should be fast and furious — Leno is free to return to TV just two months after the negotiation period begins — how exorbitant might the offers get? Vulture looks into its crystal ball to find out.
November 1, 2009 ABC pledges to kick Nightline off the air to make room for Jay Leno, offering him $50 million a year.
November 5, 2009 Sony raises its offer to $60 million a year, plus a gold-plated motorcycle.
November 8, 2009 ABC counters with a promise to explain to Leno the secrets of Lost.
November 11, 2009 When Leno expresses dissatisfaction with Sony Television's plans for the Jay Leno Theater, executives offer to let him design it himself. The resulting structure is a pale imitation of plans designed first by other, edgier architects.
November 13, 2009 Desperate ABC executives raise their offer to $75 million and promise that Kevin Eubanks will replace Charles Gibson as anchor of World News Tonight.
November 21, 2009 Getting in on the action, Fox renegotiates its affiliate deals to become a round-the-clock network in hopes of attracting Leno, who is offered not just the 11:30 to 12:30 slot but the entire overnight shift, from 11:30 to dawn.
November 30, 2009 Sony Television annexes the picturesque Sea of Japan island of Niijima and renames it LenoLand, replacing its distinctive local statuary with busts of Jay Leno.
December 5, 2009 NBC wunderkind Ben Silverman, driven mad at being left out of the fun, offers Leno $100 million a year to continue as host of the Tonight Show. "That doesn't mean we're giving up on Conan," Silverman tells reporters. "We'll run Jay's and Conan's shows simultaneously, in split-screen."
December 7, 2009 Fox's Kevin Reilly hints to Leno that he can't make any promises, but he's "pretty sure" he can get Leno into the Hollywood Round of American Idol.
December 13, 2009 Holding unprecedented power over every network, Leno demands that the Tonight Show run on all of them at once. All four network chiefs accept, and further agree to run Sony Television's syndicated The Jay Leno Show the other 23 hours of every day.
Apropos of Nothing
2/27/08
Jay Leno Is About to Get Paid
Today Bill Carter reports in the Times that networks and TV studios are already lining up to snatch Jay Leno away when his Tonight Show contract concludes at the end of 2009. Leno, who has been slated to be replaced by Conan O'Brien at that time, can contractually begin to negotiate in November 2009; nevertheless, plenty of money and perks are already on the table, including a reported $40 million a year from Sony — who also plan to build Leno his own theater on the studio's lot. (For Jay Leno!!) Given that the competition in 2009 should be fast and furious — Leno is free to return to TV just two months after the negotiation period begins — how exorbitant might the offers get? Vulture looks into its crystal ball to find out.
November 1, 2009 ABC pledges to kick Nightline off the air to make room for Jay Leno, offering him $50 million a year.
November 5, 2009 Sony raises its offer to $60 million a year, plus a gold-plated motorcycle.
November 8, 2009 ABC counters with a promise to explain to Leno the secrets of Lost.
November 11, 2009 When Leno expresses dissatisfaction with Sony Television's plans for the Jay Leno Theater, executives offer to let him design it himself. The resulting structure is a pale imitation of plans designed first by other, edgier architects.
November 13, 2009 Desperate ABC executives raise their offer to $75 million and promise that Kevin Eubanks will replace Charles Gibson as anchor of World News Tonight.
November 21, 2009 Getting in on the action, Fox renegotiates its affiliate deals to become a round-the-clock network in hopes of attracting Leno, who is offered not just the 11:30 to 12:30 slot but the entire overnight shift, from 11:30 to dawn.
November 30, 2009 Sony Television annexes the picturesque Sea of Japan island of Niijima and renames it LenoLand, replacing its distinctive local statuary with busts of Jay Leno.
December 5, 2009 NBC wunderkind Ben Silverman, driven mad at being left out of the fun, offers Leno $100 million a year to continue as host of the Tonight Show. "That doesn't mean we're giving up on Conan," Silverman tells reporters. "We'll run Jay's and Conan's shows simultaneously, in split-screen."
December 7, 2009 Fox's Kevin Reilly hints to Leno that he can't make any promises, but he's "pretty sure" he can get Leno into the Hollywood Round of American Idol.
December 13, 2009 Holding unprecedented power over every network, Leno demands that the Tonight Show run on all of them at once. All four network chiefs accept, and further agree to run Sony Television's syndicated The Jay Leno Show the other 23 hours of every day.
Diablo Cody: Nude Stripper / Screenwriter
http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/diablo-cody/diablo-cody-nude-stripper-screenwriter-003292Tuesday, 26 February, 2008
Diablo Cody: Nude Stripper / Screenwriter
Filed under: Home \ Celebrities \ Diablo Cody
Going from stripper to screenwriter isn't exactly the most ordinary career path, but then, Diablo Cody is no ordinary girl. The Oscar-winning screenwriter, and the mind behind the hit film Juno is the hottest new writer in Hollywood, and I don't just mean for her writing. Remember that thing about her being a stripper? Well, these Diablo Cody nude pictures prove she really has no problem taking her clothes off.
