Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Zogby Poll Has Iowa Race Near Dead-Heat - Clinton Two Points Over Obama
It's getting tighter. The latest Zogby Poll has Clinton just three points ahead of Obama, 28 to 25 percent with Edwards at 21 percent.
San Francisco DA Kamela Harris Wins Seat Unopposed
Congratulations to Kamela Harris on her election victory as San Francisco DA! She will be a great Mayor of SF, too!
Hillary Clinton Gets Max Donations From Pakistan Lobbyist
This is from a Huff Post Blogger Zephyr Teachout.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Barack Obama - Right About Pakistan; Clinton, Giuliani Wrong - Ruben Navarrette Jr, CNN
Barack Obama's call regarding our Pakistan policy was timely, and shows that his judgement is better than that of Clinton or Giuliani or Edwards or Romney. CNN's Ruben Navarrette Jr. agrees.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SpinVox Live Ad in San Francisco Market St. Dancing Boxes
This is an interesting ad approach. Personally it did not thing for me. Few stopped to figure-out what was going on.
Ron Paul's Raised $4 Million In One Day - Shocks Presidential Race
Maverick Paul sets one-day, GOP fundraising record
By BENNETT ROTH
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Maverick GOP presidential contender Ron Paul of Lake Jackson continued his fundraising juggernaut, raking in $4.3 million in one day over the Internet.
The 24-hour fundraising drive on Monday brought Paul's contributions to $7.3 million so far for the final quarter of this year, eclipsing the $5.4 million he raised in the third quarter.
Paul received 38,000 donations during the drive, which was spearheaded by the candidate's supporters in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates Fawkes, a British mercenary who unsuccessfully sought to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. Fawkes was also the inspiration for the novel and movie V for Vendetta, in which the lead character takes on a fascist government in Britain.
The Libertarian-leaning Paul is a strong opponent of many government programs and is the only Republican candidate for the White House advocating troop withdrawal from Iraq.
On Paul's Web site, his fundraising director, Jonathan Bydlak, called the cash haul "Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping ... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real."
Paul now holds the record among Republican White House candidates for fundraising on a single day, according to the Associated Press. Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has raised the most, $6.2 million, on a single day during the current campaign.
While he has built a fervent fan base over the Internet, Paul still remains mired in the low single digits in most national polls.
Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the influx of funds will allow the candidate to increase his name recognition. Paul is already airing television and radio commercials in New Hampshire and radio spots in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
Benton said the campaign has already increased its staff to 70 people.
bennett.roth@chron.com
COMMENTS
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle.
Most recent comments
TheOddball81 wrote:
Good point, _NH. We may appear to have a two-party system, but there's really only one party. The goal of the media is to get the majority of Americans to support a pair of CFR candidates. Hillary, Obama, Romney, and Giuliani are not front-runners because they are loved by the most people or because they have the best positions on issues. They are front-runners because the mainstream media says so. This way, all media attention is devoted to these front-runners, and the public sees these candidates as "rational" choices, and they vote for them in the primaries. We are all programmed to accept the choices given to us, and have been for many years. Finally, someone like Ron Paul has come along who is not a pre-packaged puppet and actually stands for something and loves his country.
11/7/2007 2:16:24 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
jmunjr wrote:
"Libertarians (such as Paul) don't believe in social security, medicaid, AFDC, health insurance for poor children and many other programs not specified by the constitution."
So what is your point? All of those things are responsibilities of the STATES!!! Period. Paul would not eliminate Social Security either, but he would give the people who stand to gain absolutely nothing from it(younger people) a choice to opt-out while still taking care of those who put into all their lives.
My only fear about Paul is this country has gotten so used to getting handouts from the government that they won't vote for the guy because the handouts will stop. But guess what? You'll get far more after the federal income tax is eliminated. Granted the states will try to get more of it but you'll still end up with a heck of a lot more than you'll get from the federal government, and you'll get to choose how you'll spend it. This country if led by Paul would be more productive, richer, and freer than we've ever seen. Don't be a sheep and fall for the same old rouse put on by the Democrats and neo-conservatives.
