Mood:  sharp

Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections

Arizona voters will have to present identification at the polls on Nov. 7 after all.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona can go ahead with requiring voters to present a photo ID, starting with next month's general election, as part of the Proposition 200 that voters passed in 2004. The ruling overturns an Oct. 5 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the voter ID rules on hold this election cycle.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not decide whether the new voter ID rules are constitutional. That decision is still pending in federal district court.

Instead, the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction.

"The facts in these cases are hotly contested and 'no bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements,' " the Justices wrote. "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules."

The new voter ID rules were passed, in part, to keep illegal immigrants and other non-citizens from voting. Opponents have argued that legal voters, especially the poor and the elderly, might also be disenfranchised because of the rules.

In order to cast a ballot at the polls, voters must show a photo ID with current street address or two forms of identification, such as a utility bill or car registration, with name and street address.

Reach the reporter at amanda.crawford@arizonarepublic.com
The Arizona Republic ~ Amanda Crawford ** Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 8:55 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  party time!

Full Image: The United Arab Emirates' Minister of Energy Mohammad Bin Dhaen Al Hamli (C) before the opening of the Consultative Meeting of the OPEC Conference in Doha, October 19, 2006.

Oil falls to new '06 lows on doubts about OPEC cut

NEW YORK -- Oil on Friday fell more than 2 percent to a 2006 low below $57 a barrel on speculation that OPEC members would not follow through on plans to make deep production cuts to stem a three-month price slide.

U.S. crude <CLc1> for November delivery settled $1.68 lower at $56.82 a barrel, the lowest this year after trading as low as $56.55 in intraday activity. U.S. oil prices have dropped from July records of $78.40 a barrel on healthy inventories.

London Brent crude <LCOc1> fell $1.19 to $59.68 a barrel.

OPEC ministers agreed early on Friday to reduce output by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd), 200,000 bpd more than expected. But some analysts expressed doubts about whether the cartel will reach the targeted reductions.

"This cut should result in about a half million barrels per day of production actually getting taken out of the market," said Jim Ritterbusch, president at Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Illinois.

Some OPEC ministers said a further cut of 500,000 bpd could follow when the cartel next meets in Nigeria in December. They said they were concerned about high fuel stocks in consumer countries, particularly in the United States, and a projected drop in demand for OPEC oil in 2007 as competitors bring more supplies online.

The producer group, which supplies about a third of the world's crude, said in a statement after an emergency meeting in Doha that oversupply had destabilized the oil market.

The cut was its deepest since January 2002 and is equal to about 4.3 percent of September supply.

"It was a surprise. It shows the determination of OPEC," said Tetsu Emori, chief strategist at Mitsui Bussan Futures Ltd. in Tokyo. "They obviously wanted to send a message to the market."

SAUDI BACKING
"This is not the end of the road because we have another meeting coming up," Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi told Reuters.

Naimi said that Saudi Arabia fully backed the OPEC cut and had already notified customers of lower supply. The world's top exporter will shoulder around 32 percent of the cut, amounting to 380,000 bpd.

Ministers' failure to speak with one voice before the hastily arranged talks had deepened oil's losses of around 25 percent from a mid-July peak of $78.40 a barrel.

To sidestep the issue of quotas and market share that analysts said had begun to cost the cartel credibility, OPEC published only a list of individual cutbacks but left formal quotas unchanged.

OPEC's cut also signaled that it would defend a price of about $60 a barrel, high enough to justify its investment in future production capacity but low enough to allow economic growth and deter a flood of alternative fuels.

"The drop in prices that has already occurred has had a remarkably positive influence on consumer attitudes and spending in the U.S," said Adam Sieminksi of Deutsche Bank.

"The shopping season is coming up and it's going to be a lot better with oil at $60 than at $80."

The producer curbs will begin to bite just as the northern hemisphere heads into winter, when oil demand surges.

Private weather forecaster AccuWeather said this week that the U.S. East Coast should be chillier than normal this year.

Additional reporting by Jonathan Leff in Singapore, Osamu Tsukimori in Tokyo, and Simon Webb in London. --- Reuters ~ Matthew Robinson ** Oil falls to new '06 lows on doubts about OPEC cut

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 5:12 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 20 October 2006 5:20 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

House Intel Chair suspends staff member

WASHINGTON - House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra has suspended a Democratic staff member because of concerns he may have leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to The New York Times last month.

In a letter obtained by The Associated Press Thursday night, Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., a committee member, said that an unidentified staffer requested the document from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before the Sept. 23 story about its conclusions.

The staffer received the National Intelligence Estimate on global terror trends on Sept. 21.

"I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic," LaHood wrote Hoekstra, R-Mich., late last month. "This may, in fact, be only coincidence, and simply 'look bad.' But coincidence, in this town, is rare."

A spokesman to Hoekstra, Jamal Ware, confirmed that a committee staff member was suspended this week. He said the staff member is being denied access to classified information pending the outcome of a review.

"Chairman Hoekstra considers security highly important, and the coincidence certainly merits a review," he said.

An aide to California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), the committee's top Democrat, did not have an immediate comment Thursday night.

The New York Times did not immediately answer a telephone message seeking comment.

Yahoo News ~ Associated Press - Katherine Shrader ** House Intel Chair suspends staff member

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:00 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 20 October 2006 3:06 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

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