From completely nude to covered in whipped cream, riding the stripper pole to photoshopped topless boating, vibrators to nipple rings, these pics definitely show a different side of Diablo Cody than you may have seen on Oprah. My personal favourite: Diablo holding a Klingon Batleth! Also featured, the morning after her Oscar win.
It's not everyday you see an Oscar-winning screenwriter naked, which is probably a good thing.
Bank to Jacko: It's Your Last Pony Ride!
http://wwww.tmz.com/2008/02/26/jackos-house-on-the-blocko/
Bank to Jacko: It's Your Last Pony Ride!
Posted Feb 26th 2008
Michael Jackson is going the way of many American homeowners these days, only this foreclosure is a real circus.
FOX 411's Roger Friedman is reporting the King of Debt has just received word from Financial Title Company, the trustee of Neverland, unless he ponies up the $24,525,906.61 he owes on the monstrous mansion by March 19, it will be put up for public sale on the steps of the Santa Barbara County Courthouse!
A search on the Santa Barbara County Recorder website confirms that a "Notice of Trustees Sale" was filed yesterday by Financial Title Company.
Friedman reports that it won't just be the house for sale either -- it'll be everything. That means all of Jacko's personal property that's still inside the house (Peter Pan, is that you?!?), appliances, fixtures, rides, games and all "merry go round type devices." The report says everything that isn't nailed down must go -- and cheap!
A call to Jackson's rep for comment was not immediately returned.
Filed under: Wacky and Weird, Celebrity Pay Dirt, Michael Jackson
Bank to Jacko: It's Your Last Pony Ride!
Posted Feb 26th 2008
Michael Jackson is going the way of many American homeowners these days, only this foreclosure is a real circus.
FOX 411's Roger Friedman is reporting the King of Debt has just received word from Financial Title Company, the trustee of Neverland, unless he ponies up the $24,525,906.61 he owes on the monstrous mansion by March 19, it will be put up for public sale on the steps of the Santa Barbara County Courthouse!
A search on the Santa Barbara County Recorder website confirms that a "Notice of Trustees Sale" was filed yesterday by Financial Title Company.
Friedman reports that it won't just be the house for sale either -- it'll be everything. That means all of Jacko's personal property that's still inside the house (Peter Pan, is that you?!?), appliances, fixtures, rides, games and all "merry go round type devices." The report says everything that isn't nailed down must go -- and cheap!
A call to Jackson's rep for comment was not immediately returned.
Filed under: Wacky and Weird, Celebrity Pay Dirt, Michael Jackson
Jimmy Kimmel Is, Well, 'Dating' Ben Affleck
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20180150,00.html
So Long, Sarah! Jimmy Kimmel Is, Well, 'Dating' Ben Affleck
By Stephen M. Silverman
Originally posted Monday February 25, 2008
As threatened, Jimmy Kimmel has blasted back at girlfriend Sarah Silverman in the wake of her recent revelation – in an hysterical music video – that she and PEOPLE's Sexiest Man Alive Matt Damon are intimate.
Her song: "I'm F---ing Matt Damon." Kimmel's song of revenge, unveiled on his ABC show Jimmy Kimmel Live Sunday night immediately after the Oscars: "I'm F---ing Ben Affleck."
"Matt, Sarah, this is for you," said Kimmel, noting that Silverman and Damon's music video has been seen by about 8 million people on ABC.com and YouTube.
And the hilarious new clip – in which the two are seen giving each other pedicures before Affleck tweaks Kimmel's bare chest – isn't just a duet: It's an all-star performance on par with "We Are the World."
When it comes to backup singers, Kimmel somehow managed to round up a who's-who of the entertainment industry, including Don Cheadle, Ashlee Simpson, Robin Williams, Cameron Diaz, Huey Lewis, Christina Applegate, Joan Jett, Macy Gray, Benji and Joel Madden, Lance Bass, Josh Groban and Harrison Ford – who blows the new couple a kiss.
Costarring Brad Pitt
Even Brad Pitt makes a cameo, albeit in a non-singing role. He plays a FedEx deliveryman who brings a cake of congratulations to Kimmel and Affleck.
Kimmel and Affleck also stand nose to nose in the video, and all but kiss. As Robin Williams rhapsodizes, "This is not a man crush."
"The reason I did it like this, I didn't want my parents finding out from the tabloids," Kimmel said after showing the video.
Affleck said his wife, Jennifer Garner, didn't take the news very well. "Thank God my daughter is too young [to understand]," added the actor, referring to 2-year-old Violet.
Retorted a straight-faced Kimmel, "Well, she's our daughter now."