Even if you don't like Paul, nobody from the Democrats or the rest of the Republicans has any qualities worth admiring. Most are nearly all pro-war, including Hillary, ALL want to spend out of control, and none of them genuinely want to protect our liberty, and that folks is the #1 role of our federal government.
The leaders of this nation have failed us. It is time for someone new to restore our Republic and make America the great country it once was.
11/7/2007 2:11:26 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
_NH wrote:
Trouble is, Hillary and Mitt's numbers are for PLEDGES not actual donations so Paul bested them too!
Look it up.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY. They know it and probably won't care because either Rudy or Hillary is acceptable as they are one and the same.
11/7/2007 1:44:11 AM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
Oops, I meant Romney and Clinton, sorry. As State of Brain says, the FEC filings showed that Romney only raised 3.1 MIL, and the Clinton total was collected over the course of 1 week, not in a single day.
11/6/2007 11:55:59 PM
Recommend
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
See the press conference today by Jonathan Bydlak, Ron Paul's press secretary. They investigated the Kerry and Clinton claims of having raised about 5-6 million dollars in a single day, and both were false. The press conference is posted at ronpaul2008.com
11/6/2007 11:54:19 PM
Recommend (2)
Repo
By BENNETT ROTH
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Maverick GOP presidential contender Ron Paul of Lake Jackson continued his fundraising juggernaut, raking in $4.3 million in one day over the Internet.
The 24-hour fundraising drive on Monday brought Paul's contributions to $7.3 million so far for the final quarter of this year, eclipsing the $5.4 million he raised in the third quarter.
Paul received 38,000 donations during the drive, which was spearheaded by the candidate's supporters in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates Fawkes, a British mercenary who unsuccessfully sought to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. Fawkes was also the inspiration for the novel and movie V for Vendetta, in which the lead character takes on a fascist government in Britain.
The Libertarian-leaning Paul is a strong opponent of many government programs and is the only Republican candidate for the White House advocating troop withdrawal from Iraq.
On Paul's Web site, his fundraising director, Jonathan Bydlak, called the cash haul "Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping ... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real."
Paul now holds the record among Republican White House candidates for fundraising on a single day, according to the Associated Press. Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has raised the most, $6.2 million, on a single day during the current campaign.
While he has built a fervent fan base over the Internet, Paul still remains mired in the low single digits in most national polls.
Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the influx of funds will allow the candidate to increase his name recognition. Paul is already airing television and radio commercials in New Hampshire and radio spots in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
Benton said the campaign has already increased its staff to 70 people.
bennett.roth@chron.com
COMMENTS
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle.
Most recent comments
TheOddball81 wrote:
Good point, _NH. We may appear to have a two-party system, but there's really only one party. The goal of the media is to get the majority of Americans to support a pair of CFR candidates. Hillary, Obama, Romney, and Giuliani are not front-runners because they are loved by the most people or because they have the best positions on issues. They are front-runners because the mainstream media says so. This way, all media attention is devoted to these front-runners, and the public sees these candidates as "rational" choices, and they vote for them in the primaries. We are all programmed to accept the choices given to us, and have been for many years. Finally, someone like Ron Paul has come along who is not a pre-packaged puppet and actually stands for something and loves his country.
11/7/2007 2:16:24 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
jmunjr wrote:
"Libertarians (such as Paul) don't believe in social security, medicaid, AFDC, health insurance for poor children and many other programs not specified by the constitution."
So what is your point? All of those things are responsibilities of the STATES!!! Period. Paul would not eliminate Social Security either, but he would give the people who stand to gain absolutely nothing from it(younger people) a choice to opt-out while still taking care of those who put into all their lives.
My only fear about Paul is this country has gotten so used to getting handouts from the government that they won't vote for the guy because the handouts will stop. But guess what? You'll get far more after the federal income tax is eliminated. Granted the states will try to get more of it but you'll still end up with a heck of a lot more than you'll get from the federal government, and you'll get to choose how you'll spend it. This country if led by Paul would be more productive, richer, and freer than we've ever seen. Don't be a sheep and fall for the same old rouse put on by the Democrats and neo-conservatives.
