California parks officials deliberately hid money, report says

Fear of embarrassment and budget cuts led California parks officials to intentionally conceal millions of dollars in a department account, according to an investigation conducted by the state attorney general's office.

The report, released Friday, is the most detailed official narrative yet regarding the root of the accounting scandal at the parks department.

The scandal broke last summer when it was revealed that the parks department had a hidden surplus of nearly $54 million even though it was threatening to close dozens of facilities.

About $20 million was found in an account where entrance fees and other revenues are deposited. Accounting discrepancies appeared to begin innocently more than a decade ago, leading to fluctuating reports on how much money was in the fund, investigators said.

But in 2002, when the problems were identified, parks officials made a "conscious and deliberate" decision not to reveal the money to officials at the Department of Finance, which plans the state budget.

Multiple high-ranking officials were involved, including the former chief deputy director, Michael Harris, who later lost his job over the scandal. However, the report said it remained unclear whether ousted director Ruth Coleman knew about the accounting problems. Coleman declined to be interviewed for the investigation.

Parks officials didn't report the money because they were concerned that their already reduced budget would be cut even further if the state's number-crunchers knew they had more money in a department account, the report said. Interviews conducted by investigators also showed that officials feared embarrassment if the accounting problems were revealed.

"Throughout this period of intentional non-disclosure, some parks employees consistently requested, without success, that their superiors address the issue," the report said. It wasn't until a new deputy director was installed at the parks department in January 2012 was the issue reported.

Richard Stapler, a spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency, said officials are still determining whether the investigation will result in criminal charges.

John Laird, the resources secretary, said new policies and staff are in place to prevent similar problems in the future.

"It is now clear that this is a problem that could have been fixed by a simple correction years ago, instead of being unaddressed for so long that it turned into a significant blow to public trust in government," Laird, who oversees the parks department, said in a statement.

The rest of the $54 million was found in an account for off-road vehicle parks. Investigators said accounting discrepancies there appeared to be unintentional, and the result of various bookkeeping problems involving loans and tax changes.

For example, a 2010 modification to the gas tax mistakenly pumped millions of excess dollars into the off-road account, the report said. That problem has been fixed and the money has been reallocated, according to the Department of Finance.

The investigation from the attorney general's office is the third review of the parks department in recent weeks. One more report, from the state auditor, is expected to be released.

Read More..

Facebook's Questionable Policy on Violent Content Toward Women

Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities offers numerous guidelines regarding appropriate speech and user safety, including an admonition that “you will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user” and that “you will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”

But that hasn’t stopped countless users on the social media site from making comments, posting images and starting pages that promote the rape and abuse of women. And in many cases, it doesn’t mean that Facebook has any intention of stopping them, either.

Around Christmastime, an Icelandic woman named Thorlaug Agustsdottir came across a Facebook page titled “controversial humor – men are better than women,” and after bantering back and forth with a user whom she describes as a “troll,” she soon found herself staring back at a photo of herself posted on the wall. Her user image had been Photoshopped to look like she had been beaten, with a caption in Icelandic stating, “women are like grass, they need to be beaten/cut regularly.”

“You just need to be raped,” the commenter told Agustsdottir.

Agustsdottir reported the image to Facebook, tagging it as “graphic violence.” A few hours later she received a notice that the image did not meet the criteria for removal.

She reported the image several more times over a period of 24 hours, along with numerous other users, and all received the same response: “This photo wasn’t removed.” Finally, on New Year’s Eve — more than two days after her initial report — Agustsdottir contacted an Icelandic media outlet, DV.is, which broke the story, which was soon picked up by other Icelandic news sources.

“To my great relief my countrymen responded swiftly and jumped on the Icelandic ‘report train’ – fortunately, there is no stopping the report train once it leaves the station,” Agustsdottir explained in an online account of the incident.

The next day, says Agustsdottir, the image disappeared — removed either by Facebook or by the user — and not long afterwards the page itself was gone. Hours after the page was removed, Agustsdottir received yet another response to a report saying Facebook did not see anything actionable in its content.