So Long, Sarah! Jimmy Kimmel Is, Well, 'Dating' Ben Affleck
By Stephen M. Silverman
Originally posted Monday February 25, 2008
As threatened, Jimmy Kimmel has blasted back at girlfriend Sarah Silverman in the wake of her recent revelation – in an hysterical music video – that she and PEOPLE's Sexiest Man Alive Matt Damon are intimate.
Her song: "I'm F---ing Matt Damon." Kimmel's song of revenge, unveiled on his ABC show Jimmy Kimmel Live Sunday night immediately after the Oscars: "I'm F---ing Ben Affleck."
"Matt, Sarah, this is for you," said Kimmel, noting that Silverman and Damon's music video has been seen by about 8 million people on ABC.com and YouTube.
And the hilarious new clip – in which the two are seen giving each other pedicures before Affleck tweaks Kimmel's bare chest – isn't just a duet: It's an all-star performance on par with "We Are the World."
When it comes to backup singers, Kimmel somehow managed to round up a who's-who of the entertainment industry, including Don Cheadle, Ashlee Simpson, Robin Williams, Cameron Diaz, Huey Lewis, Christina Applegate, Joan Jett, Macy Gray, Benji and Joel Madden, Lance Bass, Josh Groban and Harrison Ford – who blows the new couple a kiss.
Costarring Brad Pitt
Even Brad Pitt makes a cameo, albeit in a non-singing role. He plays a FedEx deliveryman who brings a cake of congratulations to Kimmel and Affleck.
Kimmel and Affleck also stand nose to nose in the video, and all but kiss. As Robin Williams rhapsodizes, "This is not a man crush."
"The reason I did it like this, I didn't want my parents finding out from the tabloids," Kimmel said after showing the video.
Affleck said his wife, Jennifer Garner, didn't take the news very well. "Thank God my daughter is too young [to understand]," added the actor, referring to 2-year-old Violet.
Retorted a straight-faced Kimmel, "Well, she's our daughter now."
When will iTunes replace Wal-Mart as No. 1?
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9880001-7.html
February 26, 2008
When will iTunes replace Wal-Mart as No. 1 music retailer?
Posted by Greg Sandoval
Apple's iTunes will likely whip past Wal-Mart Stores to become the largest U.S. music retailer sometime this year.
The NPD Group issued a report Tuesday that said Apple had outpaced Best Buy and Target to become the No. 2 U.S. music retailer. Unless the downward trend in CD sales suddenly reverses, Apple will be No. 1, said Russ Crupnick, the NPD Group's president of Music.
"Digital sales were up close to 50 percent and CD sales were down 20 percent last year," Crupnick said. "Even at half that growth rate in digital sales, Apple will in all likelihood catch Wal-Mart this year."
Anybody in their teens or early 20s is going to ask, "So what else is new?" To them, digital downloads has been part of their lives for years. It's only natural that a download store emerge as the top seller.
But anybody older is going to remember that it wasn't too long ago when music buying meant flipping through CD racks at the former retail powerhouses, Sam Goody and Tower Records.
"That's the question that the music industry has to answer soon: How do we get young people to start paying for music again? They've got to make it easier for teens to buy online."
--Russ Crupnick, analyst
Tower no longer operates retail stores, and Sam Goody's owner is renaming whatever locations it hasn't closed. "Yeah, it's astonishing--just in the post-Napster era--to see what's happened to the retail-sales environment," Crupnick said.
Apparently, the transition from offline to digital sales is occurring faster than most people expected. (Remember how record executives used to whip out statements like: "Discs are still how most people listen to music."
They may have been right then, but perhaps that won't be the case much longer.
Consider that the music industry is seeing pressure on CD sales from multiple fronts. In the offline world, there is a sort of death spiral going on, Crupnick said. As CD sales continue to slide, retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target devote less and less floor space to discs--which of course serves to erode sales even further.
Amazon.com, the e-tailer that used to be synonymous with ordering CDs off the Internet, has opened a music-download store to challenge iTunes.
Then there is the teen market that is abandoning CDs in droves. According to the report issued by NPD on Tuesday, nearly half of all U.S. teens (48 percent) did not purchase a CD last year. That is up from 2006, when about 38 percent of teens made no CD purchases.
Older music fans are transitioning at a slower rate but it's happening there too. In total, NPD Group said that the music industry waved bye-bye to about 1 million CD buyers last year.
Music remains popular, according to report, which found the amount of music acquired by consumers went up 6 percent. The trouble is that less of it is being paid for. Spending among Internet users fell from about $44 per capita to $40.
It must also be said that not all of Apple's success is due to the growing digital demand. Apple has flat out done a better job of retailing than competitors, Crupnick said.
For example, the music industry should follow Apple's lead and direct their attention to teenagers, Crupnick said.
Teens lack credit cards and this often prevents them from buying at almost everywhere but iTunes, Crupnick said. Apple avoids credit cards by pushing the gift cards, which teens can pay for at retail locations and then use them to purchase songs online by keying in a code. No credit cards needed.
