BY KERRY BURKE AND DORIAN BLOCK DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Saturday, December 27th 2008, 4:00 AM
For thousands of New Yorkers, the end of Christmas Thursday marked the beginning of the seven-day festival of Kwanzaa.
The African-American and Pan-African holiday is observed by more than 40 million people around the world from Dec. 26 through Jan. 1. It is based on ancient harvest celebrations in Africa, called "first fruits celebrations," which were mostly held when the year ended and began.
Friday night, dozens met at the St. James Recreation Center on Jerome Ave. in the Bronx for a party of singing, dancing, poetry and food honoring the holiday.
"I grew up with Christmas, but when I heard about Kwanzaa, I felt it was something I wanted to share with my children," said Katherine Beltran, 34, a stay-at-home mother of four. "It brings back the idea of community."
That's the idea, according to the African American Cultural Center in California, whose director, Dr. Maulana Karenga, founded the holiday in 1966.
"It was created to reinforce African culture and restore it and reaffirm its importance and the importance of the bonds of its people," said Tulivu Jadi, assistant director of the center. "It also was created to introduce a body of values as the social glue that hold African-Americans together."
Kwanzaa is often marked by lighting a candleholder called a kinara, gathering with friends and family, gift giving, eating and decorating a home with African cloth and art. The seven principles the holiday celebrates are each represented by one candle in the kinara and include: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith.
Several Kwanzaa events are scheduled across the city tomorrow. They include:
A Kwanzaa celebration at 2 p.m. at the Harlem branch of the New York Public Library, at 9 W. 124th St.
The 21st annual Kwanzaa celebration at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center at 208 W. 13th St. begins at noon and continues into the night. The event includes an African market, feast and drumming circle.
"Kwanzaa Fest 2008" will be held at the American Museum of Natural History from noon to 5 p.m. The festival features an international market, and singing, drumming, dance and spoken word performances.
On Tuesday, the National Park Service will lead an all-day celebration of art, writing and historical workshops and performances at the African Burial Ground National Monument at 290 Broadway in lower Manhattan, beginning at 11 a.m.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Community centers on edge of ax, leaving leaders worried about kids
BY CLARE TRAPASSO
Monday, December 22nd 2008, 3:55 PM
Smith for News
Joanne Smitherman, of Highbridge Gardens Association speaks at a Community Center Association meeting in Manhattan to figure out how to respond to city Housing Authority's plan to close 19 centers.
Smith for News
Reginald Bowman, president of NYCHA's Citywide Council of Presidents, adds his thoughts.
Smith for News
Smitherman, holds a list of centers slated to be closed.
Happy New Year. Now get out.
Nineteen community centers in public housing developments across the five boroughs are the latest items on the city Housing Authority's chopping block, according to community leaders.
The anticipated closures would eliminate after-school and teen programs for hundreds of the city's poorest children, advocates said.
Without the centers, local leaders fear they'll see a rise in neighborhood crime.
"Where will the kids go?" asked Joanne Smitherman, president of the Highbridge Gardens Residents Association in the Bronx.
"They'll be on the street. That's where you have all the problems."
Smitherman said the Housing Authority told her last month that her center was scheduled to close in early January.
"That meal that we serve in the community center is the only meal [some children] will get that day," she said. "It's going to be devastating."
Earlier this month, the Housing Authority said in a City Council budget hearing that it planned to phase out 18 community centers because of a $150 million budget shortfall.
An additional center is also expected to be closed, according to Reginald Bowman, president of the Citywide Council of Presidents of the New York City Housing Authority, which represents public housing development tenant associations.
The group is working on organizing a protest against the anticipated closures.
The proposed cuts are in addition to the 14 centers the agency shuttered earlier this year.
But NYCHA spokesman Howard Marder said nothing has been finalized.
The agency is looking for other city agencies or community organizations to step in and take over the centers, Marder said.
"If our sister agencies can come in and run a program, this would be an excellent way to keep these facilities open," Marder said. "But this is a plan that's just at the beginning."
Six centers in Manhattan, four each in the Bronx and Brooklyn, three in Queens and two on Staten Island are expected to close in January, according to Bowman.
This could mean pink slips for 236 workers, labor leaders said.
Monday, December 22nd 2008, 3:55 PM
Smith for News
Joanne Smitherman, of Highbridge Gardens Association speaks at a Community Center Association meeting in Manhattan to figure out how to respond to city Housing Authority's plan to close 19 centers.
