Sunday, November 6, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Danny's Car Wash owner files Ch. 11
Car-wash mogul Daniel "Danny" Hendon, founder of Danny's Family Companies and dozens of other local businesses, has filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Hendon's personal-bankruptcy petition, filed July 25 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, claims about $317 million in debts.
Among them is a $150 million claim by the state of Arizona, labeled "piercing corporate veil allegation." It refers to a state law that says individuals can be held personally liable for some corporate obligations if they fail to follow certain rules.
Hendon's bankruptcy attorney, Mark J. Giunta of Phoenix, did not respond to messages left this week with his answering service.
Phoenix attorneys Bryan Murphy and Andrew Abraham, representing the state in the bankruptcy case, were out of town early this week and could not be reached for comment.
In addition to the state's claim, Hendon's petition lists about $108 million in business debts for which he had made personal guarantees of repayment.
Hendon's "secured" debts, generally the first to be paid back in a bankruptcy proceeding, total about $20 million, according to the documents. They include $7.4 million on Hendon's home in Paradise Valley and $12.8 million on his home in Corona del Mar, Calif.
His personal net worth is $10.5 million, based on equity in the two homes, according to the bankruptcy documents.
Debtors filing for Chapter 11 reorganization usually are attempting to restructure debt without being forced to liquidate all assets.
The bankruptcy case of Hendon, a well-known entrepreneur and Arizona native who owns car washes and other businesses throughout the Valley, has been merged with 24 other Chapter 11 reorganization efforts filed by various Hendon-owned companies, most of them in the first quarter of 2010.
He also has been a key figure, along with business partner Bob Banovac, in efforts to expand Glendale's sports-and-entertainment district.
Hendon is listed in Arizona Corporation Commission records as the legal representative for nearly 90 separate companies.
Those companies, including car washes, retail stores, aviation-related businesses and restaurants, currently employ hundreds of Arizonans.
The bankruptcy filing does not specify what impact, if any, Hendon's debt-restructuring efforts might have on workers.
According to the Chapter 11 documents, Hendon's annual gross income is $441,600, for which no income-tax deductions are listed.
Hendon's primary expenses include $19,000 a month for payments on his two multimillion-dollar homes. He also is required to pay his wife, Kelly Hendon, about $4,800 a week based on a prenuptial agreement.
Other unsecured debts listed in the bankruptcy include about $8.7 million in legal settlements and judgments.
The Chapter 11 documents note that 20 additional civil lawsuits are pending against him, most of them in Maricopa County Superior Court and Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court.
Hendon's bankruptcy petition also lists $89,000 in credit-card debt.
by J. Craig Anderson The Arizona Republic Aug. 3, 2011 12:00 AM
Danny's Car Wash owner files Ch. 11
Hendon's personal-bankruptcy petition, filed July 25 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, claims about $317 million in debts.
Among them is a $150 million claim by the state of Arizona, labeled "piercing corporate veil allegation." It refers to a state law that says individuals can be held personally liable for some corporate obligations if they fail to follow certain rules.
Hendon's bankruptcy attorney, Mark J. Giunta of Phoenix, did not respond to messages left this week with his answering service.
Phoenix attorneys Bryan Murphy and Andrew Abraham, representing the state in the bankruptcy case, were out of town early this week and could not be reached for comment.
In addition to the state's claim, Hendon's petition lists about $108 million in business debts for which he had made personal guarantees of repayment.
Hendon's "secured" debts, generally the first to be paid back in a bankruptcy proceeding, total about $20 million, according to the documents. They include $7.4 million on Hendon's home in Paradise Valley and $12.8 million on his home in Corona del Mar, Calif.
His personal net worth is $10.5 million, based on equity in the two homes, according to the bankruptcy documents.
Debtors filing for Chapter 11 reorganization usually are attempting to restructure debt without being forced to liquidate all assets.
The bankruptcy case of Hendon, a well-known entrepreneur and Arizona native who owns car washes and other businesses throughout the Valley, has been merged with 24 other Chapter 11 reorganization efforts filed by various Hendon-owned companies, most of them in the first quarter of 2010.
He also has been a key figure, along with business partner Bob Banovac, in efforts to expand Glendale's sports-and-entertainment district.
Hendon is listed in Arizona Corporation Commission records as the legal representative for nearly 90 separate companies.
Those companies, including car washes, retail stores, aviation-related businesses and restaurants, currently employ hundreds of Arizonans.
The bankruptcy filing does not specify what impact, if any, Hendon's debt-restructuring efforts might have on workers.
According to the Chapter 11 documents, Hendon's annual gross income is $441,600, for which no income-tax deductions are listed.
Hendon's primary expenses include $19,000 a month for payments on his two multimillion-dollar homes. He also is required to pay his wife, Kelly Hendon, about $4,800 a week based on a prenuptial agreement.
Other unsecured debts listed in the bankruptcy include about $8.7 million in legal settlements and judgments.
The Chapter 11 documents note that 20 additional civil lawsuits are pending against him, most of them in Maricopa County Superior Court and Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court.