"That's the question that the music industry has to answer soon," Crupnick said. "How do we get young people to start paying for music again? They've got to make it easier for teens to buy online. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has done a wonderful job of this. Teens have a way to do commerce with iTunes."
Tags:Apple, iTunes, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Tower Records
February 26, 2008
When will iTunes replace Wal-Mart as No. 1 music retailer?
Posted by Greg Sandoval
Apple's iTunes will likely whip past Wal-Mart Stores to become the largest U.S. music retailer sometime this year.
The NPD Group issued a report Tuesday that said Apple had outpaced Best Buy and Target to become the No. 2 U.S. music retailer. Unless the downward trend in CD sales suddenly reverses, Apple will be No. 1, said Russ Crupnick, the NPD Group's president of Music.
"Digital sales were up close to 50 percent and CD sales were down 20 percent last year," Crupnick said. "Even at half that growth rate in digital sales, Apple will in all likelihood catch Wal-Mart this year."
Anybody in their teens or early 20s is going to ask, "So what else is new?" To them, digital downloads has been part of their lives for years. It's only natural that a download store emerge as the top seller.
But anybody older is going to remember that it wasn't too long ago when music buying meant flipping through CD racks at the former retail powerhouses, Sam Goody and Tower Records.
"That's the question that the music industry has to answer soon: How do we get young people to start paying for music again? They've got to make it easier for teens to buy online."
--Russ Crupnick, analyst
Tower no longer operates retail stores, and Sam Goody's owner is renaming whatever locations it hasn't closed. "Yeah, it's astonishing--just in the post-Napster era--to see what's happened to the retail-sales environment," Crupnick said.
Apparently, the transition from offline to digital sales is occurring faster than most people expected. (Remember how record executives used to whip out statements like: "Discs are still how most people listen to music."
They may have been right then, but perhaps that won't be the case much longer.
Consider that the music industry is seeing pressure on CD sales from multiple fronts. In the offline world, there is a sort of death spiral going on, Crupnick said. As CD sales continue to slide, retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target devote less and less floor space to discs--which of course serves to erode sales even further.
Amazon.com, the e-tailer that used to be synonymous with ordering CDs off the Internet, has opened a music-download store to challenge iTunes.
Then there is the teen market that is abandoning CDs in droves. According to the report issued by NPD on Tuesday, nearly half of all U.S. teens (48 percent) did not purchase a CD last year. That is up from 2006, when about 38 percent of teens made no CD purchases.
Older music fans are transitioning at a slower rate but it's happening there too. In total, NPD Group said that the music industry waved bye-bye to about 1 million CD buyers last year.
Music remains popular, according to report, which found the amount of music acquired by consumers went up 6 percent. The trouble is that less of it is being paid for. Spending among Internet users fell from about $44 per capita to $40.
It must also be said that not all of Apple's success is due to the growing digital demand. Apple has flat out done a better job of retailing than competitors, Crupnick said.
For example, the music industry should follow Apple's lead and direct their attention to teenagers, Crupnick said.
Teens lack credit cards and this often prevents them from buying at almost everywhere but iTunes, Crupnick said. Apple avoids credit cards by pushing the gift cards, which teens can pay for at retail locations and then use them to purchase songs online by keying in a code. No credit cards needed.
"That's the question that the music industry has to answer soon," Crupnick said. "How do we get young people to start paying for music again? They've got to make it easier for teens to buy online. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has done a wonderful job of this. Teens have a way to do commerce with iTunes."
Tags:Apple, iTunes, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Tower Records
iTunes No. 2 music seller in US
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V23V300.htm
The Associated Press
February 26, 2008
NPD: iTunes No. 2 music seller in US
By RACHEL METZ
Apple Inc.'s online iTunes music store is now the number-two music retailer in the U.S. behind Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as measured by unit volume, market researcher NPD Group said Tuesday.
NPD said that iTunes moved into second place due to the amount of music it sold during 2007, which was based on a 12-track CD equivalency for song downloads.
The market researcher began tracking music sold stateside during the middle of 2006. In the fourth quarter of that year, Best Buy Co. took second place behind Wal-Mart, while Target Corp. took third place and Apple's iTunes store fourth place, NPD analyst Russ Crupnick said.
For the full year 2007, Best Buy came in third and Target fourth, he said.
Crupnick called Apple's move to the number-two spot "fairly understandable given the pressure that's been on CDs and the almost 50-percent growth in digital downloading in the past year."
About 10 percent of music acquired in the U.S. was through legal downloads in 2007, and consumers who bought digital music legally through pay-to-download Web sites grew by 5 million to 29 million in 2007, NPD said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, an estimated 1 million consumers did not buy CDs in 2007, and 48 percent of U.S. teenagers didn't buy any CDs during the year, up from 38 percent in the year before, according to NPD data.