Smith for News
Reginald Bowman, president of NYCHA's Citywide Council of Presidents, adds his thoughts.
Smith for News
Smitherman, holds a list of centers slated to be closed.
Happy New Year. Now get out.
Nineteen community centers in public housing developments across the five boroughs are the latest items on the city Housing Authority's chopping block, according to community leaders.
The anticipated closures would eliminate after-school and teen programs for hundreds of the city's poorest children, advocates said.
Without the centers, local leaders fear they'll see a rise in neighborhood crime.
"Where will the kids go?" asked Joanne Smitherman, president of the Highbridge Gardens Residents Association in the Bronx.
"They'll be on the street. That's where you have all the problems."
Smitherman said the Housing Authority told her last month that her center was scheduled to close in early January.
"That meal that we serve in the community center is the only meal [some children] will get that day," she said. "It's going to be devastating."
Earlier this month, the Housing Authority said in a City Council budget hearing that it planned to phase out 18 community centers because of a $150 million budget shortfall.
An additional center is also expected to be closed, according to Reginald Bowman, president of the Citywide Council of Presidents of the New York City Housing Authority, which represents public housing development tenant associations.
The group is working on organizing a protest against the anticipated closures.
The proposed cuts are in addition to the 14 centers the agency shuttered earlier this year.
But NYCHA spokesman Howard Marder said nothing has been finalized.
The agency is looking for other city agencies or community organizations to step in and take over the centers, Marder said.
"If our sister agencies can come in and run a program, this would be an excellent way to keep these facilities open," Marder said. "But this is a plan that's just at the beginning."
Six centers in Manhattan, four each in the Bronx and Brooklyn, three in Queens and two on Staten Island are expected to close in January, according to Bowman.
This could mean pink slips for 236 workers, labor leaders said.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer – Mon Dec 22, 9:52 am ET
WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?
But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.
"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.
"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.
"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.
Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.
"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.
Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."
Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.
"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.
But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.
"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.
Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
"A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.
WASHINGTON – It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?
But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.
"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.
"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.
"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.
Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.
"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.
Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."
Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.
"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.
But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.
"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.
Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
"A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Microsoft releasing emergency patch for perilous IE flaw
by Glenn Chapman – Tue Dec 16, 5:49 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Microsoft will release an emergency patch on Wednesday to fix a perilous software flaw allowing hackers to hijack Internet Explorer browsers and take over computers.
The US software giant said on Tuesday that in response to "the threat to customers" it immediately mobilized security engineering teams worldwide to deliver a software cure "in the unprecedented time of eight days."
According to researchers at software security firm Trend Micro, attacks based on the vulnerability in the world's most popular Web browser are spreading "like wildfire" with millions of computers already compromised.
Microsoft typically releases patches for its software on the second Tuesday of each month and rushing this fix to computer users out-of-cycle is testimony to the severe danger of the threat, according to Trend Micro.
"When the patch is released people should run, not walk, to get it installed," said Trend Micro advanced threat researcher Paul Ferguson.
"This vulnerability is being actively exploited by cyber-criminals and getting worse every day."
Trend Micro has identified about 10,000 websites that have been infected with malicious software that can be surreptitiously slipped into visitors' unprotected IE browsers to take advantage of the flaw.
A major Internet portal in Taiwan is among the legitimate websites unknowingly tainted with malicious software aimed at IE's weak spot, according to Ferguson.
Hackers can take control of infected computers, steal data, redirect browsers to dubious websites, and use machines for devious activities such as attacks on other networks, according to security specialists.
"What makes this so insidious is it takes advantage of a big gaping hole of IE, which has the largest install base of any browser on the market," Ferguson said.
IE is used on nearly three-quarters of the world's computers, according to industry statistics from November.
"At this time, we are aware only of attacks that attempt to use this vulnerability against Windows Internet Explorer 7," said Microsoft security response communications head Christopher Budd.
"Microsoft encourages customers to test and deploy this update as soon as possible. Microsoft's teams worked around the clock."
Ferguson said the flaw is being taken advantage of in "multiple versions" of IE not just the most current.
Trend Micro urges IE users to heed precautionary advice from Microsoft, or avoid using the browsers, until the patches are applied.
"There is a working flaw circulating in the criminal underground," Ferguson said. "It opens the window of opportunity that much wider to take advantage and there has not been real protection against it."
The "exploit" is similar to one used recently to steal user names, passwords and other information from people playing online games in China, according to Trend Micro.