Hendon's bankruptcy petition also lists $89,000 in credit-card debt.
by J. Craig Anderson The Arizona Republic Aug. 3, 2011 12:00 AM
Danny's Car Wash owner files Ch. 11
QR Codes Used To Illustrate Fashion Icons [PICS]
Artist Yiying Lu’s most familiar work is probably the infamousTwitter fail whale. And now her techie repertoire includes illustrations of famous faces in fashion that incorporate QR codes.
Lu’s 10 illustrations in Meets Obsession magazine’s “10 Most Intriguing in Fashion” feature are out now, and they include Anna Della Russo, Dov Charney, Terry Richardson, Chloe Sevigny, Sarah Burton and others. When readers scan the codes in the magazine, they’re directed to Lu’s site where they can download the free artwork to iPhones or iPads.
“I am personally obsessed with the interplay between art and technology, and between digital content and real world content, and this project brings this all together in an innovative and interactive way,” Lu told Mashablelast month.
We got a sneak peek of some of the illustrations in July, and now here are a few more from the collection:
by Emily Banks Mashable Aug 7, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Elections could change Phoenix's direction
With five of nine seats on the Phoenix City Council available, this year's election could determine the city's direction in ways that no recent election has done.
Incumbents are running in three districts and an interim councilman in a fourth. Those in office typically have been hard to defeat. Two other spots - including the mayor's office - are wide open.
Two of the incumbents have no viable opposition, but the way the other spots turn out could determine whether the city turns toward "tea-party" principles espoused by Councilman Sal DiCiccio - who is not in the running this election - or a more measured approach.
At issue is whether DiCiccio's grievances about employee pay and union control of City Hall will hold sway.
So far, the main citywide issues gaining candidates' attention are the food tax, the water-rate increase and the responsiveness of City Hall. Unions have been a concern of several candidates, but not all of them.
Most of the candidates support bringing more high-paying jobs to town, and all of them support finding additional efficiencies in city government.
Those latter issues are the ones a variety of community leaders would prefer to hear more about.
Jan Olav Flaaten, the executive director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, an organization of churches and religious leaders, said he wants to see more specifics about how the city can attract jobs, support neighborhoods and improve schools.
He said he sees too much partisanship creeping into the nonpartisan race.
"I seek candidates with an openness to solutions," he said. "We need a balanced approach."
Besides a vigorous mayoral race, council seats up for election this time around as part of a regular cycle are Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Also on the ballot is District 2, the result of Peggy Neely resigning to run for mayor earlier this year before her term is completed.
The incumbents in Districts 3 and 7, Bill Gates and Michael Nowakowski, appear to be clear front-runners, as their challengers have run little or no campaigns. District 3 takes in an area of Phoenix generally between Bell Road and Northern Avenue east of Interstate 17. District 7 covers south Phoenix.
Districts 1 and 2 are different, with strong candidates campaigning to challenge current officeholders Thelda Williams and Bryan Jeffries, who was appointed to replace Neely.
District 1 takes in areas of the city north of Northern Avenue and west of I-17, reaching as far west as 67th Avenue; District 2 takes in a large northeastern area of Phoenix.
District 5 in west Phoenix, meanwhile, is wide open, the only race certain to bring a new face to city government because incumbent Councilman Claude Mattox, whose term expires at the end of the year, is running for mayor.
The issues the candidates are discussing are not the issues voters need to hear about, said several citizens who pay close attention to what the council does.
Employee pay and concern over the food tax and water rates are yesterday's issues, neighborhood activist Paul Barnes said.
He said he wishes the candidates would focus on what the city can do to attract "first-class jobs."
"We can't fall back into the trap of counting on construction to pull us out of this hole," Barnes said.
Former Mayor Terry Goddard noted this is the first "open" mayor's race, without a front-runner or an obvious choice, in a long time.
"It's time to look at the future of the city in a comprehensive way," he said.
Goddard said most of the candidates are speaking in generalities but without a broad vision for the city.
"There is a lack of big-picture thinking," Goddard said.
Jessica Franken, an attorney who represents numerous small businesses, said more attention is being paid to state and national issues, particularly the debt-ceiling debate, than to city issues.
"There is a perception that the issue of job creation is not being discussed very deeply," Franken said. "People may not understand how the mayor can affect their businesses."
Election day is Aug. 30, but the city will be mailing out early-voting ballots to registered voters this week.
Monday is the last day to register to vote. For more information, visit phoenix.gov/election/vote idx.html or call 602-261-8683.
In addition to the mayor and council, Phoenix voters will consider two ballot propositions, one that would allow the city to determine its own spending as opposed to a state formula from the 1980s and another to determine whether a QuikTrip gas station can be built near 44th Street and Palm Lane.
by Michael Clancy The Arizona Republic Jul. 30, 2011 10:46 PM
Elections could change Phoenix's direction
Incumbents are running in three districts and an interim councilman in a fourth. Those in office typically have been hard to defeat. Two other spots - including the mayor's office - are wide open.