"It wouldn't surprise me if we see the same things continuing into 2008 because what our research is showing is that teens are continuing to check out on the CD," Crupnick said.
NPD also said that the amount of music consumers bought in the U.S. rose 6 percent in 2007, though the decline in CD sales and increase in legal digital download sales still led to a 10 percent overall decrease in music spending.
Apple shares fell $2.55, or 2.1 percent, to $117.19 in morning trading, while Wal-Mart shares rose 80 cents to $51.13.
The Associated Press
February 26, 2008
NPD: iTunes No. 2 music seller in US
By RACHEL METZ
Apple Inc.'s online iTunes music store is now the number-two music retailer in the U.S. behind Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as measured by unit volume, market researcher NPD Group said Tuesday.
NPD said that iTunes moved into second place due to the amount of music it sold during 2007, which was based on a 12-track CD equivalency for song downloads.
The market researcher began tracking music sold stateside during the middle of 2006. In the fourth quarter of that year, Best Buy Co. took second place behind Wal-Mart, while Target Corp. took third place and Apple's iTunes store fourth place, NPD analyst Russ Crupnick said.
For the full year 2007, Best Buy came in third and Target fourth, he said.
Crupnick called Apple's move to the number-two spot "fairly understandable given the pressure that's been on CDs and the almost 50-percent growth in digital downloading in the past year."
About 10 percent of music acquired in the U.S. was through legal downloads in 2007, and consumers who bought digital music legally through pay-to-download Web sites grew by 5 million to 29 million in 2007, NPD said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, an estimated 1 million consumers did not buy CDs in 2007, and 48 percent of U.S. teenagers didn't buy any CDs during the year, up from 38 percent in the year before, according to NPD data.
"It wouldn't surprise me if we see the same things continuing into 2008 because what our research is showing is that teens are continuing to check out on the CD," Crupnick said.
NPD also said that the amount of music consumers bought in the U.S. rose 6 percent in 2007, though the decline in CD sales and increase in legal digital download sales still led to a 10 percent overall decrease in music spending.
Apple shares fell $2.55, or 2.1 percent, to $117.19 in morning trading, while Wal-Mart shares rose 80 cents to $51.13.
Nobel laureate estimates wars' cost at more than $3 trillion
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28891.html
Nobel laureate estimates wars' cost at more than $3 trillion
Kevin G. Hall McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.
Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.
That estimate from Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also serves as the title of his new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," which hits store shelves Friday.
The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research that was published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated.
When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars' costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.
"I think we really have learned that the long-term costs of taking care of the wounded and injured in this war and the long-term costs of rebuilding the military to its previous strength is going to far eclipse the cost of waging this war," Bilmes said in an interview.
The book and its estimates are the subject of a hearing Thursday by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.
"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.
"It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn't his slide rule work that way?"
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine Corp colonel and Vietnam veteran, welcomed the effort by Stiglitz and Bilmes to quantify how much the wars will cost taxpayers.
"It's astounding that here we are about to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and this administration still refuses to acknowledge the long-term costs of the war in Iraq," he said.
By any estimate, the Bush administration's predictions in March 2003 of a self-financing war have proved to be wildly inaccurate. Stiglitz cites operational spending to date of $646 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, working off estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, presumes that spending on these wars over the next decade probably will amount to another $913 billion.
Pentagon officials had no immediate comment on Stiglitz's book or his estimates.
Stiglitz and Bilmes first estimated war costs of $1 trillion in January 2006. Their research proved controversial and sparked debate about the costs of replacing equipment used by the regular armed forces and National Guard. In the new book, they offer a figure of $404 billion for replacing equipment, planes and tanks and bringing military hardware back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In an interview, Stiglitz said that too much of the public debate had been over the wars' operational costs while the real budget strains would show up only years from now.
"The peak expenditures are way out," he said, noting that the peak expenditures for World War II vets came in 1993.
The pair estimated that future medical, disability and Social Security costs for veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan range from a best-case $422 billion to what they call a more probable long-term expense of $717 billion.
It's why the two call in the book for creating a Veterans Benefits Trust Fund to set aside money in a "lock box" to pay for future health-care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan vets. Although veterans' health care amounts to a future promise, they said, it isn't an entitlement and instead is funded through discretionary spending. In the future, funding for vets will compete with other government programs.
"We should not have an unfunded entitlement program like this," Stiglitz said. "This is more like deferred compensation. . . . We require corporations to put money away but we don't require the government to put money away, and we should be doing that . . . so when the focus turns away to some other problem, veterans aren't given the shaft."
The book divides war costs into two main categories: budgetary and social. The budgetary costs are the more quantifiable spending on operations, equipment, future benefits paid to veterans and the like. In a best-case scenario they total about $1.7 trillion; in a more probable scenario almost $2.7 trillion.