The response from Facebook bothered Agustsdottir, who felt it reflected a lack of a clear policy regarding the promotion of violence toward women.

“I have to admit that I don’t understand the ways of Facebook,” Agustsdottir told Wired. “This is the Twilight Zone…. They need to start explaining what the heck is going on and why material that clearly crosses any moral line would come back gold-stamped ‘A-OK’ when reported.”

Nor is this the first time that the social media giant has been criticized for failing to remove content that threatened women with physical or sexual assault. In late 2011, Facebook took heat for failing to remove “joke” groups that advocated rape – like the charmingly named “You know she’s playing hard to get when your [sic] chasing her down an alley” page – despite petitions and media headlines like “Facebook is fine with hate speech, as long as it’s directed at women.”

Facebook’s response to the backlash indicated that they saw the pro-rape content of the pages as simple opinions: “It is very important to point out that what one person finds offensive another can find entertaining — just as telling a rude joke won’t get you thrown out of your local pub, it won’t get you thrown off Facebook,” a representative of the social media site told the BBC. “Groups or pages that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies.”

After a Change.org petition collected over 200,000 signatures and the issue appeared in mainstream media outlets, some of the pages promoting the rape and assault of women were removed. Others were allowed to remain on the site if they were categorized as “humor” sites.

Given the seemingly inconsistent application of the site’s own guidelines regarding violent and threatening images and speech, it’s hard not to wonder: What is Facebook’s actual policy regarding content that advocates rape and violence toward women – or does one exist?

Wired reached out to Facebook for a comment, and a representative clarified the site’s position:

“We take our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities very seriously and react quickly to remove reported content that violates our policies. In general, attempts at humor, even disgusting and distasteful ones, do not violate our policies. When real threats or statements of hate are made, however, we will remove them. We encourage people to report anything they feel violates our policies using the report links located throughout the site.”

The online promotion of violence towards women also became a major issue in the videogame community last year when a female blogger named Anita Sarkeesian launched a Kickstarter to raise money for a video series exploring gender issues in videogames, and found herself on the receiving end of an online harassment campaign that included death and rape threats.

It also inspired an online game that allowed players to “beat” the young research student by clicking on a picture of her face until it become progressively blackened and bloodied – not unlike Agustsdottir’s face.

If the picture of Agustsdottir with a caption advocating violence against women wasn’t considered intimidation, harassment or hateful speech on Facebook for over 48 hours, one wonders how the game starring Sarkeesian would have fared. Given Facebook’s track record and stated policies regarding this type of content, it would probably be categorized as “humor.”

Read More..

’56 UP’ Review: The Kids Are All Right – If Wrinkled, Heavier and Hurt by the Economy

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – It’s like catching up with old friends. They’re a little heavier than when we last saw them and have a few more wrinkles, but they’re still very much who they always were.

We know that because, even as we’re looking at their 56-year old selves up on the screen, it is intercut with footage of them at 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 or 49 years old, answering the same question or explaining how they were feeling then.

“56 UP” is the latest installment in director Michael Apted‘s extraordinary documentary series that began in 1964 as “Seven UP,” a television documentary in Great Britain. That first film, on which a then young Apted (he’s now 71) served as a researcher, attempted to examine the British class system by profiling 14 kids, each one a 7-year old, who came from various strata in society.

The film, which opens Friday in New York and January 18 in L.A., took as its inspiration the Jesuit maxim, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”

Every seven years since then, even as he became a major Hollywood director (“The World Is Not Enough”), Apted has served as director of the series. Backed by a camera crew, he visits individually with members of the original group of interviewees to see how their lives are turning out.

In “56 UP,” 13 of the original 14 allowed Apted to interview and film them. (The only one missing is Charles Furneaux, one of three upper-class boys who sat together on a couch as 7 year olds and talked dismissively of “poor children.” He became a television documentarian himself – he produced “Touching the Void” – and has not participated since “21 UP.”)

The series would seem to indicate that England’s class system is still firmly in place. A few of subjects have moved up the social ladder; Sue Davis, a working class girl from London’s East End, has ended up a college administrator and Nick Hitchon, a Yorkshire farm lad, is now a university professor in the U.S.

