Mood:  caffeinated

Liberals Form Political Mutual Fund

Religious groups have been doing it for years to keep from investing in "sin" industries. Now, political liberals can invest in mutual funds that ban investments in firearm makers, liquor companies and Republican causes.

The Blue Fund, launched on Tuesday, pledges only to invest in companies that make campaign contributions to Democrats. Similar to so-called socially responsible investments, the new investment firm adds a political component to offset what is calls a lopsided relationship between the GOP and mutual fund managers.

"We're working to create the first opportunity for progressives to invest with both a social and political conscience," said Daniel de Faro Adamson, CEO of Blue Investment Management.

About 75 companies listed in the S&P 500 qualify for the fund, such as Apple, Google and Starbucks. According to the Blue Fund, companies that have donated heavily to Democrats have outperformed their "red" counterparts, or those who support the GOP.

"When people invest in mutual funds today, even if they think they are being apolitical, they are being political," said Adamson, who co-founded Blue Investment Management with former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph Andrews.

Adamson said 80 percent of mutual fund companies' net contributions benefit the GOP.

"So we're offering people a chance to recognize the ways in which their investments are already political and ensure they are aligned with their values," he said.

The fund scores each of the investments based on stances including diversity, human rights and employee relations.

"This investment philosophy is a first-step - a first chess move among many, I hope - to create a political infrastructure that works for progressives... We wanted to make something available for institutions, for people who wanted to vote with their dollars," Adamson said.

News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Liberals Form Political Mutual Fund

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:27 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

CHICAGO -- The New York Times Co. reported Thursday that its third-quarter 2006 profit from continuing operations plunged 39.2% on costs related to its job cuts and a loss on its sale of its 50% stake in the Discovery Times Channel.

Meanwhile, Belo, publisher of The Dallas Morning News, said net income for the quarter fell to $19.2 million, or 19 cents per share, compared to $22.1 million, or 20 cents per share, during the same period last year.

At the New York Times Co., 3Q operating profit was down 48% from the same period in 2005 to $20.5 million on total revenues that slipped 2.4% to $739.6 million.

Reflecting a continuing tough advertising environment, total ad revenue was off 4.2% to 465,476.

The Times Co. said it earned $14 million, or 10 cents per share, compared with $23.1 milion, or 16 cents per share, in the third quarter of 2005.

Charges related to the staff reduction and the cable TV investment loss each reduced per-share price by 3 cents.

"Our third-quarter results reflect the continued weakness in the print advertising marketplace," Times Co. President and CEO Janet L. Robinson said in a statement. "We are, however, strongly encouraged by the discipline our teams have shown in holding the line on operating costs, which were virtually flat with the third quarter of last year. The leadership we are showing in transitioning from our print-centric distribution model to become a multi-platform content provider continues to pay dividends through the robust growth in our Internet-related revenues, which contributed more than 8% of the company's revenues in the quarter and are on track to exceed $250 million by year end."

Times Co. noted that for this reporting period its broadcast media group are now classified as discontinued operations. In September, the company announced plans to sell the group.

Newsprint expense decreased 2.2% in the third quarter, with 11.1% of the decrease attributable to lower consumption, partially offset by an 8.9% price increase.

News Media Group revenues decreased 3.0% to $721.3 million, the company said.

Advertising revenues decreased 5.1%, due to weakness in print advertising at The New York Times Media Group and the New England Media Group, partially offset by higher online advertising revenues across the News Media Group, the company said.

Circulation revenues were down 1.3%, which the company attributed mainly to weakness at the New England Media Group.

Operating profit for the online business increased to $6.4 million from $3.8 million. All told, Internet-related businesses generated $62.8 million in revenue, up from $50.5 million in the year-ago period.

The Times said its previously announced plans to consolidate New York area printing at its College Point, N.Y., plan and to sublease its Edison, N.J. plan, is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2008.

The Times said it expects a return of "at least 15%" on its $135 million investment in the consolidation, with a payback period of five and a half years. It said it currently estimates it will record total costs to close the Edison plan to be in the range of $104 to $128 million.