The social costs that Stiglitz and Bilmes offer are more theoretical, and represent the thought-provoking part of their war-cost argument.
When a soldier is killed in combat, they said, the U.S. armed forces pay a $100,000 death gratuity and make a $400,000 payment to his or her survivors in the equivalent of insurance for an unexpected death.
If these men and women had died in private-sector employment or in some kind of disaster, compensation to family members generally would be settled in court after determining what economists and lawyers call "the value of statistical life." This measures the economic contribution that a person would have made over the rest of his or her life if they hadn't died.
Stiglitz and Bilmes settled on a statistical value of life that they say the Environmental Protection Agency uses when people are killed in environmental disasters: $7.2 million.
There have been 4,456 U.S. military fatalities in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to Feb. 26, 2008. The direct cost to the Pentagon from these deaths has been $2.2 billion, but if lives are valued as they are outside the armed forces, the researchers conclude, the hypothetical economic cost rises to more than $30 billion. Include contractors killed while working for U.S. operations and the number rises to more than $50 billion.
In a best-case outlook, the social and societal costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be $295 billion; $415 billion in a moderate-realistic case scenario.
Nobel laureate estimates wars' cost at more than $3 trillion
Kevin G. Hall McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: February 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.
Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.
That estimate from Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also serves as the title of his new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," which hits store shelves Friday.
The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research that was published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated.
When other factors are added — such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans — they think that the wars' costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion.
"I think we really have learned that the long-term costs of taking care of the wounded and injured in this war and the long-term costs of rebuilding the military to its previous strength is going to far eclipse the cost of waging this war," Bilmes said in an interview.
The book and its estimates are the subject of a hearing Thursday by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.
"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.
"It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn't his slide rule work that way?"
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine Corp colonel and Vietnam veteran, welcomed the effort by Stiglitz and Bilmes to quantify how much the wars will cost taxpayers.
"It's astounding that here we are about to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and this administration still refuses to acknowledge the long-term costs of the war in Iraq," he said.
By any estimate, the Bush administration's predictions in March 2003 of a self-financing war have proved to be wildly inaccurate. Stiglitz cites operational spending to date of $646 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, working off estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, presumes that spending on these wars over the next decade probably will amount to another $913 billion.
Pentagon officials had no immediate comment on Stiglitz's book or his estimates.
Stiglitz and Bilmes first estimated war costs of $1 trillion in January 2006. Their research proved controversial and sparked debate about the costs of replacing equipment used by the regular armed forces and National Guard. In the new book, they offer a figure of $404 billion for replacing equipment, planes and tanks and bringing military hardware back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In an interview, Stiglitz said that too much of the public debate had been over the wars' operational costs while the real budget strains would show up only years from now.
"The peak expenditures are way out," he said, noting that the peak expenditures for World War II vets came in 1993.
The pair estimated that future medical, disability and Social Security costs for veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan range from a best-case $422 billion to what they call a more probable long-term expense of $717 billion.
It's why the two call in the book for creating a Veterans Benefits Trust Fund to set aside money in a "lock box" to pay for future health-care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan vets. Although veterans' health care amounts to a future promise, they said, it isn't an entitlement and instead is funded through discretionary spending. In the future, funding for vets will compete with other government programs.
"We should not have an unfunded entitlement program like this," Stiglitz said. "This is more like deferred compensation. . . . We require corporations to put money away but we don't require the government to put money away, and we should be doing that . . . so when the focus turns away to some other problem, veterans aren't given the shaft."
The book divides war costs into two main categories: budgetary and social. The budgetary costs are the more quantifiable spending on operations, equipment, future benefits paid to veterans and the like. In a best-case scenario they total about $1.7 trillion; in a more probable scenario almost $2.7 trillion.
The social costs that Stiglitz and Bilmes offer are more theoretical, and represent the thought-provoking part of their war-cost argument.
When a soldier is killed in combat, they said, the U.S. armed forces pay a $100,000 death gratuity and make a $400,000 payment to his or her survivors in the equivalent of insurance for an unexpected death.
If these men and women had died in private-sector employment or in some kind of disaster, compensation to family members generally would be settled in court after determining what economists and lawyers call "the value of statistical life." This measures the economic contribution that a person would have made over the rest of his or her life if they hadn't died.
Stiglitz and Bilmes settled on a statistical value of life that they say the Environmental Protection Agency uses when people are killed in environmental disasters: $7.2 million.
There have been 4,456 U.S. military fatalities in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to Feb. 26, 2008. The direct cost to the Pentagon from these deaths has been $2.2 billion, but if lives are valued as they are outside the armed forces, the researchers conclude, the hypothetical economic cost rises to more than $30 billion. Include contractors killed while working for U.S. operations and the number rises to more than $50 billion.
In a best-case outlook, the social and societal costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be $295 billion; $415 billion in a moderate-realistic case scenario.
Did prosecutor get all White House mail?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mail
Did prosecutor get all White House mail?