A Chinese computer security firm that had discovered attacks taking advantage of the IE flaw released details last week after evidently thinking Microsoft had fixed the problem with routinely released software patches.
"It spread like wildfire from there," Ferguson said. "I guess they were trying to be responsible and share what they knew about what was going on, but they were mistaken about it being patched."
Up to 25 Iraqis accused in Saddam party plot
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Microsoft will release an emergency patch on Wednesday to fix a perilous software flaw allowing hackers to hijack Internet Explorer browsers and take over computers.
The US software giant said on Tuesday that in response to "the threat to customers" it immediately mobilized security engineering teams worldwide to deliver a software cure "in the unprecedented time of eight days."
According to researchers at software security firm Trend Micro, attacks based on the vulnerability in the world's most popular Web browser are spreading "like wildfire" with millions of computers already compromised.
Microsoft typically releases patches for its software on the second Tuesday of each month and rushing this fix to computer users out-of-cycle is testimony to the severe danger of the threat, according to Trend Micro.
"When the patch is released people should run, not walk, to get it installed," said Trend Micro advanced threat researcher Paul Ferguson.
"This vulnerability is being actively exploited by cyber-criminals and getting worse every day."
Trend Micro has identified about 10,000 websites that have been infected with malicious software that can be surreptitiously slipped into visitors' unprotected IE browsers to take advantage of the flaw.
A major Internet portal in Taiwan is among the legitimate websites unknowingly tainted with malicious software aimed at IE's weak spot, according to Ferguson.
Hackers can take control of infected computers, steal data, redirect browsers to dubious websites, and use machines for devious activities such as attacks on other networks, according to security specialists.
"What makes this so insidious is it takes advantage of a big gaping hole of IE, which has the largest install base of any browser on the market," Ferguson said.
IE is used on nearly three-quarters of the world's computers, according to industry statistics from November.
"At this time, we are aware only of attacks that attempt to use this vulnerability against Windows Internet Explorer 7," said Microsoft security response communications head Christopher Budd.
"Microsoft encourages customers to test and deploy this update as soon as possible. Microsoft's teams worked around the clock."
Ferguson said the flaw is being taken advantage of in "multiple versions" of IE not just the most current.
Trend Micro urges IE users to heed precautionary advice from Microsoft, or avoid using the browsers, until the patches are applied.
"There is a working flaw circulating in the criminal underground," Ferguson said. "It opens the window of opportunity that much wider to take advantage and there has not been real protection against it."
The "exploit" is similar to one used recently to steal user names, passwords and other information from people playing online games in China, according to Trend Micro.
A Chinese computer security firm that had discovered attacks taking advantage of the IE flaw released details last week after evidently thinking Microsoft had fixed the problem with routinely released software patches.
"It spread like wildfire from there," Ferguson said. "I guess they were trying to be responsible and share what they knew about what was going on, but they were mistaken about it being patched."
Up to 25 Iraqis accused in Saddam party plot
Monday, December 15, 2008
Advocates of blind fault TV skit about NY Governor
ALBANY, N.Y. – A "Saturday Night Live" skit portraying New York's blind governor as a bumbling leader didn't get a laugh from Gov. David Paterson.
Paterson's office said the skit ridiculed people with physical disabilities and implied that disabled people are incapable of having jobs with serious responsibilities.
"The governor is sure that 'Saturday Night Live,' with all of its talent, can find a way to be funny without being offensive," Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield said in a statement Sunday. "Knowing the governor, he might even have some suggestions himself."
The skit that aired Saturday featured SNL cast member Fred Armisen as Paterson, who must appoint someone to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton. Armisen said he has three criteria for filling the job: economic experience, upstate influence and someone who is disabled and unprepared for the job — like himself. He held up a chart illustrating the state's job losses upside down.
National Federation of the Blind spokesman Chris Danielsen said the portrayal suggesting Paterson as befuddled and disoriented because of his blindness is "absolutely wrong."
No one from NBC, which produces SNL, could be reached for comment early Monday morning.
From Yahoo News --12-15-08
Paterson's office said the skit ridiculed people with physical disabilities and implied that disabled people are incapable of having jobs with serious responsibilities.
"The governor is sure that 'Saturday Night Live,' with all of its talent, can find a way to be funny without being offensive," Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield said in a statement Sunday. "Knowing the governor, he might even have some suggestions himself."