Even if you don't like Paul, nobody from the Democrats or the rest of the Republicans has any qualities worth admiring. Most are nearly all pro-war, including Hillary, ALL want to spend out of control, and none of them genuinely want to protect our liberty, and that folks is the #1 role of our federal government.
The leaders of this nation have failed us. It is time for someone new to restore our Republic and make America the great country it once was.
11/7/2007 2:11:26 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
_NH wrote:
Trouble is, Hillary and Mitt's numbers are for PLEDGES not actual donations so Paul bested them too!
Look it up.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY. They know it and probably won't care because either Rudy or Hillary is acceptable as they are one and the same.
11/7/2007 1:44:11 AM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
Oops, I meant Romney and Clinton, sorry. As State of Brain says, the FEC filings showed that Romney only raised 3.1 MIL, and the Clinton total was collected over the course of 1 week, not in a single day.
11/6/2007 11:55:59 PM
Recommend
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
See the press conference today by Jonathan Bydlak, Ron Paul's press secretary. They investigated the Kerry and Clinton claims of having raised about 5-6 million dollars in a single day, and both were false. The press conference is posted at ronpaul2008.com
11/6/2007 11:54:19 PM
Recommend (2)
Repo
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Oprah Winfrey's On YouTube, But Video Comment Restrictions Piss Off YouTubers
Oprah Winfrey goes Web 2.0! Oprah launches her YouTube channel and as our new Internet world would have it, she can't bring her old media control ways to YouTube without protest.
First, the video shown below is actually blocked from view! You may be wondering how I managed to at least show the image you see, and that's because I created my own embed code. Now, it's here, but you still can't play the video. It's disabled from being embeded.
It's not a smart approach as it actually robs Oprah of additional video views -- something advertisers focus on as if Oprah's people are going to embed sponsor ads in future videos, those companies want maximum exposure; the current strategy kills that.
But there's another move by Oprah's YouTube people that's really got the community pissed off. I was alerted to this by my friend Kenrg, a frequent YouTube contributor.
Ken wrote:
Hi Zennie -
I'm sure you've noticed by now that Oprah Winfrey has taken over the front page of YouTube (check out her "welcome message" and her selection of featured videos, including three of her own).
TaraGolden and I are putting together a quick collaboration video welcoming Oprah, and letting her know that YT is about 2-way communication, we're not all wanna-be stars or freak acts, and that we're here because we DON'T want more TV. As politely as possible, of course.
If you have anything you'd like to say to Oprah in our open video letter, please send it to me anytime today to kengoldstein@gmail.com.
I'm going to finish the edit and post it first thing Wednesday morning.
Thanks!
- Ken
So Ken's pissed. Renetto's upset too , although I think it's because he wasn't mentioned on Oprah.
AnimeDudeAsian's reaction was "You gotta be fuc#$ kidding me," and other choice words, referring to "That crapping ass dog on a skateboard" as the video Oprah showed that he wished she'd not have touched. Finally, AnimeDudeAsian thinks each YouTuber should get a car from Oprah.
Stay tuned for more reactions!
First, the video shown below is actually blocked from view! You may be wondering how I managed to at least show the image you see, and that's because I created my own embed code. Now, it's here, but you still can't play the video. It's disabled from being embeded.
It's not a smart approach as it actually robs Oprah of additional video views -- something advertisers focus on as if Oprah's people are going to embed sponsor ads in future videos, those companies want maximum exposure; the current strategy kills that.
But there's another move by Oprah's YouTube people that's really got the community pissed off. I was alerted to this by my friend Kenrg, a frequent YouTube contributor.
Ken wrote:
Hi Zennie -
I'm sure you've noticed by now that Oprah Winfrey has taken over the front page of YouTube (check out her "welcome message" and her selection of featured videos, including three of her own).
TaraGolden and I are putting together a quick collaboration video welcoming Oprah, and letting her know that YT is about 2-way communication, we're not all wanna-be stars or freak acts, and that we're here because we DON'T want more TV. As politely as possible, of course.