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 27, 2008
When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find out what was going on inside Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the prosecutor in the CIA leak probe made a logical move. He dropped a grand jury subpoena on the White House for all the relevant e-mail.
One problem: Even though White House computer technicians hunted high and low, an entire week's worth of e-mail from Cheney's office was missing. The week was Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003, the opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
That episode was part of the picture that unfolded Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where Democrats on a House committee released new information about one of the Bush White House's long-running issues, its problem-plagued e-mail system.
For the first time, a former White House computer technician went public with the details. Steven McDevitt revealed in written statements submitted to Congress how a plan was developed to try to recover the missing e-mail for Fitzgerald.
Ultimately, 250 pages of electronic messages were retrieved from the personal e-mail accounts of officials in Cheney's office, but whether that amounted to all the relevant e-mail is a question that may never be answered.
McDevitt made clear that it was a sensitive issue inside the White House.
"I worked with ... White House Counsel on efforts to provide an explanation to the special prosecutor," McDevitt wrote. "This included providing a briefing to the special prosecutor's staff on this subject."
McDevitt provided no details of the meetings with White House Counsel Harriet Miers and others in the counsel's office in late 2005 and early 2006. The White House refused to comment on those meetings.
The White House put the best face on a bad hearing Tuesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, defending the administration's handling of its electronic messages.
McDevitt said that one estimate from a 2005 analysis was that more than 1,000 days of e-mail were missing from January 2003 to Aug. 10, 2005. McDevitt said "the process by which e-mail was being collected and retained was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high." The "low end" estimate was about 470 days, he added.
The White House says a substantial amount of what had been believed to be missing e-mail had been located.
"We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this" issue, Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the White House Office of Administration, testified to the committee.
"This is a form of sandbagging," replied Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who pointed out that by the time the White House fixes its e-mail problems, "you'll be out of office."
McDevitt's statements detailed shortcomings that he said have plagued the White House e-mail system for six years. He said:
_The White House had no complete inventory of e-mail files.
_There was no automatic system to ensure that e-mail was archived and preserved.
_Until mid-2005 the e-mail system had serious security flaws, in which "everyone" on the White House computer network had access to e-mail. McDevitt wrote that the "potential impact" of the security flaw was that there was no way to verify that retained data had not been modified.
_A new e-mail archiving system that would have addressed the problems was "ready to go live" on Aug. 21, 2006.
Payton told Waxman's committee she canceled the new system in late 2006 because it would have required modifications and additional spending. An alternative system is under way, she said.
Payton's predecessor, Carlos Solari, told the House committee that he was puzzled that the new system had been rejected and that he had "absolutely" believed that the system Payton rejected would be implemented.
When President Bush leaves office, presidential records and federal records at the White House will be turned over to the National Archives. Waxman produced a memo pointing to a lack of cooperation between the White House and the Archives.
"We still know virtually nothing about the status of the alleged missing White House e-mails," the Archives' general counsel, Gary Stern, wrote to his boss last September.
___
On the Net:
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: http://oversight.house.gov
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Did prosecutor get all White House mail?
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 27, 2008
When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find out what was going on inside Vice President Dick Cheney's office, the prosecutor in the CIA leak probe made a logical move. He dropped a grand jury subpoena on the White House for all the relevant e-mail.
One problem: Even though White House computer technicians hunted high and low, an entire week's worth of e-mail from Cheney's office was missing. The week was Sept. 30, 2003, to Oct. 6, 2003, the opening days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
That episode was part of the picture that unfolded Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where Democrats on a House committee released new information about one of the Bush White House's long-running issues, its problem-plagued e-mail system.
For the first time, a former White House computer technician went public with the details. Steven McDevitt revealed in written statements submitted to Congress how a plan was developed to try to recover the missing e-mail for Fitzgerald.
Ultimately, 250 pages of electronic messages were retrieved from the personal e-mail accounts of officials in Cheney's office, but whether that amounted to all the relevant e-mail is a question that may never be answered.
McDevitt made clear that it was a sensitive issue inside the White House.
"I worked with ... White House Counsel on efforts to provide an explanation to the special prosecutor," McDevitt wrote. "This included providing a briefing to the special prosecutor's staff on this subject."
McDevitt provided no details of the meetings with White House Counsel Harriet Miers and others in the counsel's office in late 2005 and early 2006. The White House refused to comment on those meetings.
The White House put the best face on a bad hearing Tuesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, defending the administration's handling of its electronic messages.
McDevitt said that one estimate from a 2005 analysis was that more than 1,000 days of e-mail were missing from January 2003 to Aug. 10, 2005. McDevitt said "the process by which e-mail was being collected and retained was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high." The "low end" estimate was about 470 days, he added.
The White House says a substantial amount of what had been believed to be missing e-mail had been located.
"We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this" issue, Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the White House Office of Administration, testified to the committee.