The skit that aired Saturday featured SNL cast member Fred Armisen as Paterson, who must appoint someone to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton. Armisen said he has three criteria for filling the job: economic experience, upstate influence and someone who is disabled and unprepared for the job — like himself. He held up a chart illustrating the state's job losses upside down.
National Federation of the Blind spokesman Chris Danielsen said the portrayal suggesting Paterson as befuddled and disoriented because of his blindness is "absolutely wrong."
No one from NBC, which produces SNL, could be reached for comment early Monday morning.
From Yahoo News --12-15-08
Thursday, December 11, 2008
RAW DATA: Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Responds to Arrest of Gov. Blagojevich
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JESSE L. JACKSON, JR. ON THE ARREST OF GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I was shocked and saddened to learn that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested yesterday by federal law enforcement officials.
The details of the corruption charges were staggering and stunning. If these allegations are proved true, I'm appalled by the pay-to-play schemes hatched at the highest levels of Illinois state government.
I think that I can speak for all Illinois residents when I express outrage at the thought that Illinois' now-vacant senate seat may have been put up for sale, offered to the highest bidder.
Sadly, yesterday's criminal complaint casts another dark cloud over a state already beleaguered by corruption and scandal. Clearly, the people of Illinois deserve better. They deserve to have their trust and confidence in government restored.
In light of yesterday's criminal indictment, I believe that the Governor -- in the best interest of our state -- should resign and forfeit his authority to make the senate appointment. The fact is: anyone appointed by the Governor at this point would be too severely tainted to serve the state effectively and without suspicion in the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, the Governor's fate is in the hands of the justice system. We must allow the process to run its course.
As it does, I want to address the rumors and reports about me and my involvement in this process.
I want to make this fact plain: I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing.
I did not initiate nor authorize anyone -- at any time -- to promise anything -- to Governor Blagojevich on my behalf. I never sent a message or an emissary to the Governor to make an offer or to propose a deal about the U.S. Senate seat (period).
I thought -- mistakenly -- that the process was fair, above board and on the merits. I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was evaluating me and the other senate hopefuls based on our credentials and qualifications. I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was going to make a decision in the best interest of the state as well as the nation.
I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was considering me based on my 13 years of working on behalf of the hard working people of the state as well as the nation. I thought -- mistakenly -- I had a chance and was being considered because I earned it.
Clearly, I was badly mistaken.
I did not know that the process had been corrupted. I did not know that credentials, qualifications and record of service meant nothing to the Governor. I did not know that the Governor and his cronies were attempting to use the process to extort money and favors in a brazen pay-to-play scheme.
I wanted to be considered for the appointment because I believe in public service. I believe that Illinois deserves another senator -- serving alongside Senator Dick Durbin -- who shares their values and will work to fix our economy; make our nation energy independent; provide health care to all; and provide our children with a world-class education.
That's what I shared with Governor Blagojevich on Monday, when I had the opportunity to meet with him for the first time in about four years. I presented my record, my qualifications and my vision. Despite what he may have been looking for, that's all I had to offer. And, that's what we discussed.
To the people of Illinois: I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve you. I want to thank the thousands and thousands of people who supported me for the senate, writing letters, making phone calls, sending e-mails and circulating petitions.
I want to thank the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Defender, the SouthtownStar, N'Digo magazine, Kankakee City News for their editorial endorsements. I want to thank the business, labor, clergy, civic and community leaders and the thousands of honest, hardworking citizens of Illinois who supported me.
We did it right. We pressed to make this process public and to make your voice heard.
Know this: I spoke to the U.S. Attorney's office on Tuesday. They shared with me that I am NOT a target of the investigation and that I am NOT accused of any misconduct. In the days ahead, federal law enforcement officials want to meet and discuss what I know about the process.
I look forward to sitting down with them and cooperating fully and completely with this federal investigation.
I've retained the advice of legal counsel, Mr. James Montgomery, Sr., who held his own press conference earlier this afternoon. On his advice and due to the ongoing investigation, I will not be taking any questions.
See--Related Story-
http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I was shocked and saddened to learn that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested yesterday by federal law enforcement officials.
The details of the corruption charges were staggering and stunning. If these allegations are proved true, I'm appalled by the pay-to-play schemes hatched at the highest levels of Illinois state government.
I think that I can speak for all Illinois residents when I express outrage at the thought that Illinois' now-vacant senate seat may have been put up for sale, offered to the highest bidder.