One of the middle-class kids, Neil Hughes, who dreamed of being an astronaut at 7, had an apparent breakdown as young adult and has led a lonely and emotionally troubled life. He seems, though, at 56, to have found a small measure of contentment living in a small town, where he ekes out a minimal living as a local council representative.

In the “56 UP” installment, it’s clear that the recent worldwide recession and subsequent government austerity measures in the U.K. have affected several of the film’s subjects, costing them jobs, social benefits or putting a serious crimp in their retirement plans.

Many of the participants are now grandparents, some with a first spouse, some with a second. But Bruce Balden, a math teacher who didn’t wed until he was in his 40s, is at 56 the involved father to two young sons, who watch with amusement as their portly pop tries to erect a tent and play cricket.

One has the usual quibbles with the “UP” series: only four of the original 14 subjects were girls, which means the film has been limited in its ability to portray the feminist revolution. Only one participant, Symon Basterfield, was a person of color, which means the movie missed out on examining another major shift in the British population in the last half-century. And none of the kids turned out to be gay (or if they are, they’re not telling Apted), so that too is a missing element.

But overall, the “UP” series remains an amazing achievement. What’s most fascinating about the film is how everyone here, now well into middle age, is still completely engaged in life, is generally upbeat (despite some real struggles for several of them) and intends to carry on.

During the course of the film’s 144-minutes, as Apted skillfully cuts back and forth between his subjects now and then, it’s apparent that the more people change the more they stay the same. But, and this is where the series shines, it’s equally clear that people have an amazing capacity to change, grow and show enormous resilience when faced with daunting challenges.

TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Skin Deep: Questions Surround Iris Implant Procedure – Skin Deep

ANITA ADAMS was born with one green eye and one brown eye. While differently colored irises, a condition otherwise known as heterochromia, may look exotic on David Bowie and Kate Bosworth, Ms. Adams did not like them on herself.

“I wanted my irises to match,” said Ms. Adams, 41, who works as a caretaker for at-risk adolescents in Grand Junction, Colo.

In mid-2008, she began looking online to see if there was any solution other than colored contact lenses (which comprised about 20 percent of the $7.8 billion global contact lens market in 2011, according to a January 2012 report published by BCC Market Research). She found a company, New Color Iris, marketing a device invented by a Panamanian ophthalmologist, Dr. Alberto Delray Kahn, that could apparently implant an artificial or prosthetic iris over her natural one.

The device was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, nor were there any clinical studies or peer-reviewed publications about it. But Ms. Adams found Facebook posts and YouTube testimonials from patients whose eyes had gone from drab brown to an icy blue and were thrilled with the results. On his Web site, Kahnmedical.com, Dr. Kahn wrote that he supported “programs for the prevention of blindness in the Kuma and Embera Indians of Panama,” who have high rates of ocular albinism, which makes them sensitive to light. 

Ms. Adams was impressed. At the company’s request, she went for routine tests to her ophthalmologist, who told her he had never heard of the procedure and advised against it. She didn’t listen. “I went, ‘Oh, whatever,’ ” she said. “I don’t think anything was going to convince me not to do it. At that point my mind was made up.”

Ms. Adams is not alone in her quest for symmetry, whatever the risk.

Dr. Gregory J. Pamel, a corneal and refractive surgeon in Manhattan and a clinical assistant professor of ophthalmology at New York University, said that for the last two years he has received about three inquiries a month from patients who have learned from his Web site that he implants artificial irises for medical reasons. “They’d want to enroll in the clinical trial, and I would say, ‘There’s nothing available in the U.S.,’ ” he said. “There are no approved devices in the U.S. to change the eye color cosmetically. There are no clinical trials to date that are looking into this. There’s nothing on the horizon.”

There are, however, iris implants for patients with serious conditions like aniridia, a rare hereditary absence or partial absence of the iris, that are available under a special “compassionate use” F.D.A. provision. The provision allows patients with serious or life-threatening medical conditions to be treated with devices that have not been approved by the F.D.A., but “we can only use it for people with trauma,” Dr. Pamel said. “I would be very hesitant and skeptical about any technology that purports to change the iris color for cosmetic reasons.” 