TimesSelect, the fee-based product on NYTimes.com, currently has 551,000 subscribers, the Times Co. said, with about 65% receiving TimesSelect as part their home-delivery subscriptions, and 35% receiving it from online-only subscriptions. Since its launch in September 2005, TimesSelect has generated more than $8.5 million in revenues, the company said.

Meanwhile, newspaper and television station owner Belo Corp. said Thursday third-quarter profit dropped 13% weighed down by charges, as revenue edged up slightly amid weak results from the company's newspaper group.

Belo, publisher of The Dallas Morning News, said net income for the quarter fell to $19.2 million, or 19 cents per share, compared to $22.1 million, or 20 cents per share, during the same period last year.

Results for the latest quarter were hurt by $5.4 million, or 3 cents per share, in severance charges for a voluntary severance program at the Dallas Morning News. They were also impacted by $10 million, or 6 cents per share, in transition costs associated with its technology initiatives and $2.9 million, or 2 cents per share, in stock-based compensation costs.

Last year's results included a $3.5 million, or 2 cents per share, credit to network compensation and an impact of 4 cents per share from lost revenues and incremental expenses associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial were looking for third-quarter earnings of 18 cents per share.

Revenue gained 0.8 percent to $376.4 million from $373.4 million, missing analysts' estimates of $386.3 million. Television group revenue rose 6.9 percent, while newspaper group revenue fell 4.2 percent.

Editor & Publisher ~ Associated Press ** NY Times Co. 3Q Profit Plunges 39%, Belo Also Down

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:21 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006 3:30 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Slithering Towards Stalinism

Democrats, once again realizing that they have nothing concrete to offer, are once again casting about for a catchphrase that will entice the sheeple into voting for them regardless.

The “new” term they’ve come up with?

“The common good.”

As somebody who grew up in a socialist society, that particular term sends cold shivers down our spine because we’ve heard it used to excuse the inexcusable too many times to count:

Taxing away more than 3/4 of your income? -- It’s for the “common good.”

Adding taxes to automobiles to the point where they become almost unaffordable luxuries to working class families? -- It’s for the “common good.”

Outlawing law-abiding citizens’ right to defend themselves and their families? -- It’s for the “common good.”

Outlawing speech determined by politicians and unelected members of the intelligentsia to be “hateful?” -- It’s for the “common good.”

Pulling intelligent children out of school and sending them to re-education camps for “anti-social behavior?” -- It’s for the “common good.”

Sending dissenters to hard labor camps, never to be heard of again? -- It’s for the “common good.”

No, my native country didn’t quite get to the last item before the socialists were thrown out of government, but the Soviet Union did, along with a slew of other “Workers’ Paradises” operating under the slogan “it’s for the common good.”

Those are the socialist swine that will take over Congress if you stay at home on November 7th.

Keep that in mind.

Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Blog ~ Emperor Misha ** Slithering Towards Stalinism

Related: Demented-crats Embrace Term 'Common Good' to Describe Libtard Values... 'Communism' Too Close to the Truth

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:50 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:55 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Bush the New Churchill, What Would World Be Like With Saddam?

Back in 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany. His elevation was accomplished, not by military coup, but by what passed for democratic procedures in the Weimar Republic. The "civilized world" was war weary, after the horrific slaughter of WW I, and looked for excuses not to invade. Those excuses were not hard to find.

First, the excuse was that "power would make him responsible". His re-armament, and occupation of the Rhineland, as well as his massacre of the "Brown Shirts" that initially supported him on June 30, 1934 made short work of that argument. The Ruhr Valley was re-occupied, with not a peep. Winston Churchill, one of the lone voices in the wilderness, was considered an out-of-touch crank, much the way many are now considering GWB.

As we all know, things got worse; far worse. Austria, Hitler's native land, was occupied in the "Anschluss". In March 1938 the Germans were handed the Sudenland. They took the rest of Czechoslavakia, really the only democracy in the area, in September 1938. Again, excuses, but no action, from the civilized countries.

On November 9-10, 1938, the Germans perpetrated the horrific "Christallnacht", which, in retrospect, was the start of the Holocaust. Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were smashed to bits. The victims were only Jews; the world could live with that. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland, on the pretext that Poland attacked a German radio station. While Britain and France declared war, in practice they did almost nothing.