Sadly, yesterday's criminal complaint casts another dark cloud over a state already beleaguered by corruption and scandal. Clearly, the people of Illinois deserve better. They deserve to have their trust and confidence in government restored.
In light of yesterday's criminal indictment, I believe that the Governor -- in the best interest of our state -- should resign and forfeit his authority to make the senate appointment. The fact is: anyone appointed by the Governor at this point would be too severely tainted to serve the state effectively and without suspicion in the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, the Governor's fate is in the hands of the justice system. We must allow the process to run its course.
As it does, I want to address the rumors and reports about me and my involvement in this process.
I want to make this fact plain: I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing.
I did not initiate nor authorize anyone -- at any time -- to promise anything -- to Governor Blagojevich on my behalf. I never sent a message or an emissary to the Governor to make an offer or to propose a deal about the U.S. Senate seat (period).
I thought -- mistakenly -- that the process was fair, above board and on the merits. I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was evaluating me and the other senate hopefuls based on our credentials and qualifications. I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was going to make a decision in the best interest of the state as well as the nation.
I thought -- mistakenly -- that the Governor was considering me based on my 13 years of working on behalf of the hard working people of the state as well as the nation. I thought -- mistakenly -- I had a chance and was being considered because I earned it.
Clearly, I was badly mistaken.
I did not know that the process had been corrupted. I did not know that credentials, qualifications and record of service meant nothing to the Governor. I did not know that the Governor and his cronies were attempting to use the process to extort money and favors in a brazen pay-to-play scheme.
I wanted to be considered for the appointment because I believe in public service. I believe that Illinois deserves another senator -- serving alongside Senator Dick Durbin -- who shares their values and will work to fix our economy; make our nation energy independent; provide health care to all; and provide our children with a world-class education.
That's what I shared with Governor Blagojevich on Monday, when I had the opportunity to meet with him for the first time in about four years. I presented my record, my qualifications and my vision. Despite what he may have been looking for, that's all I had to offer. And, that's what we discussed.
To the people of Illinois: I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve you. I want to thank the thousands and thousands of people who supported me for the senate, writing letters, making phone calls, sending e-mails and circulating petitions.
I want to thank the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Defender, the SouthtownStar, N'Digo magazine, Kankakee City News for their editorial endorsements. I want to thank the business, labor, clergy, civic and community leaders and the thousands of honest, hardworking citizens of Illinois who supported me.
We did it right. We pressed to make this process public and to make your voice heard.
Know this: I spoke to the U.S. Attorney's office on Tuesday. They shared with me that I am NOT a target of the investigation and that I am NOT accused of any misconduct. In the days ahead, federal law enforcement officials want to meet and discuss what I know about the process.
I look forward to sitting down with them and cooperating fully and completely with this federal investigation.
I've retained the advice of legal counsel, Mr. James Montgomery, Sr., who held his own press conference earlier this afternoon. On his advice and due to the ongoing investigation, I will not be taking any questions.
See--Related Story-
http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Who Needs a TV? I’m Watching on a Laptop
December 4, 2008
Basics
Who Needs a TV? I’m Watching on a Laptop
By LAURA M. HOLSON
I HAVE been compared to many things in my life; never, though, to Sasquatch.
But that is what Alan Wurtzel, president of research at NBC Universal, suggested when I told him I had gotten rid of my television set last year and started watching “30 Rock” and “CSI” on my laptop instead. “I hear about people like you,” he said, a hint of skepticism in his voice. “But the notion that people have forsaken watching cable and network television is an urban myth.”
Then he hissed what sounded vaguely like an insult.
“You probably read.”
Yes, I do enjoy The New Yorker or a John Irving novel from time to time. But just because I don’t have a television set doesn’t mean I don’t crave “Gossip Girl” and obsess over whether Serena will (finally!) get back together with Dan. It’s just that I don’t have a large television in my living room and a monthly payment to make to my cable company. I don’t need one: the major networks and many other broadcasters have made it easy to find their shows free online.
Most Americans still watch shows primarily on their televisions. I’ll concede that point to Mr. Wurtzel. But there is much to suggest that watching shows online is more than just a passing fancy. The Internet has proved to be an excellent promotional vehicle. NBC says 7 out of 10 viewers were spurred to watch some shows on television only after sampling them first online. At ABC, 8 percent of viewers they track — or about one out of every 12 people — watch network shows solely online.