If you have anything you'd like to say to Oprah in our open video letter, please send it to me anytime today to kengoldstein@gmail.com.
I'm going to finish the edit and post it first thing Wednesday morning.
Thanks!
- Ken
So Ken's pissed. Renetto's upset too , although I think it's because he wasn't mentioned on Oprah.
AnimeDudeAsian's reaction was "You gotta be fuc#$ kidding me," and other choice words, referring to "That crapping ass dog on a skateboard" as the video Oprah showed that he wished she'd not have touched. Finally, AnimeDudeAsian thinks each YouTuber should get a car from Oprah.
Stay tuned for more reactions!
Monday, November 05, 2007
Another Clinton Sex Scandal? Big Head DC Thinks So...
I just saw this over at Big Head DC ...
A major sex scandal story involving one of the leading presidential candidates is believed to be soon published by the LA Times, Big Head DC has learned. Details are slowly trickling in through people who’ve heard about the story, and with Larry Flynt saying he’s set to reveal a “huge” sex scandal story involving a sitting senator in the coming days, the rumors seem to be gathering traction.
“So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that ‘everyone knows’ the LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading presidential candidate,” reports Pajamas Media’s Ron Rosenbaum. “‘Everyone knows’ meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. ‘Sitting on it’ because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me is not an LAT person and knows I write and didn’t say ‘don’t write about this.’”
Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.
Stay tuned...
A major sex scandal story involving one of the leading presidential candidates is believed to be soon published by the LA Times, Big Head DC has learned. Details are slowly trickling in through people who’ve heard about the story, and with Larry Flynt saying he’s set to reveal a “huge” sex scandal story involving a sitting senator in the coming days, the rumors seem to be gathering traction.
“So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that ‘everyone knows’ the LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading presidential candidate,” reports Pajamas Media’s Ron Rosenbaum. “‘Everyone knows’ meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. ‘Sitting on it’ because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me is not an LAT person and knows I write and didn’t say ‘don’t write about this.’”
Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.
Stay tuned...
Friday, November 02, 2007
Hollywood writers poised to strike over royalties
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Hollywood writers are poised to strike after their negotiating team recommended a walkout in a dispute over royalties at a Thursday night meeting of the union membership.
The Writers Guild of America board will meet on Friday to make a formal decision and set a strike date against producers. It would be the union's first strike in nearly 20 years.
Steve Skrovan, a screenwriter for the Fox show "Til Death," said after the meeting that a strike is all but inevitable.
"We've never been more united and we are willing to deal -- and our decision makers are at the table," said Skrovan. "Their decision makers are not at the table, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know about how the companies are pushing this."
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers President Nick Counter said the news was no surprise.
"By the WGA leadership's actions at the bargaining table, we are not surprised by tonight's recommendation," Counter said in a written statement. "We are ready to meet and are prepared to close this contract this weekend."
The labor impasse concerns royalties from DVD sales -- last negotiated in 1988. Writers also want royalties from the so-called new media -- all the various places their works are now distributed, including Internet downloads. Watch how a strike could affect your favorite shows »
"The future of TV is not going to look like what it's been for the last 30 years," said TV writer Dave Schiff, who has penned scripts for "King of the Hill" and "That 70s Show."
"So, you know it's not just for us who are currently working, but writers down the line, that we make sure that we get a ... piece of the pie."
But CBS President Nina Tassler said not enough is known yet about new media revenues.
"We don't know what the pie is yet, in order to determine how to cut it up," she said recently.
Hollywood producers say the issues are non-starters.
"We want to make a deal," Counter told the writers on Wednesday, according to a written statement. However, he added, "No further movement is possible to close the gap between us so long as your DVD proposal remains on the table."
Writers accuse producers of being non-responsive.
"After three and a half months of bargaining, the AMPTP still has not responded to a single one of our important proposals," a statement from the WGA said.
"Every issue that matters to writers, including Internet reuse, original writing for new media, DVDs, and jurisdiction, has been ignored. This is completely unacceptable."