The Germans rapidly overwhelmed Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark. Norway, being geographically remote, took a bit longer. Had not the Germans turned on their erstwhile allies, the USSR, who knows if we'd still be living under civilized government? The loss of life in WW II, again, was horrific. The West, again, had over five (5) years notice of what was to come. Hitler told us his plans himself.

Now, fast forward to 2001. Saddam Hussein had, since taking power in the 1970's (I remember him running things long before his official naming to the top positions of Ba'ath Party leader in 1978 or 1979) been making bellicose pronouncements. From all appearances, he was arming fast. Did Israel destroy a "peaceful" reactor as Osirik in 1981? Was Bush to take the chance that Saddam was just trying to be funny? Should we take that chance with Iran's President? With North Korea?

Maybe it is true that Iraq is drowning in sectarian violence. Would we be better off with Saddam paying families to homicide bomb in Israel? Or maybe carry out his lurid threats against the West? I, for one, don't think so.

Now, Saddam's been deposed. Do the left-wing posters, who argue idiotically, that Somalia or Sudan was the right venue to fight in, or maybe Burundi or Rwanda, wish to see what would have happened had Saddam been left to his intentions and devices?

I myself think that while we will never learn what Saddam would have done, we are better off from not having found out.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Why the Left Fears Free Speech on Campus

By David French -- NY Daily News.com

In an incident that is rapidly becoming famous even among people who don't follow the campus culture wars, leftist activists stormed the stage at Columbia University this month and triggered a wild melee during a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the controversial founder of the Minuteman Project.

The incident was shocking enough, but it cannot be viewed in isolation. The mob at Morningside Heights is just another piece of gathering evidence that the '60s are returning to campus.

It's a dangerous turn to an era not of "peace and love," but a step closer to the violence and threats that dominated campuses throughout much of the Vietnam War.

Consider this: In the spring, anti-war protesters blocked access to a job fair at the University of California-Santa Cruz and caused Army and National Guard recruiters to be escorted off campus by university police. According to one recruiter, "the situation had degraded" to such an extent that the recruiters feared for the safety of students and law enforcement officers.

Prominent conservatives like David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan have been attacked with pies and salad dressing during on-campus speeches. At UC-San Francisco, a crowd of students blocked access to and scuffled with College Republicans whose crime was merely handing out flyers to students. At Washington State, protesters disrupted, shouted down and threatened actors in a satirical play.

After a period of relative calm in the 1990s, one must ask why we have seen a rise in violent acts of censorship and intimidation by the campus left.

The war in Iraq is to blame for some of the violence, but the violence and threats encompass broader topics and represent an expression of rage and impotence - not the '60s expression of rage and power.

The protesters hide behind tactics of the '60s to lash out helplessly at a culture that seems (to them) to be inexorably moving right. With every branch of government in conservative hands, with the rise of conservative media and with the increasing influence of religious conservatives, the radical left feels under siege. To make matters worse, the conservative movement is now taking aim at the left's last cultural bastion - the nation's colleges and universities - in an effort to reopen the marketplace of ideas on campus.

In the '60s, the excesses of campus radicals eventually led to a cultural backlash that ushered in the Reagan era. These same excesses committed in an era of blogs, YouTube downloads and talk radio lead to a much more immediate response. So, rather than reveling in last week's momentary triumph, Columbia's leftist radicals find themselves on the defensive, blaming others for the violence and begging the administration not to search the Internet for clues about the protesters' identities.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, they have already lost.

French is the director of the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom.
Front Page Magazine ~ David French ** Why the Left Fears Free Speech on Campus

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:08 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Labor Leader Arrested for Racketeering

NEW YORK -- The president of the nation's largest municipal labor council was arrested on federal racketeering charges Tuesday, accused of stealing more than $2 million from the state, labor unions and even a Little League fund.

Brian M. McLaughlin, a seven-term Democratic state assemblyman and president of the New York City Central Labor Council, has been under investigation for several years.

He surrendered Tuesday morning and was released on $250,000 bail after a brief appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis. McLaughlin and his lawyer, Jonathan Bach, declined to comment as they left U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

"Everyone should keep in mind that Brian McLaughlin has not been convicted of a crime and will be afforded the opportunity to respond to and defend himself against these allegations," said the labor council's executive board chairman, Denis M. Hughes.