Consider the following. My friend Louise uses a projector hooked up to her laptop to watch “Lost” on a white wall in her living room. My 24-year-old niece never owned a television set until I gave her mine. Now she uses it for DVDs and watches “America’s Next Top Model” online. And it’s not just for the cosmotini set. A 40-something executive I know watched the last presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama on his home computer.
Of course, my house wasn’t always television free. When I lived in Los Angeles, I had cable but was rarely home to catch my favorite shows. I paid extra for HBO but only to watch “Entourage.” Unlike other friends, I never subscribed to TiVo, knowing I would feel guilty if I let shows stack up.
The funny thing is, despite not having a television, I actually watch more network programming than I did when I had cable. The difference is that I am more selective. No more flipping channels just to see what’s on, the television equivalent of a one-night stand. Instead I am in a committed relationship.
For network television shows the best places to start are their home Web sites, including ABC.com, NBC.com, CBS.com and Fox.com, where shows are posted usually within 24 hours of being shown on television. ABC.com, in my experience, is one of the simplest to use. It was a pioneer in putting shows online, although stingy in the early days because it didn’t want to share its toys with other sites.
ABC.com also demands viewers be engaged, requiring them to click a button to continue watching the program after an ad ends. It is a deceptively smart strategy: I was forced to sit through a 30-second commercial — and click — to find out whether Mike Delfino actually died from smoke inhalation on “Desperate Housewives.” It’s only 30 seconds I figured (and I can watch the countdown) which kept me in my seat.
To save time, I usually stay away from sites like Veoh.com, Joost.com, Bebo.com or AOL. Quite simply, there is little there to entice me. Each has a similar syndicate of already-released movies and television shows, and can be confusing if you are not sure what to look for. The exception is Sling.com, which offers much of the same content, but with a more user-friendly setup.
Of course there is a plethora of sites with pirated content, but I don’t go to those because I don’t want to get busted.
Recently I was talking with Quincy Smith, the president of CBS Interactive, who wanted me to visit the CBS channel on YouTube. But it was so cumbersome to find that Mr. Smith had to guide me on the phone as I sat in front of my laptop. MGM plans to offer movies there, too, but the list is not comprehensive.
The one standout is Hulu.com, a joint venture of NBC and Fox. It is well organized and simple to use. (Even Mr. Smith called it “the gold standard.”) It not only has current shows like “The Office,” “The Simpsons,” “24,” and “Heroes,” but a trove of classics like the original “Battlestar Galactica,” “Married With Children” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”
The site, too, like others, has cable shows including the quirky “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.” Quite honestly, I never watched “The Daily Show” when I owned a television; I discovered it on Hulu. I can almost say the same for “Saturday Night Live,” which I gave up watching in the 1990s. During election season, though, I eagerly checked Hulu for both shows to see what I might have missed.
Of course, it wouldn’t be television without a blooper or two. So many online “Gossip Girl” fans showed up to watch last season’s shows, they threatened to crash cwtv.com. As a result the CW banned the show online, hoping viewers instead would watch it on their televisions. Fans protested, though, and the show reappeared online, much to my delight and that of my 14-year-old neighbor who agrees that Jenny Humphrey’s new model friend, Agnes, is a bad influence.
Then there’s iTunes. Apple’s media store has been selling TV shows for three years now, and buying is easy to do. The problem I have with iTunes is that you have to pay for the shows in order to watch them. With so many legal ways to get shows free, there’s little incentive for me to pay unless it’s something I can’t stream, like “Mad Men” or “Entourage.” And yes, while a series like “Lost” may require multiple viewings to fully appreciate them, do I really need to own episodes of “Two and a Half Men”?
Movies, too, pose a problem for entertainment companies who might want to put them on their sites. On Hulu and others, there are a number free — “Ordinary People” and “Men in Black” among them — but none are current.
“That’s a whole different business for us,” said Albert Cheng, a digital media executive at ABC. “We are still trying to figure out if there is a movie audience.” I am a dinosaur in this regard, so buying a $10 DVD at the Virgin Megastore and playing it on my computer works fine until downloading or streaming movies becomes easier.
While watching shows online works for me, I know it is not for everyone. Shows don’t appear until the next day, a deal killer for the truly obsessed. And it is hard to find live sports events (or delayed for that matter) online, particularly if it is a big game.
Besides, movies and sports events have more appeal when viewed on a large screen — that’s what big-screen TV is made for. No one is going to mistake their 13-inch laptop screen for a 50-inch high-definition plasma. I recently watched David Lean’s eye candy “Lawrence of Arabia” on Hulu and ached to experience it on my brother-in-law’s home theater in his den.