"This is a form of sandbagging," replied Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who pointed out that by the time the White House fixes its e-mail problems, "you'll be out of office."
McDevitt's statements detailed shortcomings that he said have plagued the White House e-mail system for six years. He said:
_The White House had no complete inventory of e-mail files.
_There was no automatic system to ensure that e-mail was archived and preserved.
_Until mid-2005 the e-mail system had serious security flaws, in which "everyone" on the White House computer network had access to e-mail. McDevitt wrote that the "potential impact" of the security flaw was that there was no way to verify that retained data had not been modified.
_A new e-mail archiving system that would have addressed the problems was "ready to go live" on Aug. 21, 2006.
Payton told Waxman's committee she canceled the new system in late 2006 because it would have required modifications and additional spending. An alternative system is under way, she said.
Payton's predecessor, Carlos Solari, told the House committee that he was puzzled that the new system had been rejected and that he had "absolutely" believed that the system Payton rejected would be implemented.
When President Bush leaves office, presidential records and federal records at the White House will be turned over to the National Archives. Waxman produced a memo pointing to a lack of cooperation between the White House and the Archives.
"We still know virtually nothing about the status of the alleged missing White House e-mails," the Archives' general counsel, Gary Stern, wrote to his boss last September.
___
On the Net:
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: http://oversight.house.gov
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Photo gives face to Anne Frank's "one true love"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080226/people_nm/dutch_annefrank_dcPhoto gives face to Anne Frank's "one true love"
By Alexandra Hudson
Tue Feb 26, 2008
A photograph of the boy with the "beautiful brown eyes" who Anne Frank recalled as her "one true love" in the diary she wrote whilst in hiding in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands is to go on display in Amsterdam.
The photo of Peter Schiff was donated to the Anne Frank museum by his former childhood friend Ernst Michaelis who realized after rereading Anne's diary recently there were no known pictures of Schiff, a museum spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
Frank's Jewish family fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and settled in Amsterdam. During World War Two the Nazis occupied the Netherlands and began deporting Jews to the death camps in 1942, prompting the Frank family to go into hiding.
They lived in a secret annex in a canal-side house for more than two years before their hiding place was betrayed and the family sent to concentration camps.
Anne recorded her years in the attic hideaway in her diaries. A Dutch woman who helped the family found them in the annex after Anne's arrest and gave them to her father Otto who survived the Holocaust. They became famous around the world.
She writes in her diary: "I forgot that I haven't yet told you the story of my one true love."
"Peter was the ideal boy: tall, slim and good-looking, with a serious, quiet and intelligent face," Anne wrote of the 13-year-old she had fallen for in 1940 when she was just 11.
SCHOOL FRIENDS
They would collect each other from school and walk hand in hand through their local neighborhood.
"He had dark hair, beautiful brown eyes, ruddy cheeks and a nicely pointed nose. I was crazy about his smile, which made him look so boyish and mischievous."
Peter later died in Auschwitz, while Anne died in Bergen Belsen concentration camp in 1945.
Michaelis, now 81, had attended a Jewish school with Schiff in Berlin in the 1930s before both families fled the Nazis. When they parted, the boys exchanged photographs.
"He read the diary in the 1950s and thought that Peter Schiff was very likely his friend. But it was only when reading it later that he saw there were no photos and so he contacted us," said a museum spokeswoman.
Anne last saw Peter a few days before she moved into the annexe, but wrote of him in her diary more than 1-1/2 years later after dreaming of him.
"I've never had such a clear mental image of him. I don't need a photograph, I can see him oh so well," she said.
(Reporting by Alexandra Hudson)
William F. Buckley Jr. dies at 82
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_us/obit_buckley
William F. Buckley Jr. dies at 82
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer
2-27-8
William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.
His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.
Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of "Firing Line," harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.
Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent's discomfort with wide-eyed glee.
"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone."
Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.
"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."
Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were "no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."
Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.
Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).
"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."
Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.
His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").
___
On the Net:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
William F. Buckley Jr. dies at 82
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer
2-27-8
William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.
His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.
Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of "Firing Line," harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor's race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.
Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent's discomfort with wide-eyed glee.
"I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition," he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. "I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?' I couldn't think of anyone."
Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down "Firing Line" after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. "You've got to end sometime and I'd just as soon not die onstage," he told the audience.
"For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television," fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. "He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement."
Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were "no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation."
Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand "athwart history, yelling `Stop' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it." Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.
Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn't (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).
"I was very fond of him," Didion said Wednesday. "Everyone was, even if they didn't agree with him."
Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.
His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist ("Thank You for Smoking").
___
On the Net:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Are We There Yet? (At the end of time)
http://blog.lavacocktail.com/2008/02/26/are-we-there-yet-at-the-end-of-time.aspx
Lava Cocktail
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Are We There Yet? (At the end of time)
Lava Cocktail
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Are We There Yet? (At the end of time)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