Dr. Kenneth Steinsapir, an oculofacial surgeon and ophthalmologist in Los Angeles, also received calls from patients wanting their eye color changed, so he began investigating New Color Iris. He found no positive reports, but he did find a number of studies reporting serious complications. In July 2010, he blogged about it on his Web site, lidlift.com. “The colored disk that is put in the eye has been shown to cause harm,” he wrote.  “If you are not albino and missing iris pigment or have part of the iris missing either from a birth defect or from trauma, then there is no compelling medical reason for this surgery.” 

But Ms. Adams was determined to fix her perceived imperfection. In September 2008, she wired nearly $2,000 to New Color Iris, and a month later flew with her mother (paying their airfare) to Panama. She was told the surgery would present no complications other than a slight risk of glaucoma. She signed a consent form, paid an additional $5,000 and underwent the 15-minute procedure.

For two days, Ms. Adams’s vision was blurry, which she was told was normal. By the third day, she could see well enough to tour around the city. “I was happy with the experience at the time,” she said.

She appeared on “Inside Edition” to talk about how delighted she was, for which she said New Color Iris paid her $500, promising an additional $500 for every future media appearance she did. She also allowed the company to use her likeness on its Web site and on YouTube.

Ms. Adams was pleased with her matching irises for about two years. But in fall 2010, she said, her vision grew “spotty,” and she was “scared to death I was going blind.” She repeatedly tried to contact Dr. Kahn as well as the company in New York, but said she received no response. She started a Facebook page (now dismantled) highlighting her negative experience, noticing that other people had shared similar stories.

And when she returned to the New Color Iris Web site, she was redirected to another site, Brightocular.com, which was marketing another implant to cosmetically change eye color and offering more glowing testimonials.

Ms. Adams said she contacted it using a fake name and was told that the procedure was being offered in Istanbul and soon “in all of Europe” and that the company was not affiliated with New Color Iris. Convinced this was untrue, she contacted Dr. Steinsapir in February 2011, and he began blogging about a possible relationship between the two companies. On Aug. 16, 2011, Dr. Steinsapir received a certified letter from Kevin J. Abruzzese, a lawyer in Mineola, N.Y., representing Stellar Devices, which owns the trademark for Brightocular, that denied that any association existed between the two companies. The letter also asserted that Stellar Devices was working with Minnesota Eye Consultants, in Minneapolis, to obtain “F.D.A. compassionate approval for a patient with aniridia,” and ordered  the doctor to remove “any and all defamatory content” about Brightocular.

Still skeptical, Dr. Steinsapir found a registered trademark for Brightocular, originally filed March 18, 2010 and granted registration on April 19, 2011.

But the company to which the trademark was registered was not Stellar Devices, but New Color Iris. What’s more, New Color Iris and Stellar Devices shared the same Midtown Manhattan address. Dr. Steinsapir later published his findings. He said he also arranged surgery for people who had iris color surgery and needed urgent help.

Alain Delaquérière contributed research.

Read More..

Wealth Matters: The End of a Decade of Uncertainty Over Gift and Estate Taxes

FOR many of the wealthy, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed this week by Congress, is aptly named.

For estate and gift taxes in particular, all but the richest of the rich will probably be able to protect their holdings from taxes, now that Congress has permanently set the estate and gift tax exemptions at $5 million (a level that will rise with inflation).

“You could say this eliminates the estate tax for 99 percent of the population, though I’ve seen figures that say 99.7 or 99.8,” said Richard A. Behrendt, director of estate planning at the financial services firm Baird and a former inspector for the Internal Revenue Service. “From a policy point of view, the estate tax is not there for raising revenue. It’s there for a check on the massive concentration of wealth in a few hands, and it will still accomplish that.”

And while Congress also agreed to increase tax rates on dividends and capital gains to 20 percent from 15 percent for top earners — in addition to the 3.8 percent Medicare surcharge on such earnings — the rates are still far lower than those on their ordinary income. For the earners at the very top, whose income comes mostly from their portfolios of investments, and not a paycheck like most of the rest of us, this is a good deal.