Two of the incumbents have no viable opposition, but the way the other spots turn out could determine whether the city turns toward "tea-party" principles espoused by Councilman Sal DiCiccio - who is not in the running this election - or a more measured approach.
At issue is whether DiCiccio's grievances about employee pay and union control of City Hall will hold sway.
So far, the main citywide issues gaining candidates' attention are the food tax, the water-rate increase and the responsiveness of City Hall. Unions have been a concern of several candidates, but not all of them.
Most of the candidates support bringing more high-paying jobs to town, and all of them support finding additional efficiencies in city government.
Those latter issues are the ones a variety of community leaders would prefer to hear more about.
Jan Olav Flaaten, the executive director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, an organization of churches and religious leaders, said he wants to see more specifics about how the city can attract jobs, support neighborhoods and improve schools.
He said he sees too much partisanship creeping into the nonpartisan race.
"I seek candidates with an openness to solutions," he said. "We need a balanced approach."
Besides a vigorous mayoral race, council seats up for election this time around as part of a regular cycle are Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Also on the ballot is District 2, the result of Peggy Neely resigning to run for mayor earlier this year before her term is completed.
The incumbents in Districts 3 and 7, Bill Gates and Michael Nowakowski, appear to be clear front-runners, as their challengers have run little or no campaigns. District 3 takes in an area of Phoenix generally between Bell Road and Northern Avenue east of Interstate 17. District 7 covers south Phoenix.
Districts 1 and 2 are different, with strong candidates campaigning to challenge current officeholders Thelda Williams and Bryan Jeffries, who was appointed to replace Neely.
District 1 takes in areas of the city north of Northern Avenue and west of I-17, reaching as far west as 67th Avenue; District 2 takes in a large northeastern area of Phoenix.
District 5 in west Phoenix, meanwhile, is wide open, the only race certain to bring a new face to city government because incumbent Councilman Claude Mattox, whose term expires at the end of the year, is running for mayor.
The issues the candidates are discussing are not the issues voters need to hear about, said several citizens who pay close attention to what the council does.
Employee pay and concern over the food tax and water rates are yesterday's issues, neighborhood activist Paul Barnes said.
He said he wishes the candidates would focus on what the city can do to attract "first-class jobs."
"We can't fall back into the trap of counting on construction to pull us out of this hole," Barnes said.
Former Mayor Terry Goddard noted this is the first "open" mayor's race, without a front-runner or an obvious choice, in a long time.
"It's time to look at the future of the city in a comprehensive way," he said.
Goddard said most of the candidates are speaking in generalities but without a broad vision for the city.
"There is a lack of big-picture thinking," Goddard said.
Jessica Franken, an attorney who represents numerous small businesses, said more attention is being paid to state and national issues, particularly the debt-ceiling debate, than to city issues.
"There is a perception that the issue of job creation is not being discussed very deeply," Franken said. "People may not understand how the mayor can affect their businesses."
Election day is Aug. 30, but the city will be mailing out early-voting ballots to registered voters this week.
Monday is the last day to register to vote. For more information, visit phoenix.gov/election/vote idx.html or call 602-261-8683.
In addition to the mayor and council, Phoenix voters will consider two ballot propositions, one that would allow the city to determine its own spending as opposed to a state formula from the 1980s and another to determine whether a QuikTrip gas station can be built near 44th Street and Palm Lane.
by Michael Clancy The Arizona Republic Jul. 30, 2011 10:46 PM
Elections could change Phoenix's direction
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
IMF crisis opens the door to emerging nations
WASHINGTON - The arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn has plunged the International Monetary Fund into a leadership dilemma just as it's playing a key role in addressing Europe's debt crisis and other global challenges.
It also hastens a likely confrontation between Europe and increasingly rich developing countries that have been angling for the top spot at either the IMF or its sister organization, the World Bank. Since their inception just after World War II, the IMF has been led by a European, the World Bank by an American.
Eswar Prasad, an expert in international economics at Cornell University, said the top jobs could become embroiled horse-trading, with the major countries trying to win positions for their top candidates.
"It will be a knock-down, dragged-out fight because there is a lot at stake," Prasad said.
Prasad said the United States would like to see a developing country official head the IMF. But Prasad noted that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said she wants to see the IMF post remain in European hands. Many analysts expect developing nations to push for their own candidates.
Caroline Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the IMF, said it remains "fully operational." The IMF's board met Monday and received a briefing from Acting Managing Director John Lipsky and the fund's lawyer, Sean Hagan. Atkinson announced no further steps.
Among those being mentioned as possible successors to Strauss-Kahn are Kemal Dervis, a former finance minister for Turkey who is now at the Brookings Institution, and Mohammad El-Erian, an Egyptian who heads the giant Pimco bond fund. El-Erian is a former IMF staffer.
Analysts note that Europe, whose debt crisis has consumed the IMF for more than a year, has a large bloc of voting shares in the IMF and won't be willing to yield the top job without a fight. Some suggested that French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is most likely Europe's leading candidate.
The 187-member IMF lends money to countries unable to pay their debts. The World Bank provides loans to poor nations for building roads, dams and other development projects.