Speaking of him, I asked him recently if he would ever watch his beloved San Francisco 49ers football team, or any show for that matter, on a magazine-size laptop. He looked at me, incredulous. “Are you serious?” he asked. “Does anybody really do that?”
Mr. Wurtzel is probably smiling.
Basics
Who Needs a TV? I’m Watching on a Laptop
By LAURA M. HOLSON
I HAVE been compared to many things in my life; never, though, to Sasquatch.
But that is what Alan Wurtzel, president of research at NBC Universal, suggested when I told him I had gotten rid of my television set last year and started watching “30 Rock” and “CSI” on my laptop instead. “I hear about people like you,” he said, a hint of skepticism in his voice. “But the notion that people have forsaken watching cable and network television is an urban myth.”
Then he hissed what sounded vaguely like an insult.
“You probably read.”
Yes, I do enjoy The New Yorker or a John Irving novel from time to time. But just because I don’t have a television set doesn’t mean I don’t crave “Gossip Girl” and obsess over whether Serena will (finally!) get back together with Dan. It’s just that I don’t have a large television in my living room and a monthly payment to make to my cable company. I don’t need one: the major networks and many other broadcasters have made it easy to find their shows free online.
Most Americans still watch shows primarily on their televisions. I’ll concede that point to Mr. Wurtzel. But there is much to suggest that watching shows online is more than just a passing fancy. The Internet has proved to be an excellent promotional vehicle. NBC says 7 out of 10 viewers were spurred to watch some shows on television only after sampling them first online. At ABC, 8 percent of viewers they track — or about one out of every 12 people — watch network shows solely online.
Consider the following. My friend Louise uses a projector hooked up to her laptop to watch “Lost” on a white wall in her living room. My 24-year-old niece never owned a television set until I gave her mine. Now she uses it for DVDs and watches “America’s Next Top Model” online. And it’s not just for the cosmotini set. A 40-something executive I know watched the last presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama on his home computer.
Of course, my house wasn’t always television free. When I lived in Los Angeles, I had cable but was rarely home to catch my favorite shows. I paid extra for HBO but only to watch “Entourage.” Unlike other friends, I never subscribed to TiVo, knowing I would feel guilty if I let shows stack up.
The funny thing is, despite not having a television, I actually watch more network programming than I did when I had cable. The difference is that I am more selective. No more flipping channels just to see what’s on, the television equivalent of a one-night stand. Instead I am in a committed relationship.
For network television shows the best places to start are their home Web sites, including ABC.com, NBC.com, CBS.com and Fox.com, where shows are posted usually within 24 hours of being shown on television. ABC.com, in my experience, is one of the simplest to use. It was a pioneer in putting shows online, although stingy in the early days because it didn’t want to share its toys with other sites.
ABC.com also demands viewers be engaged, requiring them to click a button to continue watching the program after an ad ends. It is a deceptively smart strategy: I was forced to sit through a 30-second commercial — and click — to find out whether Mike Delfino actually died from smoke inhalation on “Desperate Housewives.” It’s only 30 seconds I figured (and I can watch the countdown) which kept me in my seat.
To save time, I usually stay away from sites like Veoh.com, Joost.com, Bebo.com or AOL. Quite simply, there is little there to entice me. Each has a similar syndicate of already-released movies and television shows, and can be confusing if you are not sure what to look for. The exception is Sling.com, which offers much of the same content, but with a more user-friendly setup.
Of course there is a plethora of sites with pirated content, but I don’t go to those because I don’t want to get busted.
Recently I was talking with Quincy Smith, the president of CBS Interactive, who wanted me to visit the CBS channel on YouTube. But it was so cumbersome to find that Mr. Smith had to guide me on the phone as I sat in front of my laptop. MGM plans to offer movies there, too, but the list is not comprehensive.
The one standout is Hulu.com, a joint venture of NBC and Fox. It is well organized and simple to use. (Even Mr. Smith called it “the gold standard.”) It not only has current shows like “The Office,” “The Simpsons,” “24,” and “Heroes,” but a trove of classics like the original “Battlestar Galactica,” “Married With Children” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”
The site, too, like others, has cable shows including the quirky “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.” Quite honestly, I never watched “The Daily Show” when I owned a television; I discovered it on Hulu. I can almost say the same for “Saturday Night Live,” which I gave up watching in the 1990s. During election season, though, I eagerly checked Hulu for both shows to see what I might have missed.