The estate tax, once an arcane assessment, has been in flux and attracting significant attention since 2001. That was when the exemption per person for the estate tax began to rise gradually from $675,000, with a 55 percent tax for anything above that amount, to $3.5 million in 2009 with a 45 percent tax rate for estates larger than that. Estate plans were written to account for the predictable increases in exemptions.

Then in 2010, contrary to what every accountant and tax lawyer I spoke to at the time believed would happen, the estate tax disappeared. Congress and President Obama could not reach an agreement on the tax. So that year, for the first time since 1916, Americans who died were not subject to a federal estate tax. (Their estates still paid state estate taxes, where they existed, and other taxes, including capital gains, on the value of the assets transferred.)

At the end of 2010, President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner reached an agreement that was just as unlikely as the estate tax expiring in the first place: the new exemption was $5 million, indexed to inflation, with a 35 percent tax rate on any amount over that, and it would last for two years. The taxes and exemptions for gifts made during someone’s lifetime to children and grandchildren were also raised to the same level, from $1 million and a 55 percent tax above that.

As I have written many times, this was a far better rate and exemption than anyone expected. It also created a deadline of Dec. 31, 2012, for people who could make a major gift up to the exemption level or above the amount and pay the low gift tax.

Using the gift exemption was enticing because it meant those assets would appreciate outside of the estate of the person making the gift. Even paying the tax became attractive to the very rich because of how estate and gift taxes are levied. Take, for example, someone who has used up his exemption and wants to give an heir $1 million. The amount it would take to accomplish this differs depending on when it is given. In life, it would cost $1.4 million because the 40 percent gift tax is paid like a sales tax. If it was given after death, the estate would have to set aside about $1.65 million after the 40 percent estate tax was deducted. But this presented a conundrum: while it may make perfect sense to give away a lot of money during your lifetime and save on estate taxes, it means ceding control of cash, securities or shares now. What if you end up needing them? It wasn’t an easy decision, and it led to a fourth-quarter rush.

As of this week, this is no longer an issue. The estate and gift tax exemptions are permanently set at the same $5 million level, indexed for inflation, and the tax rate above that exemption is 40 percent, up from 35 percent. With indexing, the exemption is already about $5.25 million per person — double for a couple — and it will rise at a rate that means most Americans will continue to avoid paying any federal estate tax.

Read More..

Bieber urges crackdown on paparazzi after photographer's death

Justin Bieber and his collection of exotic cars have been tantalizing targets for celebrity photographers ever since the young singer got his driver's license.

A video captured the paparazzi chasing Bieber through Westside traffic in November. When Bieber's white Ferrari stops at an intersection, the video shows the singer turning to one of the photographers and asking: "How do your parents feel about what you do?"

A few months earlier, he was at the wheel of his Fisker sports car when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled him over for driving at high speeds while trying to outrun a paparazzo.

This pursuit for the perfect shot took a fatal turn Tuesday when a photographer was hit by an SUV on Sepulveda Boulevard after taking photos of Bieber's Ferrari. And the singer now finds himself at the center of the familiar debate about free speech and the aggressive tactics of the paparazzi.

Since Princess Diana's fatal accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, California politicians have tried crafting laws that curb paparazzi behavior. But some of those laws are rarely used, and attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of others.

On Wednesday, Bieber went on the offensive, calling on lawmakers to crack down.

"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves," he said in a statement.

It remained unclear if any legislators would take up his call. But Bieber did get some support from another paparazzi target, singer Miley Cyrus.

She wrote on Twitter that she hoped the accident "brings on some changes in '13 Paparazzi are dangerous!"

Last year, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out charges related to a first-of-its-kind anti-paparazzi law in a case involving Bieber being chased on the 101 Freeway by photographer Paul Raef. Passed in 2010, the law created punishments for paparazzi who drove dangerously to obtain images.

But the judge said the law violated 1st Amendment protections by overreaching and potentially affecting such people as wedding photographers or photographers speeding to a location where a celebrity was present.