Strauss-Kahn's arrest isn't expected to impede the IMF's day-to-day functioning. The executive board can still approve loan packages. And it's expected to authorize rescue loans to Portugal as part of a larger package that European finance ministers negotiated Monday.
"There is a management team there, and a senior staff, and they will continue to make decisions and recommendations to the executive board," said Edwin Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Still, Strauss-Kahn's arrest complicates delicate negotiations among European leaders and the IMF over whether and under what conditions to send more aid to Greece. Last year's aid package hasn't been enough to resolve Greece's debt crisis. Speculation is rising that Greece may have to restructure its debts.
"An element of uncertainty has been injected at a time when the situation is extremely fragile," said James Rickards, senior managing director at Tangent Capital Partners.
Before his arrest, Strauss-Kahn was widely expected to step down within months and run for president of France. So the IMF's executive board has likely already been considering replacements.
A new managing director could be selected as early as June or July, Rickards said. A global financial summit will be held in November in Cannes, France, and the IMF will be under pressure to have a new permanent leader in place well before then.
The IMF's second-in-command, John Lipsky, who was named acting managing director, is viewed as more of a technocrat than Strauss-Kahn, with less political sway, particularly in Europe. And Lipsky has said he will step down in August, when his term ends.
"The combination leaves the IMF leaderless at the most critical time in its existence since the end of World War II," Rickards said.
Strauss-Kahn is regarded as one of the savviest leaders in the IMF's 64-year history, with deep ties to European policymakers. He played a vital role in negotiating last year's joint European Union-IMF bailout package for Greece and other struggling European countries.
He's also been viewed as an effective advocate for Europe's interests before the IMF's executive board, which represents its member countries.
"The ability of Strauss-Kahn to navigate those waters will not be easily replaced," said Uri Dadush, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former director of economic policy at the World Bank.
Strauss-Kahn hasn't yet officially stepped down. But few analysts expect him to remain.
Morris Goldstein, a top economist at the IMF for 25 years and now at the Peterson Institute, said the French will likely argue that Lagarde would be a wise choice because the IMF will need someone closely involved in negotiations over aid packages for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. If chosen, Lagarde would be the first woman to lead the IMF.
"They could argue that at this delicate state of negotiations on the European debt programs, the IMF needs somebody who is familiar with the issues," Goldstein said.
He said that if the Europeans lose the IMF post, they might insist that the United States also give up its long-standing hold on the World Bank job when Robert Zoellick's term as World Bank president ends June 30, 2012.
Non-Europeans will likely argue that it's time to open up the leadership to major developing countries whose economies are expanding far faster than the developed world. Some, like China, have boosted their contributions to the IMF in recent years.
"There is growing disquiet, particularly among emerging nations," said Jan Randolph, an analyst at IHS Global Insight. "China could use its influence to support an emerging-market candidate for the top IMF job."
The United States, the largest donor to the IMF, is certain to weigh in.
"This will be a rather complicated game of musical chairs," said Uri Dadush, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former head of economic policy at the World Bank.
by Christopher S. Rugaber and Martin Crutsinger Associated Press May. 17, 2011 12:00 AM
IMF crisis opens the door to emerging nations
It also hastens a likely confrontation between Europe and increasingly rich developing countries that have been angling for the top spot at either the IMF or its sister organization, the World Bank. Since their inception just after World War II, the IMF has been led by a European, the World Bank by an American.
Eswar Prasad, an expert in international economics at Cornell University, said the top jobs could become embroiled horse-trading, with the major countries trying to win positions for their top candidates.
"It will be a knock-down, dragged-out fight because there is a lot at stake," Prasad said.
Prasad said the United States would like to see a developing country official head the IMF. But Prasad noted that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said she wants to see the IMF post remain in European hands. Many analysts expect developing nations to push for their own candidates.
Caroline Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the IMF, said it remains "fully operational." The IMF's board met Monday and received a briefing from Acting Managing Director John Lipsky and the fund's lawyer, Sean Hagan. Atkinson announced no further steps.
Among those being mentioned as possible successors to Strauss-Kahn are Kemal Dervis, a former finance minister for Turkey who is now at the Brookings Institution, and Mohammad El-Erian, an Egyptian who heads the giant Pimco bond fund. El-Erian is a former IMF staffer.
Analysts note that Europe, whose debt crisis has consumed the IMF for more than a year, has a large bloc of voting shares in the IMF and won't be willing to yield the top job without a fight. Some suggested that French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is most likely Europe's leading candidate.
The 187-member IMF lends money to countries unable to pay their debts. The World Bank provides loans to poor nations for building roads, dams and other development projects.
Strauss-Kahn's arrest isn't expected to impede the IMF's day-to-day functioning. The executive board can still approve loan packages. And it's expected to authorize rescue loans to Portugal as part of a larger package that European finance ministers negotiated Monday.
"There is a management team there, and a senior staff, and they will continue to make decisions and recommendations to the executive board," said Edwin Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Still, Strauss-Kahn's arrest complicates delicate negotiations among European leaders and the IMF over whether and under what conditions to send more aid to Greece. Last year's aid package hasn't been enough to resolve Greece's debt crisis. Speculation is rising that Greece may have to restructure its debts.