Of course, it wouldn’t be television without a blooper or two. So many online “Gossip Girl” fans showed up to watch last season’s shows, they threatened to crash cwtv.com. As a result the CW banned the show online, hoping viewers instead would watch it on their televisions. Fans protested, though, and the show reappeared online, much to my delight and that of my 14-year-old neighbor who agrees that Jenny Humphrey’s new model friend, Agnes, is a bad influence.
Then there’s iTunes. Apple’s media store has been selling TV shows for three years now, and buying is easy to do. The problem I have with iTunes is that you have to pay for the shows in order to watch them. With so many legal ways to get shows free, there’s little incentive for me to pay unless it’s something I can’t stream, like “Mad Men” or “Entourage.” And yes, while a series like “Lost” may require multiple viewings to fully appreciate them, do I really need to own episodes of “Two and a Half Men”?
Movies, too, pose a problem for entertainment companies who might want to put them on their sites. On Hulu and others, there are a number free — “Ordinary People” and “Men in Black” among them — but none are current.
“That’s a whole different business for us,” said Albert Cheng, a digital media executive at ABC. “We are still trying to figure out if there is a movie audience.” I am a dinosaur in this regard, so buying a $10 DVD at the Virgin Megastore and playing it on my computer works fine until downloading or streaming movies becomes easier.
While watching shows online works for me, I know it is not for everyone. Shows don’t appear until the next day, a deal killer for the truly obsessed. And it is hard to find live sports events (or delayed for that matter) online, particularly if it is a big game.
Besides, movies and sports events have more appeal when viewed on a large screen — that’s what big-screen TV is made for. No one is going to mistake their 13-inch laptop screen for a 50-inch high-definition plasma. I recently watched David Lean’s eye candy “Lawrence of Arabia” on Hulu and ached to experience it on my brother-in-law’s home theater in his den.
Speaking of him, I asked him recently if he would ever watch his beloved San Francisco 49ers football team, or any show for that matter, on a magazine-size laptop. He looked at me, incredulous. “Are you serious?” he asked. “Does anybody really do that?”
Mr. Wurtzel is probably smiling.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Rogue Dems win many concessions
BY KENNETH LOVETT DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, December 4th 2008, 9:42 PM
ALBANY - The month-long battle for leadership of the state Senate is seemingly over.
Three dissident Democrats who flirted with supporting a Republican to lead the Senate over their party's favorite, Malcolm Smith, are back in the fold.
"It is done," said holdout Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx), who will be tabbed to head the Senate Committee on Aging.
That gives Smith the needed 32 votes to be elected the chamber's first Democratic leader in 43 years over Republican Majority Leader DeaSkelos, who was trying to hang on.
In exchange, the dissidents, Diaz, Sen. Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn and Sen.-elect Pedro Espada (D-Bronx), were promised a host of reforms - and leadership posts.
The agreement was reached after a final meeting brokered by upstate billionaire Thomas Golisano and Rep. Gregory Meeks.
Gov. Paterson and Brooklyn Democratic Chairman Vito Lopez an assemblyman, were also in the meeting for a time, sources said.
Smith spokesman Hank Sheinkopf said the meeting "resolved rules changes proposed by Sen. Smith, which will result in Senate reform and the election of Malcolm Smith as leader."
Among the changes, sources said, the position of Senate president pro tempore and majority leader will be decoupled.
Smith will lead the Senate and the Democrats as president pro tempore, while Espada will be named the less-powerful majority leader, making him the highest-ranking Latino leader in state government.
Skelos, like his predecessor, former Sen. Joe Bruno held both titles.
Kruger is expected to head the powerful Finance Committee, which will likely be given a $5 million budget. Committee chairmen get stipends of up to $15,000.
In addition, sources said, lawmakers will be seated alphabetically instead of by party, and the minority party will have more staff and financial resources and an easier time bringing bills to the floor for a vote.
"It's historic," Kruger said. "Everyone will be treated equally, fairly and equitably. The Gang of Three has made a permanent and indelible imprint."
One key issue for Diaz was legalizing gay marriage, which Diaz opposes. He said he's been assured the issue won't come to the floor.
Two long-time senators believe the deal can still fall apart. A vote on the new rules would be needed in January.
"I think there's going to be a lot of pushback" from veteran Democrats senators not wanting to cede power to the three dissidents, said one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)