TV writer Bryce Zabel said that producing companies "have decided to force the writers into a situation of a strike."
"Our choice right now is to accept a completely unacceptable deal or to go on strike," he said. "Strike is the only option."
If the roughly 12,000 writers do go on strike, late-night television hosts like David Letterman, Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel, as well as programs like "The Daily Show," would feel the pinch first. Because of their topical nature, these shows are not typically written or recorded in advance.
Daytime soaps normally stockpile about 30 days in advance, and most prime time shows would likely make it through the end of the year without any impact on programming.
But networks would have to resort to reruns, news programs and reality shows to fill the schedule in 2008 if a strike were to drag on.
The film industry has also been preparing for a possible strike.
"Everyone is sort of madly scrambling to get scripts into production, sometimes a little ahead of what might otherwise be prudent," said Gavin Hood, director of the film "Rendition."
The film and television industry is responsible for an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the United States.
The union's most recent strike, in 1988, lasted five-and-a-half months. Industry estimates say a half-billion dollars was lost because of that strike.
The Writers Guild of America board will meet on Friday to make a formal decision and set a strike date against producers. It would be the union's first strike in nearly 20 years.
Steve Skrovan, a screenwriter for the Fox show "Til Death," said after the meeting that a strike is all but inevitable.
"We've never been more united and we are willing to deal -- and our decision makers are at the table," said Skrovan. "Their decision makers are not at the table, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know about how the companies are pushing this."
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers President Nick Counter said the news was no surprise.
"By the WGA leadership's actions at the bargaining table, we are not surprised by tonight's recommendation," Counter said in a written statement. "We are ready to meet and are prepared to close this contract this weekend."
The labor impasse concerns royalties from DVD sales -- last negotiated in 1988. Writers also want royalties from the so-called new media -- all the various places their works are now distributed, including Internet downloads. Watch how a strike could affect your favorite shows »
"The future of TV is not going to look like what it's been for the last 30 years," said TV writer Dave Schiff, who has penned scripts for "King of the Hill" and "That 70s Show."
"So, you know it's not just for us who are currently working, but writers down the line, that we make sure that we get a ... piece of the pie."
But CBS President Nina Tassler said not enough is known yet about new media revenues.
"We don't know what the pie is yet, in order to determine how to cut it up," she said recently.
Hollywood producers say the issues are non-starters.
"We want to make a deal," Counter told the writers on Wednesday, according to a written statement. However, he added, "No further movement is possible to close the gap between us so long as your DVD proposal remains on the table."
Writers accuse producers of being non-responsive.
"After three and a half months of bargaining, the AMPTP still has not responded to a single one of our important proposals," a statement from the WGA said.
"Every issue that matters to writers, including Internet reuse, original writing for new media, DVDs, and jurisdiction, has been ignored. This is completely unacceptable."
TV writer Bryce Zabel said that producing companies "have decided to force the writers into a situation of a strike."
"Our choice right now is to accept a completely unacceptable deal or to go on strike," he said. "Strike is the only option."
If the roughly 12,000 writers do go on strike, late-night television hosts like David Letterman, Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel, as well as programs like "The Daily Show," would feel the pinch first. Because of their topical nature, these shows are not typically written or recorded in advance.
Daytime soaps normally stockpile about 30 days in advance, and most prime time shows would likely make it through the end of the year without any impact on programming.
But networks would have to resort to reruns, news programs and reality shows to fill the schedule in 2008 if a strike were to drag on.
The film industry has also been preparing for a possible strike.
"Everyone is sort of madly scrambling to get scripts into production, sometimes a little ahead of what might otherwise be prudent," said Gavin Hood, director of the film "Rendition."
The film and television industry is responsible for an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the United States.
The union's most recent strike, in 1988, lasted five-and-a-half months. Industry estimates say a half-billion dollars was lost because of that strike.
Giants defeat Dolphins in a nail biter 13-10
By David
Kaye
If the NFL’s brain trust had envisioned displaying a sloppy and unentertaining matchup between the league’s perennial loser and one of their most pedestrian team’s, they should have thought twice last summer about marketing their brand on an international basis with the Dolphins and Giants being their spokespersons.
As unfortunate as it played out to be, both squads were relegated to the roll of showcasing their sport in front of 81,176 animated fans at London’s Wembley Stadium. Through the mud, rain, slippery conditions and uncountable forecast big blue prevailed in a squeaker 13-10. It was not the kind of performance coach Coughlin expected from his team that had averaged 33 points per game during the course of the past three weeks. Still, the Giants determined and didactic leader will take a victory whether he receives it state side or overseas as he molds his team into an elite force in the National Football Conference.
Lead by 290 pound running back Brandon Jacobs and former Miami Dolphin Sam Madison the Giants registered their sixth consecutive victory of the year. Jacobs rushed for a season-high 131 yards on 23 carries against the still-winless fins. Quarterback Eli Manning struggled exponentially and recorded his worst start in his brief football career. With 59 yards passing, a completion percentage of 36.4% and one fumble, Manning was unable to capitalize off a Miami defense that ranks towards the bottom of the league in many majors categories.
While the league did a poor job at acclimating Europeans to American football, they succeeded at increasing the attention and notoriety that the United States will receive in the years to come from interested owners who want a Super Bowl to be played outside of the hollow grounds of North America. Also succeeding were the Giants who improve to 6-2 and are now a half game back of the Cowboys for the lead in the NFC East.
Kaye
If the NFL’s brain trust had envisioned displaying a sloppy and unentertaining matchup between the league’s perennial loser and one of their most pedestrian team’s, they should have thought twice last summer about marketing their brand on an international basis with the Dolphins and Giants being their spokespersons.
As unfortunate as it played out to be, both squads were relegated to the roll of showcasing their sport in front of 81,176 animated fans at London’s Wembley Stadium. Through the mud, rain, slippery conditions and uncountable forecast big blue prevailed in a squeaker 13-10. It was not the kind of performance coach Coughlin expected from his team that had averaged 33 points per game during the course of the past three weeks. Still, the Giants determined and didactic leader will take a victory whether he receives it state side or overseas as he molds his team into an elite force in the National Football Conference.
Lead by 290 pound running back Brandon Jacobs and former Miami Dolphin Sam Madison the Giants registered their sixth consecutive victory of the year. Jacobs rushed for a season-high 131 yards on 23 carries against the still-winless fins. Quarterback Eli Manning struggled exponentially and recorded his worst start in his brief football career. With 59 yards passing, a completion percentage of 36.4% and one fumble, Manning was unable to capitalize off a Miami defense that ranks towards the bottom of the league in many majors categories.
While the league did a poor job at acclimating Europeans to American football, they succeeded at increasing the attention and notoriety that the United States will receive in the years to come from interested owners who want a Super Bowl to be played outside of the hollow grounds of North America. Also succeeding were the Giants who improve to 6-2 and are now a half game back of the Cowboys for the lead in the NFC East.
American Gangster Is Amazing - Just Saw It At Metreon Premier
I was invited to see American Gangster at a special premier at Sony Metreon and I must report that I was blown away. I've seen a lot of movies, but this one hits you between the eyes from the start, and just increases the presure.
Denzel Washington and Russell Crow are excellent, especially in one interrogation scene. The whole movie is full of great actors giving awesome performances, from Cuba Gooding, Jr. , to Armand Asante. American Gangster is a must see movie that's also a social lesson in the stupidity of racism.
If the police largely paid attention to Frank Lucas, who's played by Washington, his crime organization would have been stopped as it grew. But because few could believe a Black man could generate an empire that would take out the Mafia, let alone earn $250 million in assets.
American Gangster is a treasurer.
Denzel Washington and Russell Crow are excellent, especially in one interrogation scene. The whole movie is full of great actors giving awesome performances, from Cuba Gooding, Jr. , to Armand Asante. American Gangster is a must see movie that's also a social lesson in the stupidity of racism.