"An element of uncertainty has been injected at a time when the situation is extremely fragile," said James Rickards, senior managing director at Tangent Capital Partners.
Before his arrest, Strauss-Kahn was widely expected to step down within months and run for president of France. So the IMF's executive board has likely already been considering replacements.
A new managing director could be selected as early as June or July, Rickards said. A global financial summit will be held in November in Cannes, France, and the IMF will be under pressure to have a new permanent leader in place well before then.
The IMF's second-in-command, John Lipsky, who was named acting managing director, is viewed as more of a technocrat than Strauss-Kahn, with less political sway, particularly in Europe. And Lipsky has said he will step down in August, when his term ends.
"The combination leaves the IMF leaderless at the most critical time in its existence since the end of World War II," Rickards said.
Strauss-Kahn is regarded as one of the savviest leaders in the IMF's 64-year history, with deep ties to European policymakers. He played a vital role in negotiating last year's joint European Union-IMF bailout package for Greece and other struggling European countries.
He's also been viewed as an effective advocate for Europe's interests before the IMF's executive board, which represents its member countries.
"The ability of Strauss-Kahn to navigate those waters will not be easily replaced," said Uri Dadush, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former director of economic policy at the World Bank.
Strauss-Kahn hasn't yet officially stepped down. But few analysts expect him to remain.
Morris Goldstein, a top economist at the IMF for 25 years and now at the Peterson Institute, said the French will likely argue that Lagarde would be a wise choice because the IMF will need someone closely involved in negotiations over aid packages for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. If chosen, Lagarde would be the first woman to lead the IMF.
"They could argue that at this delicate state of negotiations on the European debt programs, the IMF needs somebody who is familiar with the issues," Goldstein said.
He said that if the Europeans lose the IMF post, they might insist that the United States also give up its long-standing hold on the World Bank job when Robert Zoellick's term as World Bank president ends June 30, 2012.
Non-Europeans will likely argue that it's time to open up the leadership to major developing countries whose economies are expanding far faster than the developed world. Some, like China, have boosted their contributions to the IMF in recent years.
"There is growing disquiet, particularly among emerging nations," said Jan Randolph, an analyst at IHS Global Insight. "China could use its influence to support an emerging-market candidate for the top IMF job."
The United States, the largest donor to the IMF, is certain to weigh in.
"This will be a rather complicated game of musical chairs," said Uri Dadush, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former head of economic policy at the World Bank.
by Christopher S. Rugaber and Martin Crutsinger Associated Press May. 17, 2011 12:00 AM
IMF crisis opens the door to emerging nations
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Loans
There are 38 million loans worth $5.3 billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans in the U. S.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
White House shutters staged photos
NEW YORK - The White House said it is ending its long-running practice of having presidents re-enact televised speeches for news photographers following major addresses to the country, a little-known arrangement that fed suggestions of fakery when Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden.
After Obama's live, late-evening address from the East Room of the White House on May 1, five photographers were ushered in to shoot pictures as the president stood at the podium and re-read a few lines of his speech - a practice that news organizations have protested for years.
Even though the Associated Press and other news outlets said in captions to the photos that they were taken after the president delivered his address, many people who saw them may have assumed they depicted the speech itself. That raised questions of whether news organizations were staging an event.
The issue also drew attention when Jason Reed of Reuters, one of the photographers who took part, blogged about the assignment, saying the president "re-enacted the walkout and first 30 seconds of the statement for us."
This week, the White House stepped in.
"We have concluded that this arrangement is a bad idea," Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said late Wednesday. He said the administration is open to working out some new arrangement with photographers.
The practice of re-enactments has a long history. Washington veterans say President Harry Truman would deliver speeches over radio and then repeat them for newsreel cameras. Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who was on duty May 1, said he has seen every president from Ronald Reagan to Obama take time after a speech so still photographers could get their shots.
Photographers know that for these major televised addresses, delivered from the White House without an audience, newspapers and websites expect to illustrate their stories with a picture of the president speaking. News organizations disdain White House handout photos, preferring to take the pictures themselves. They consider "screen grabs" from TV to be of poor quality.
Yet the presence of still photographers with cameras that make noise can be a distraction to a president, particularly in cramped settings such as the Oval Office, and perhaps to viewers of the speech. "All it takes is for some photographer to drop something and the president react to it, and it looks terrible on television," Mills said.
by David Bauder Associated Press May. 13, 2011 12:00 AM
White House shutters staged photos
After Obama's live, late-evening address from the East Room of the White House on May 1, five photographers were ushered in to shoot pictures as the president stood at the podium and re-read a few lines of his speech - a practice that news organizations have protested for years.
Even though the Associated Press and other news outlets said in captions to the photos that they were taken after the president delivered his address, many people who saw them may have assumed they depicted the speech itself. That raised questions of whether news organizations were staging an event.
The issue also drew attention when Jason Reed of Reuters, one of the photographers who took part, blogged about the assignment, saying the president "re-enacted the walkout and first 30 seconds of the statement for us."