The L.A. city attorney's office is now appealing that decision.

Raef's attorney, Dmitry Gorin, said new anti-paparazzi laws are unnecessary.

"There are plenty of other laws on the books to deal with these issues. There is always a rush to create a new paparazzi law every time something happens," he said. "Any new law on the paparazzi is going to run smack into the 1st Amendment. Truth is, most conduct is covered by existing laws. A lot of this is done for publicity."

Coroner's officials have not identified the photographer because they have not reached the next of kin. However, his girlfriend, Frances Merto, and another photographer identified him as Chris Guerra.

The incident took place on Sepulveda Boulevard near Getty Center Drive shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday. A friend of Bieber was driving the sports car when it was pulled over on the 405 Freeway by the California Highway Patrol. The photographer arrived near the scene on Sepulveda, left his car and crossed the street to take photos. Sources familiar with the investigation said the CHP told him to leave the area. As he was returning to his vehicle, he was hit by the SUV.

Law enforcement sources said Wednesday that it was unlikely charges would be filed against the driver of the SUV that hit the photographer.

Veteran paparazzo Frank Griffin took issue with the criticism being directed at the photographer as well as other paparazzi.

"What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances and the war photographer who steps on a land mine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road?" said Griffin, who co-owns the photo agency Griffin-Bauer.

"The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Both young men have left behind mothers and fathers grieving and there's no greater sadness in this world than parents who have to bury their children."

Others, however, said the death focuses attention on the safety issues involving paparazzi

"The paparazzi are increasingly reckless and dangerous. The greater the demand, the greater the incentive to do whatever it takes to get the image," said Blair Berk, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented numerous celebrities. "The issue here isn't vanity and nuisance, it's safety."

richard.winton@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

Read More..

Record 5-Year Prison Term Handed to Convicted File Sharer

The leader of the in-theater camcording gang known as the IMAGiNE Group was handed a 60-month prison term Thursday in what is the nation’s longest sentence in a file-sharing case.

The sentence handed to Jeramiah Perkins, 40, of Portsmouth, Virginia, surpassed one of largest file-sharing terms handed to IMAGiNE co-defendant Gregory A. Cherwonik, 53, of New York, who received 40 months in November for his role in the operation.

In all, five IMAGiNE members have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement for operating what prosecutors described as the world’s most prolific piracy release group between 2009 and 2011.

The Motion Picture Association of America said IMAGiNE was more successful than any other illegal internet release group because of its “short latency periods between the theatrical release and their pirated release, their consistently good quality of audio captures, their high volume of releases, and their connection to international suppliers.”

What’s more, the group sought “to be the premier group to first release to the internet copies of new motion pictures only showing in movie theaters,” according to the indictment. (.pdf)

According to Perkins’ plea agreement with prosecutors and accepted by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen of the Eastern District of Virginia, Perkins rented computer servers in France and elsewhere for the group, registered domain names and, among other things, created e-mail and PayPal accounts “to receive donations and payments from persons downloading or buying IMAGiNE Group releases of pirated copies of motion pictures and other copyrighted works,” the authorities said.

Group members would audio-record films such as Friends With Benefits and Captain America: The First Avenger. Others members would record the film at a theater with a camcorder. Then the sound and video would be combined into a full-featured movie, the authorities said.

Other films the group recorded and uploaded included The Men Who Stare at Goats, Avatar, Clash of the Titans, Iron Man 2, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and, among others, The Green Hornet.

The authorities said the group utilized servers in France, Canada and the United States to offer in-theater-only movies from websites like unleashthe.net, pure-imagination.us and pure-imagination.info.

The indictment said the group accepted donations “to fund expenses, including the cost of renting servers used by the conspirators, and to accept payments for the unauthorized distribution and sale of pirated copies of copyrighted works.” The indictment charged that the IMAGiNE Group’s websites included member profiles, a torrent tracker, discussion forums and a message board.

Sean Lovelady, 28, of California, was handed 23 months in October for his role. Willie Lambert, 57, of Pennsylvania, was given 30 months. A fifth defendant is expected to be sentenced in March.

Read More..