If the police largely paid attention to Frank Lucas, who's played by Washington, his crime organization would have been stopped as it grew. But because few could believe a Black man could generate an empire that would take out the Mafia, let alone earn $250 million in assets.
American Gangster is a treasurer.
Hillary Clinton Under Fire By Justice Department For Alledged Fundraising Coercion - AP
Hillary Clinton
in fundraising controversyQuestions raised about Hillary Clinton's big Chinatown fundraiser
The Associated Press
Published: November 1, 2007
NEW YORK: On the wall of Hsiao Yen Wang's New York apartment, a cramped, 17th-floor public housing unit, are photographs of her husband, David Guo, a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine.
One photo stands out: Guo shaking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's hand, a memento from a $1,000 (€693)-a-person fundraiser for the New York senator held in New York's Chinatown last April.
Last week, Wang got another memento — a calling card from a Justice Department criminal investigator. The investigator asked Wang if she was coerced into giving money to the campaign and whether she knew of anybody else who may have been forced to contribute.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Wang said she and her husband had given willingly and that she knew of no coercion. A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment on the inquiries.
"I want to see her become the first female U.S. president," Wang, a hospital worker, said of Clinton as her daughter translated.
Today in Americas
Effort to save Florida Everglades falters as funds dwindle
Obama envisions a new approach to Iran and Iraq
Bush sees unfairness against attorney general
Still, less than three weeks after the April 9 fundraiser, the Clinton campaign's vetting operation had flagged the check and returned it. Wang's contribution, delivered by Guo, was one of a handful obtained at the Chinatown event that the campaign turned back, citing an "abundance of caution."
Clinton has tapped a vein of support among ethnic, minority and immigrant communities with vigorous outreach that has helped her become one of the best-financed candidates in the presidential field. Under federal law, donors do not have to be citizens to contribute but must be in the United States legally.
The April fundraiser, held in Chinatown's Golden Bridge Restaurant, illustrates both the pitfalls and the success Clinton has experienced with her fundraising operation.
The event attracted nearly 300 donors from as far away as Maryland. Shortly after, about $380,000 (€263,468) poured into the Clinton campaign from attendees and their families. Many were owners or managers of other restaurants. Among the rest were lawyers, business owners, real estate agents and artists.
According to reports filed by the Clinton campaign with the Federal Election Commission, seven donors identified themselves as cooks, three as chefs, three as servers, two as cashiers, one as a dishwasher and cook and one as a waiter.
Details of the event were first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
FEC records show that the campaign returned at least $8,000 (€5,547) in checks to at least eight donors, most of them at the end of June. Among those donors were four identified as cooks and one as a cashier. The campaign also returned $4,600 (€3,189) to a donor who appeared to have earlier given the maximum allowed by law.
The campaign appears to have missed some others.
In one small store, a woman said she donated to the Clinton campaign but did not have citizenship or a green card. A man living in a Brooklyn boarding house who identified himself as an artist said he also gave $1,000 (€693), but said he, too, has no citizenship and no green card.
Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said in an e-mail response to the AP that all donors are asked to fill out cards that state they must be citizens or green card holders. "Is it possible that out of more than 200,000 donors, two may not be? It is," he said. "Of course we would refund any such contributions."
The Associated Press conducted a spot check of 44 addresses listed in campaign finance documents as belonging to donors at the April 9 fundraiser. All the addresses checked out and reporters spoke to 19 persons who said they donated.
Associates of some people listed as donors said they were in China and could not be contacted. Others did not return messages left with families.
Chung Seto, the organizer of the Chinatown event, said Chinese have a culture of thrift and it would not be surprising for workers with meager wages to make $1,000 (€693) donations. She said donors stood in line for up to three hours waiting for the fundraising event to begin. Any mistakes in vetting contributors, she said, were a result of enthusiasm, not coercion.
"Some people were very eager, and some were overeager," she said in an interview, acknowledging the returned checks.
Seto, an activist in the Chinese-American community and a former executive director of the New York Democratic Party, said Chinatown residents hold Clinton in special esteem. They particularly remember her help during the economic downturn that hit the lower Manhattan neighborhood after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)