This week, the White House stepped in.
"We have concluded that this arrangement is a bad idea," Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said late Wednesday. He said the administration is open to working out some new arrangement with photographers.
The practice of re-enactments has a long history. Washington veterans say President Harry Truman would deliver speeches over radio and then repeat them for newsreel cameras. Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who was on duty May 1, said he has seen every president from Ronald Reagan to Obama take time after a speech so still photographers could get their shots.
Photographers know that for these major televised addresses, delivered from the White House without an audience, newspapers and websites expect to illustrate their stories with a picture of the president speaking. News organizations disdain White House handout photos, preferring to take the pictures themselves. They consider "screen grabs" from TV to be of poor quality.
Yet the presence of still photographers with cameras that make noise can be a distraction to a president, particularly in cramped settings such as the Oval Office, and perhaps to viewers of the speech. "All it takes is for some photographer to drop something and the president react to it, and it looks terrible on television," Mills said.
by David Bauder Associated Press May. 13, 2011 12:00 AM
White House shutters staged photos
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Barack Obama: The new 'W'
He ran as the anti-Bush. Silver-tongued, not tongue-tied. A team player on the world stage, not a lone cowboy. A man who'd put a stop to reckless Bush policies at home and abroad. In short, Barack Obama represented Change. Well, that was then. Now, on one major policy after another, President Obama seems to be morphing into George W. Bush.
On the nation's finances, the man who once ripped Bush as a failed leader for seeking to raise the nation's debt ceiling now wants to do it himself.
On terrorism, he criticized Bush for sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and denying them access to U.S. civilian courts. Now he says he'll do the same.
On taxes, he called the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy wrong, and lately began calling again to end them. But in December he signed a deal with Republicans to extend them for two years, and recently he called the entire tax-cut package good for the country.
And on war, as a candidate he said that the president didn't have authority to unilaterally attack a country that didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S., and even then the president should always seek the informed consent of Congress. Last month, without a vote in Congress, he attacked Libya, which didn't threaten the U.S.
Big differences remain between Obama and Bush, to be sure. His two nominees to the Supreme Court differ vastly from Bush's picks. Obama does want to end the tax cuts for the wealthy. He also pushed through a massive overhaul of the nation's health-insurance system.
Yet even on health insurance, his stand wasn't so much a reversal of Bush's approach as an escalation. Bush also pushed through a massive expansion of Medicare by adding a costly prescription-drug benefit - at the time, the biggest expansion of a federal entitlement since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Indeed, some of the differences between the two presidents are measured in gray, not black and white as once seemed the case.
Some of the changes in Obama can be attributed to the passion of campaign rhetoric giving way to the realities of governing, analysts say.
"He has discovered that it's much easier to make promises on the campaign trail than it is to keep them as president," said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
At the same time, some of the surprising continuity of Bush-era policies can be tied to the way Bush and events set the nation's course, particularly on foreign policy.
For example, Obama found he couldn't easily close the prison at Guantanamo Bay because he couldn't find a place, abroad or at home, willing to take all the terrorist suspects held there.
Among the ways Obama has reversed his earlier promises and adopted, extended or echoed Bush policies:
Debt
In 2006, Bush had cut taxes, gone to war and expanded Medicare, and increased the national debt from $5.6 trillion to $8.2 trillion. He needed approval from Congress to raise the ceiling for debt to $9 trillion.
The Senate approved the increase by a narrow vote of 52-48.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted no.
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally," Obama said in 2006. "Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."
Now, Obama's on the other side. He's increased the national debt to $14 trillion, and he needs Congress to approve more debt. Moreover, Obama's aides now say that congressional meddling to use that needed vote to wrangle budget concessions from the White House would be inappropriate and risk financial Armageddon.
What about Obama's own vote against the president in a similar situation? A mistake, the White House said.
Taxes
As a senator and presidential candidate, Obama opposed extending the Bush tax cuts on household incomes greater than $250,000 a year past their expiration on Dec. 31, 2009.
In 2007, he said he was for "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it." In a 2008 ad, he said, "Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, I'll focus on you."
As president, Obama proposed letting those tax cuts expire as scheduled, while also proposing to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $250,000 for a household and $200,000 for an individual.
But he didn't get Congress to approve that. When the issue came to a head last December, Republicans insisted on extending all of the tax cuts or none, and Obama went along lest the tax cuts on incomes below $250,000 expire even briefly. His final deal with Congress also added a one-year cut in the payroll tax for Medicare and Social Security.
"What all of us care about is growing the American economy and creating jobs for the American people," Obama said. "Taken as a whole, that's what this package of tax relief is going to do. It's a good deal for the American people."
He said again recently that he wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, this time on Dec. 31, 2012.
Terrorists
As a presidential candidate, Obama vowed a broad reversal of Bush's policies toward suspected terrorists.
Most pointedly, he said he'd close the prison in Cuba and try suspected terrorists in civilian courts, not in military tribunals.
Last month, he changed course, saying he'd keep Guantanamo Bay open and would try accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military court.
The reversal, said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, "is yet another vindication of President Bush's detention policies by the Obama administration."
Echoing Bush, Obama has also asserted that he has the power to hold suspected terrorists without charges or trial and that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad if his government considers them a terrorist threat.
War powers
During his campaign, Obama signaled that he'd be far more circumspect than Bush was in using military power. He did say he'd send more troops to Afghanistan, which he's done, and that he'd attack al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan, which he's also done.
But he opposed the Iraq war from the start and said he didn't think the president should wage war for humanitarian purposes or act without congressional approval, absent an imminent threat to the U.S.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told the Boston Globe in 2007.
"In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
On March 19, the U.S. attacked Libya on humanitarian grounds, absent any threat to the U.S. and without approval from Congress.
by Steven Thomma - Apr. 23, 2011 05:28 PM
Barack Obama: The new 'W'
On the nation's finances, the man who once ripped Bush as a failed leader for seeking to raise the nation's debt ceiling now wants to do it himself.
On terrorism, he criticized Bush for sending suspected terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and denying them access to U.S. civilian courts. Now he says he'll do the same.
On taxes, he called the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy wrong, and lately began calling again to end them. But in December he signed a deal with Republicans to extend them for two years, and recently he called the entire tax-cut package good for the country.
And on war, as a candidate he said that the president didn't have authority to unilaterally attack a country that didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S., and even then the president should always seek the informed consent of Congress. Last month, without a vote in Congress, he attacked Libya, which didn't threaten the U.S.
Big differences remain between Obama and Bush, to be sure. His two nominees to the Supreme Court differ vastly from Bush's picks. Obama does want to end the tax cuts for the wealthy. He also pushed through a massive overhaul of the nation's health-insurance system.
Yet even on health insurance, his stand wasn't so much a reversal of Bush's approach as an escalation. Bush also pushed through a massive expansion of Medicare by adding a costly prescription-drug benefit - at the time, the biggest expansion of a federal entitlement since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Indeed, some of the differences between the two presidents are measured in gray, not black and white as once seemed the case.
Some of the changes in Obama can be attributed to the passion of campaign rhetoric giving way to the realities of governing, analysts say.
"He has discovered that it's much easier to make promises on the campaign trail than it is to keep them as president," said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.
At the same time, some of the surprising continuity of Bush-era policies can be tied to the way Bush and events set the nation's course, particularly on foreign policy.
For example, Obama found he couldn't easily close the prison at Guantanamo Bay because he couldn't find a place, abroad or at home, willing to take all the terrorist suspects held there.
Among the ways Obama has reversed his earlier promises and adopted, extended or echoed Bush policies:
Debt
In 2006, Bush had cut taxes, gone to war and expanded Medicare, and increased the national debt from $5.6 trillion to $8.2 trillion. He needed approval from Congress to raise the ceiling for debt to $9 trillion.
The Senate approved the increase by a narrow vote of 52-48.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted no.
"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally," Obama said in 2006. "Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."
Now, Obama's on the other side. He's increased the national debt to $14 trillion, and he needs Congress to approve more debt. Moreover, Obama's aides now say that congressional meddling to use that needed vote to wrangle budget concessions from the White House would be inappropriate and risk financial Armageddon.
What about Obama's own vote against the president in a similar situation? A mistake, the White House said.
Taxes
As a senator and presidential candidate, Obama opposed extending the Bush tax cuts on household incomes greater than $250,000 a year past their expiration on Dec. 31, 2009.
In 2007, he said he was for "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people, who don't need it." In a 2008 ad, he said, "Instead of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, I'll focus on you."
As president, Obama proposed letting those tax cuts expire as scheduled, while also proposing to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for incomes of less than $250,000 for a household and $200,000 for an individual.
But he didn't get Congress to approve that. When the issue came to a head last December, Republicans insisted on extending all of the tax cuts or none, and Obama went along lest the tax cuts on incomes below $250,000 expire even briefly. His final deal with Congress also added a one-year cut in the payroll tax for Medicare and Social Security.
"What all of us care about is growing the American economy and creating jobs for the American people," Obama said. "Taken as a whole, that's what this package of tax relief is going to do. It's a good deal for the American people."
He said again recently that he wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, this time on Dec. 31, 2012.
Terrorists
As a presidential candidate, Obama vowed a broad reversal of Bush's policies toward suspected terrorists.
Most pointedly, he said he'd close the prison in Cuba and try suspected terrorists in civilian courts, not in military tribunals.
Last month, he changed course, saying he'd keep Guantanamo Bay open and would try accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military court.
The reversal, said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, "is yet another vindication of President Bush's detention policies by the Obama administration."
Echoing Bush, Obama has also asserted that he has the power to hold suspected terrorists without charges or trial and that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad if his government considers them a terrorist threat.
War powers
During his campaign, Obama signaled that he'd be far more circumspect than Bush was in using military power. He did say he'd send more troops to Afghanistan, which he's done, and that he'd attack al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan, which he's also done.
But he opposed the Iraq war from the start and said he didn't think the president should wage war for humanitarian purposes or act without congressional approval, absent an imminent threat to the U.S.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told the Boston Globe in 2007.
"In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
On March 19, the U.S. attacked Libya on humanitarian grounds, absent any threat to the U.S. and without approval from Congress.
by Steven Thomma - Apr. 23, 2011 05:28 PM
Barack Obama: The new 'W'
Sunday, April 17, 2011
U.S. Trade Deficit
The federal government borrows about 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Current debt limit is reaching $14.3 trillion.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Foreclosures...
Here's one thing we know for sure: Foreclosure inventory volume is outpacing foreclosure sales, and foreclosure sales are already more than one third of the market right now. Distressed properties sell at a big discount, pushing prices down all around them. Banks are pushing to get rid of foreclosed properties now, and pushing to get borrowers in the process out of the process before the state attorneys general and federal regulators come down with some kind of painful settlement. That's more inventory, as consumer confidence continues to fall. You tell me where prices are headed...
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Cash buyers
32% of U.S. home buyers are cash buyers....statistical norm is 10% cash investors...so mortgage financing opportunities are reduced by 22%!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Data Mining
Our human mental thought processes and internet behaviors are being tracked through the likes of search engines and social networks and being used to market goods and services to us on the internet. Can anyone say 'lab rats'?
Randomness
It's liberating to have a clear mind to explore new experiences. To be well-rested and to enjoy the beauty and smells in life is a luxury these days. We all seem to be so busy and having to work double-time to make the same or less money these days; the debilitating effects makes you really question the choices that you've made in life and where you are headed. For now, to enjoy the basics in life and the freedom to enjoy the simple pleasures is endearing in itself.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
LinkedIn files for IPO, reveals sales of $161 million
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Business social network LinkedIn filed for an initial public offering late Thursday, offering the first public glimpse into the finances of the seven-year-old Web company.
LinkedIn turned a profit of $10.1 million on revenue of $161 million in the first nine months of 2010, according to documents filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But it may not last: "We expect our revenue growth rate to decline, and as we continue to invest for future growth, we do not expect to be profitable on a GAAP basis in 2011," the company warned in its filing.
In 2009, its last full fiscal year, LinkedIn had a loss of $4 million on sales of $120.2 million. The company has been in the red every year except 2006, when it turned a slight profit on revenue of $32 million.
The company isn't hurting for cash: It's currently sitting on a stash of $89.6 million. LinkedIn filed to raise up to $175 million in its offering, but that's a preliminary number and companies often change those targets as they get closer to their IPO.
The professional networking site launched in May 2003, and it's now adding one new user every second. LinkedIn has more than 90 million users, with more than half of its members located outside of the United States.
But LinkedIn warned about increased competition both stateside and overseas, naming Facebook, Google (GOOG, Fortune 500), Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) and Twitter as rivals who "could develop competing solutions or partner with third parties to offer such products." It also called out Xing in Germany and Viadeo in France.
In the three months ending in September, 65 million unique users visited LinkedIn's site.
The company now has 990 employees -- though many of them are newbies. LinkedIn said that more than half of its staff has been with the company for less than one year, and 74% joined within the past two years.
CEO Jeff Weiner pulled in a $250,000 salary and a $211,055 bonus in 2010.
LinkedIn has a dual-stock structure, which gives the company's insiders sigificant control over shareholder decisions even after others become stockholders. Google and Facebook have similar structures.
Co-founder Reid Hoffman and other executives hold Class B shares, which have 10 times the voting power of the Class A shares LinkedIn will sell to the public. It's a structure that's controversial with shareholder advocates but popular among Silicon Valley companies, which want to ensure that their founders are able to enforce their vision.
"The holders of our Class B common stock collectively will continue to control a majority of the combined voting power of our common stock even when the shares of Class B common stock represent as little as 10% of the combined voting power of all outstanding shares," LinkedIn wrote in its SEC filing. "This concentrated control will limit your ability to influence corporate matters for the foreseeable future."
The path to IPO: LinkedIn has raised more than $100 million in venture capital funding from big names including Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), McGraw-Hill, Sequoia Capital, Bain Capital and Greylock Partners.
The company has been open about its interest in an IPO.
In an August interview with Bloomberg, CEO Jeff Weiner said, "an IPO, being public, raising money -- that's really a tactic that helps us ultimately achieve that long-term objective."
Investors have been snapping up LinkedIn stock on the secondary market, where accredited investors can buy shares of companies that don't trade on public exchanges. SecondMarket, the largest private-stock exchange, said recently that LinkedIn represented 7% of its transactions last quarter -- a distant second to Facebook's 39%.
On SharesPost, a smaller rival exchange, shares of LinkedIn have traded in the last quarter at prices of $22 to $23.50 per share. That gave the company an implied valuation of $2.2 billion.
This is the second bit of tech IPO news in as many days. Demand Media (DMD) opened 2011 with a pop for the Web sector: Its stock ended 33% higher after it made its public debut Wednesday.
by Julianne Pepitone CNNMoney.com January 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)