The labor council is an umbrella group of unions that has supported Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In a 186-page indictment unsealed Tuesday, McLaughlin and others are accused of engaging in racketeering from 1995 through 2006 by using money collected for union activities to instead pay personal expenses, including credit card bills, rent and home improvements.

The indictment alleges McLaughlin committed mail fraud, embezzlement, money laundering and labor bribery by diverting money from various funds he controlled.

Among the funds identified were McLaughlin's political campaign committee, union accounts meant to provide benefits for union members and even contributions meant to support a Little League baseball program.

The indictment also alleges McLaughlin and others misappropriated funds from the state by creating fictitious jobs on his legislative staff and submitting false expense forms.

Among the expenses named in the indictment were more than $4,100 to maintain a boat in Tuckerton, N.J., and $4,200 for Long Island country club membership dues.

The indictment accuses McLaughlin of combining with others, not named in the indictment, to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlawful payments and things of value from street lighting contractors and other companies in the street lighting and traffic signal industry.

It also focuses at one point on a housing development created in 1950 by union leaders and electrical industry management that resulted in more than 30 large apartment buildings. As part of the development, residents created the Electchester Athletic Association Inc. to run a youth sports programs.

The indictment alleges McLaughlin used his position as state assemblyman to direct state money to that athletic association, then defrauded the association of more than $95,000.

Meanwhile, the indictment noted, McLaughlin continued soliciting donations to the athletic fund with sponsorship forms thanking the contributor and concluding with the message: "A CHILD IN SPORTS STAYS OUT OF THE COURTS!"

AP Writers Larry Neumeister in New York and Michael Gormley in Albany contributed to this
report. Tampa Tribune / Tampa Bay Online ~ Associated Press - Pat Milton **
Labor Leader Arrested for Racketeering

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:11 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 18 October 2006 6:24 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  suave

Her Cross to Bear

She wore a gold one July 20, for a speech criticizing advertising directed at children. No picture available.) And she wore the diamond-studded one pictured above to the News last week. A Google Images search doesn't seem to turn up any others, though whenever you think you've noticed something new about Clinton, her aides usually produce rock-solid evidence that it has always been thus.

Clinton's Christianity, while never exactly lapsed, has rarely been forefront; noticing the jewelry doesn't strike me as (quite as) frivolous as reporting on her hairstyle. (He said defensively.)

Is it, perhaps, a sign that her faith may be a bit more in the foreground as 2008 approaches?

*Commenters have politely alerted me that a crucifix is a cross with a representation of that guy -- what's his name again? -- attached.

UPDATE: She's also wearing a cross in this lovely 2001 shot.

NY Daily News ~ The Big Blogs - Ben Smith ** Her Cross to Bear

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:15 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

Amazing Mars picture show planet's 'dramatic climate changes'

This is the amazing picture that shows the effects on Mars of 'dynamic climate changes'.

The image, taken during a test of the NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's instruments, is the clearest yet of the Red Planet and shows clay-rich areas that could have supported life.

See more pictures here
The Mail's Michael Hanlon shares his passion for the Red Planet

Scientists were also able to see frost, and layered deposits of ice and dirt at the polar ice cap which indicate "dynamic climate changes" as recently as 100,000 years ago, scientist Scott Murchie said.

This latest Mars mission will also determine whether there is enough water on the planet to support a manned mission.

Reader comments
UK Daily Mail ** Amazing Mars picture show planet's 'dramatic climate changes'

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:51 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Ned Lamont Running Low on Campaign Cash

Democrat Ned Lamont has just $329,560 cash on hand for the final weeks of the campaign, far less than rival Sen. Joe Lieberman whose account totals $4.7 million.

In reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, the Lamont campaign said the multimillionaire businessman provided most of the money raised in the July 20 to Sept. 30 reporting period.

Lamont contributed $3,751,378 in the reporting period. Contributions from individuals totaled $1,091,766.

Last Friday, Lieberman's campaign reported it had about $4.7 million on hand heading into the last month of the campaign.