”Lincoln,” ”Zero Dark Thirty,” among Producers Guild nods

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Steven Spielberg‘s presidential drama “Lincoln,” musical “Les Miserables” and Kathyrn Bigelow‘s Osama bin Laden thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” were among 10 films earning Producers Guild Award nominations on Wednesday, as the Hollywood awards season gathered momentum.

Ben Affleck and George Clooney, two of the producers behind Affleck’s Iran hostage drama “Argo,” and the team that brought Quentin Tarantino‘s darkly humorous slavery Western “Django Unchained” to the screen also won nods for the awards handed out by the Producers Guild of America.

The critically acclaimed James Bond blockbuster “Skyfall,” which last weekend surpassed $ 1 billion at the worldwide box office, got a big boost to its Oscar hopes when producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson were included.

They joined an eclectic list that featured Ang Lee’s shipwreck tale “Life of Pi,” and quirky comedy “Silver Linings Playbook.”

Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom,” and mythical indie film “Beasts of the Southern Wild” rounded out the feature film nominations, the PGA said in a statement.

The Producers Guild Awards will be handed out at a ceremony in Los Angeles on January 26 and will be a key indication of Hollywood sentiment ahead of the Oscars on February 24.

Many of the PGA-nominated movies are expected to feature strongly on the list of Oscar nominations when those are announced on January 10. Eight of the movies are also in the running for best picture Golden Globe trophies on January 13.

But the PGA had nothing for “The Hobbit” from director Peter Jackson. It also left early awards hopeful “The Master” out of the running in a sign that the cult tale starring Philip Seymour Hoffman may be losing steam in Hollywood.

Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises” also failed to make the list.

The PGA nominated the producers of five films for its animated movie honors – Tim Burton’s “Frankenweenie,” Disney family films “Wreck-it-Ralph” and “Brave,” and “ParaNorman” and “Rise of the Guardians.”

The PGA also named its picks for producers of television movies and miniseries. Ryan Murphy’s “American Horror Story,” the team behind HBO film “Game Change” about Sarah Palin’s 2008 vice presidential bid, and Britain’s modern twist on detective Sherlock Holmes “Sherlock” were among the five making the cut.

They were joined by “Hatfields & McCoys,” about a legendary family feud starring Kevin Costner who was also one of the producers, and the PBS chronicle of the 1930s drought “The Dust Bowl.”

(Reporting By Jill Serjeant; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: ”Lincoln,” ”Zero Dark Thirty,” among Producers Guild nods
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/lincoln-zero-dark-thirty-among-producers-guild-nods/
Link To Post : ”Lincoln,” ”Zero Dark Thirty,” among Producers Guild nods
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Scant Proof Is Found to Back Up Claims by Energy Drinks

Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.

Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.

The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.

“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.

Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.

Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.

As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.

Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.

“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”

A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.

In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.

Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.

Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.

On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.

But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.

Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.

Read More..

High and Low Finance: Lessons From Europe On Averting Disaster

Will the United States follow the European path in 2013?

Let’s hope so.

A year ago, the world’s markets were watching Europe with rising fear. Some expected 2012 to be the year that the euro zone broke up. Germany did not want to pay to bail out its less fortunate neighbors unless they agreed to severe austerity and to what amounted to a surrender of sovereignty — ideas that other countries were loath to accept.

What ensued during the year was a series of summit meetings that often seemed to do more for the hotel business in assorted European capitals than they did to solve the problem. Agreements in principle were announced, sending markets up, only to stumble back when the details got difficult.

What the naysayers missed was that there really was a common commitment to save the euro, and that in the end politicians and central bankers would do what was needed to avert disaster. Finally, in July, the European Central Bank came up with a plan that assured the euro area banks, and the troubled governments, that they would have access to money at reasonable rates. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, went along, angering some of her German colleagues, who thought she was straying from basic principles.

So it could be in the United States Congress. The outgoing Congress went up to the final minutes, amid much angst, before it averted the fiscal crisis. There are reasons to grumble about the details, and more deadlines loom in the new Congress, but the essential point was that in the end the House Republicans allowed a bill to pass even though a majority of them opposed it.

John A. Boehner, the speaker who has often seemed scared to do anything that his Tea Party colleagues might oppose, not only allowed the vote but chose to vote for the proposal. The first indication of whether this is a new dawn, or simply a case of the House Republicans being outmaneuvered, could come when the debt ceiling is addressed. Logically, the debt ceiling is an absurd vote to begin with. Raising it simply allows the government to pay the bills for spending the Congress already approved. To allow the spending bills to pass, but to then refuse to raise the debt ceiling, is equivalent to a family deciding to refuse to pay the credit card bill while continuing to spend. That will only accomplish destroying the family’s credit.

Perhaps some Republicans will threaten to keep the country from paying its bills to accomplish something they don’t otherwise have the votes to accomplish. But if the European precedent holds, the final result will at least avert disaster.

Whether more than that can be hoped for may depend in part on whether those screaming for major cuts in federal spending actually believe their rhetoric — the talk about the United States becoming another Greece.

The reality is that the current budget deficit largely reflects two things: exceptionally low government revenue and the continuing problems caused by the financial crisis and recession that followed the bursting of the housing bubble. Bringing tax revenue back to historical levels, as well as the growth in revenue and reductions in spending that will automatically follow an improving economy, will make a major difference.

There are issues that must be addressed regarding health care costs and Medicare, as well as the fact that there will be fewer workers for each retiree as the baby boomers retire. But those who see a Greek-type crisis here should ask themselves why the government can borrow at interest rates that remain extraordinarily low. The world’s trust in Uncle Sam’s ability to pay its debts has remained high.

What are not high are taxes, although a poll would no doubt show that many people think otherwise.

Federal taxes, relative to the size of the economy, are significantly lower than they were after Ronald Reagan cut them. During 2012 federal revenue amounted to around 17 percent of gross domestic product. At the Reagan low point, the figure was a full percentage point higher. In 2009, when the deficit was ballooning, the figure fell below 16 percent, something that had happened only once during the more than 60 years for which comparable data is available.

Back in 2000, federal revenue approached 21 percent of G.D.P. The assumption that such strong collections would continue played a major role in the forecasts of budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. In 2001, aides to President George W. Bush pointed to the figure as proof that Americans were overtaxed. It turned out that tax revenue figures were temporarily inflated in two ways by the bull market in technology stocks. Not only were there a lot of capital gains to be taxed, but soaring share prices also produced a lot of ordinary income for those employees and executives who could cash in stock options.

At the time, it was assumed that such options had no significant impact on tax revenue, because the income that went to the employee provided an offsetting tax deduction for the company that issued the options. That might have been true had the companies been paying taxes, but many of the most bubbly stocks were in companies that never had, and never would, pay a dollar in income taxes.

That revenue would have come down sharply after the technology stock bubble burst, even without the Bush tax cuts. But those tax cuts worsened the situation and are a major cause of the current deficits.

It might be interesting to consider what would have happened in the 2012 presidential campaign had either candidate been willing to, as Adlai Stevenson once said, "talk sense to the American people.”

In reality, neither candidate would have dreamed of saying, as an economist did a week ago:

“Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans. This could involve higher tax rates or an elimination of popular deductions. Or it could mean an entirely new tax, such as a value-added tax or a carbon tax.”

It would have been only a little more likely to hear a candidate say, as another economist said after the fiscal deal was reached, “We need a tax system that can promote economic growth and raise the revenue the American people want to devote to government.”

The first quote came from a column in The New York Times by N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist. The second statement was made W. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of the Columbia University business school, who was chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers when the Bush tax cuts were enacted. He went on to say, a Times article reported, that some Bush-era policies were no longer relevant to the task of tailoring a tax code to a properly sized government.

Mr. Mankiw and Mr. Hubbard were among the top economic advisers to Mr. Romney. If they advised him to make similar statements during the campaign, he did not take the advice.

“Fiscal negotiations might become a bit easier if everyone started by agreeing that the policies we choose must be constrained by the laws of arithmetic,” Mr. Mankiw added.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and the economy at nytimes.com/economix.

Read More..