Lieberman's report showed he raised $6.1 million and spent $4.9 million between July 20 and Sept. 30.

Lieberman is running as an independent after losing the August Democratic primary. His campaign did not release a detailed breakdown of the donations, but he received nearly $5.5 million from individual donors and just over $632,000 from political action committees, according to the report.

The Lamont campaign said the candidate has contributed $6,252,878 himself to date. His campaign also said Lamont has received $2,758,174 from some 30,000 individuals through Sept. 30.

News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Ned Lamont Running Low on Campaign Cash

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:11 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Public Health Insurance in Canada Financially Unsustainable According to Annual Study

Contact(s): Brett J. Skinner, Director, Health and Pharmaceutical Policy Research and Insurance Policy
The Fraser Institute, Tel (416) 363-6575 ext. 224 --- Email: bretts@fraserinstitute.ca
Click here for the complete publication.

Toronto, ON -- Provincial government spending on health care will consume more than half of total revenue from all sources by the year 2020 and all revenue by 2050 in six out of 10 provinces if current trends continue, according to a study released today by The Fraser Institute.

“The way public health insurance is currently structured in Canada is not financially sustainable,” said Brett Skinner, the Institute’s Director of Health, Pharmaceutical and Insurance Policy Research and author of the study.

“Provincial health spending has grown faster than revenue for a long time. We are nearing the limits of our capacity to pay for necessary medical care through public funds alone.”

Paying More, Getting Less 2006: Measuring the Sustainability of Public Health Insurance in Canada, is The Fraser Institute’s third annual report on the financial sustainability of provincial public health insurance. The study uses Statistics Canada data from the past five years to project growth trends in government spending on health care versus total revenue.

According to this year’s report, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are the most urgent cases with public spending on health care projected to consume half of all revenues as early as 2016. Those provinces are nearly matched by Alberta, projected to reach 50 per cent of all revenues by 2017, a fall from the projected date of 2035 in last year’s report. British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are next, both having 50 per cent warning dates falling in 2019. Ontario will reach the 50 per cent level of total revenues in 2020, nine years later than calculated in the 2005 study.

Public health expenditures are projected to reach 50 per cent of total revenues by 2024 in Nova Scotia, by 2029 in New Brunswick, and by 2030 in Newfoundland. Consistent with its 2005 ranking, Quebec remains the single best case with public health spending on pace to reach 50 per cent of revenue by 2056. This date is five years earlier than last year’s projection of 2061.

Skinner said the relatively “better” performance of provinces like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Quebec is achieved at the expense of wealthier provinces because federal transfers take money from Alberta and Ontario to boost the revenue base of all other provinces.

“This makes the poor performance of Manitoba and Prince Edward Island even more alarming since they are among the biggest recipients of federal transfers.”

Skinner also notes governments have tried to maintain the financial viability of provincial public health insurance monopolies by restricting access to publicly insured goods and services. This has produced unacceptably long waits for medical services; reduced access to health professionals and high tech equipment; fewer hospitals; physical deterioration of existing facilities; withdrawal of public insurance coverage for previously insured medical goods and services; and the delay or outright refusal to provide public insurance coverage for new treatments and technologies available in other countries.

As an alternative, Skinner suggests that governments could slow the growth in public health expenditures while increasing the availability and accessibility of medical care if they introduce policies being used in other countries:

Require patients to make co-payments for publicly insured health services;

Acknowledge the individual right of patients to pay privately (via private insurance or out of pocket) for all types of medical services, including hospitals and physician services;

Allow providers to charge extra fees directly to patients above the public health insurance reimbursement level and receive reimbursement for their services from any insurer, whether public or private;

Permit both for-profit and non-profit health providers to compete for the delivery of publicly insured health services.

“As long as Canadians refuse to embrace these proven policy solutions, they can expect to continue paying more and getting less when it comes to health care,” Skinner said. “As health care spending swallows a larger and larger share of revenues every year, provincial governments will be forced to spend less on other public priorities or impose economically harmful tax increases and further limit access to necessary medical treatment.”

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.
The Fraser Institute ~ Brett J. Skinner ** Public Health Insurance in Canada Financially Unsustainable According to Annual Study

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:05 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink