‘Killing Lincoln’ Producer: John Wilkes Booth Could Be ‘Poster Child for the Tea Party’






NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) – Erik Jendresen, writer and executive producer of the upcoming Nat Geo film “Killing Lincoln,” says presidential assassin John Wilkes Booth could have been a modern-day “poster child for the Tea Party.”


Jendresen spoke about the film, which stars Billy Campbell as Lincoln, at the Television Critics Association winter press tour. The film is based on the book co-written by “O’Reilly Factor” host Bill O’Reilly, a noted supporter of many Tea Party ideals.






Jendresen stressed that Booth wasn’t a madman, but held views that were fairly common at the time of the assassination.


“This is not the act of somebody who can be easily dismissed as a psychopath so that it’s easy to understand: ‘Oh, well, he was crazy.’ No. It’s more disturbing to find out who Booth was,” Jendresen said. “This is a man who believed what still probably 20 percent of this country still believes. He could be a poster child for the Tea Party.”


Asked if he thought Bill O’Reilly would agree with that assessment, he passed.


“I can’t speak for Mr. O’Reilly,” he told TheWrap. “I think that if you look at the sort of politics of the time, and a lot of the epithets that were being hurled at Lincoln, there was a feeling in the nation that’s not dissimilar from what we’ve experienced in the past four years in response to Barack Obama – the sense of an imperial presidency or soundbytes about somebody who’s going to proclaim himself king and take over.”


“It’s stunning to me to read some of the newspaper articles and some of the interviews of the time, some of the contents of the letters and memoirs from the time and some of the things that were thought about Lincoln in the South are so similar to … the dialogue today,” he added.


Nat Geo was previously criticized by conservatives who felt that its film “Seal Team Six,” about the killing of Osama bin Laden, amounted to a campaign ad for President Obama.


Contacted through Fox News, O’Reilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Movies 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..

India Takes Aim at Poverty With Cash Transfer Program


Manish Swarup/Associated Press


Poor and homeless people waited for food on Tuesday at a New Delhi temple.







NEW DELHI — India has more poor people than any nation on earth, but many of its antipoverty programs end up feeding the rich more than the needy. A new program hopes to change that.




On Jan. 1, India eliminated a raft of bureaucratic middlemen by depositing government pension and scholarship payments directly into the bank accounts of about 245,000 people in 20 of the nation’s hundreds of districts, in a bid to prevent corrupt state and local officials from diverting much of the money to their own pockets. Hundreds of thousands more people will be added to the program in the coming months.


In a country of 1.2 billion, the numbers so far are modest, but some officials and economists see the start of direct payments as revolutionary — a program intended not only to curb corruption but also to serve as a vehicle for lifting countless millions out of poverty altogether.


The nation’s finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, described the cash transfer program to Indian news media as a “pioneering and pathbreaking reform” that is a “game changer for governance.” He acknowledged that the initial rollout had been modest because of “practical difficulties, some quite unforeseen.” He promised that those problems would be resolved before the end of 2013, when the program is to be extended in phases to other parts of the country.


Some critics, however, said the program was intended more to buy votes among the poor than to overcome poverty. And some said that in a country where hundreds of millions have no access to banks, never mind personal bank accounts, direct electronic money transfers are only one aspect of a much broader effort necessary to build a real safety net for India’s vast population.


“An impression has been created that the government is about to launch an ambitious scheme of direct cash transfers to poor families,” Jean Drèze, an honorary professor at the Delhi School of Economics, wrote in an e-mail. “This is quite misleading. What the government is actually planning is an experiment to change the modalities of existing transfers — nothing more, nothing less.”


The program is based on models in Mexico and Brazil in which poor families receive stipends in exchange for meeting certain social goals, like keeping their children in school or getting regular medical checkups. International aid organizations have praised these efforts in several places; in Brazil alone, nearly 50 million people participate.


But one of India’s biggest hurdles is simply figuring out how to distinguish its 1.2 billion citizens. The country is now in the midst of another ambitious project to undertake retinal and fingerprint scans in every village and city in the hope of giving hundreds of millions who have no official identification a card with a 12-digit number that would, among other things, give them access to the modern financial world. After three years of operation, the program has issued unique numbers to 220 million people.


Bindu Ananth, the president of IFMR Trust, a financial charity, said that getting people bank accounts can be surprisingly beneficial because the poor often pay stiff fees to cash checks or get small loans, fees that are substantially reduced for account holders.


“I think this is one of the biggest things to happen to India’s financial system in a decade,” Ms. Ananth said.


Only about a third of Indian households have bank accounts. Getting a significant portion of the remaining households included in the nation’s financial system will take an enormous amount of additional effort and expense, at least part of which will fall on the government to bear, economists said.


“There are two things this cash transfer program is supposed to do: prevent leakage from corruption, and bring everybody into the system,” said Surendra L. Rao, a former director general of the National Council of Applied Economic Research. “And I don’t see either happening anytime soon.”


The great promise of the cash transfer program — as well as its greatest point of contention — would come if it tackled India’s expensive and inefficient system for handing out food and subsidized fuel through nearly 50,000 government shops.


India spends almost $14 billion annually on this system, or nearly 1 percent of its gross domestic product, but the system is poorly managed and woefully inefficient.


Malavika Vyawahare contributed reporting.



Read More..

State parks officials deliberately hid millions, report says









SACRAMENTO — Fear of embarrassment and budget cuts led high officials at the California parks department to conceal millions of dollars, according a new investigation by the state attorney general's office.


The money remained hidden for years until it was exposed by a new staff member who described a culture of secrecy and fear at the department.


The attorney general's report, released Friday, is the most detailed official account so far of the financial scandal at the parks department. The controversy broke last summer with the revelation that parks officials had a hidden surplus of nearly $54 million at a time when the administration was threatening to close dozens of the facilities.





Although much of the accounting issues appeared to stem from innocent mistakes and discrepancies, the report said, about $20 million had been deliberately stashed away.


The report said the problem seemed to begin with calculation errors more than a decade ago. But when those mistakes were discovered in 2002, officials made a "conscious and deliberate" decision not to reveal the existence of the extra money, the report said.


Parks officials concealed the funds partly because they were embarrassed, the report said. But they were also worried that their funding would be cut further if state number-crunchers knew they had a larger reserve, according to interviews conducted by a deputy attorney general.


Parks officials underreported the amount of money they had to the Department of Finance, preventing lawmakers from including the extra funds in state spending plans.


The money "was intended to be a safety net," said Manuel Lopez, a former deputy director at the department, who was interviewed in the probe. Lopez resigned in May while being investigated for a separate scheme allowing employees to be improperly paid for unused vacation days.


Multiple high-ranking officials were involved in concealing the parks money, including Lopez and Michael Harris, the chief deputy director who was fired after the scandal broke. Evidence suggests that the initial decision to keep the money secret was made by Tom Domich, an assistant deputy director who left the department in 2004, the report said.


Domich "unpersuasively denies … his role in the deception," according to the report. The Times was unable to reach Domich on Friday.


Staff members who pointed out financial problems were ignored by their bosses.


"Throughout this period of intentional non-disclosure, some parks employees consistently requested, without success, that their superiors address the issue," the report said.


It is unclear whether ousted director Ruth Coleman knew about the accounting problems, the report said. She declined to be interviewed for the investigation; participation was voluntary for former parks personnel.


Officials have not yet determined whether criminal charges will be filed. There's no evidence that any money was stolen or used improperly, the report said.


The accounting problems were eventually exposed by Aaron Robertson, who started an administrative job at the parks department in January 2012. He told a deputy attorney general that people felt uncomfortable raising concerns at the department.


"There was a great deal of distrust," he said. "People felt somewhat fearful of coming forward with information."


John Laird, the California natural resources secretary who oversees the parks department, 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 said in a statement.


A new parks director, retired Marine Maj. Gen. Anthony Jackson, was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown to replace Coleman in November. Robertson was promoted to become his deputy.


The attorney general's investigation is the third report on the parks department in the last month. One more report, from the state auditor, is due this month.


chris.megerian@latimes.com





Read More..

A Google-a-Day Puzzle for Jan. 5











Our good friends at Google run a daily puzzle challenge and asked us to help get them out to the geeky masses. Each day’s puzzle will task your googling skills a little more, leading you to Google mastery. Each morning at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time you’ll see a new puzzle posted here.


SPOILER WARNING:
We leave the comments on so people can work together to find the answer. As such, if you want to figure it out all by yourself, DON’T READ THE COMMENTS!


Also, with the knowledge that because others may publish their answers before you do, if you want to be able to search for information without accidentally seeing the answer somewhere, you can use the Google-a-Day site’s search tool, which will automatically filter out published answers, to give you a spoiler-free experience.


And now, without further ado, we give you…


TODAY’S PUZZLE:



Note: Ad-blocking software may prevent display of the puzzle widget.




Ken is a husband and father from the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works as a civil engineer. He also wrote the NYT bestselling book "Geek Dad: Awesomely Geeky Projects for Dads and Kids to Share."

Read more by Ken Denmead

Follow @fitzwillie and @wiredgeekdad on Twitter.



Read More..

Madonna, Bruce Springsteen biggest 2012 world tours






LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Pop and rock music legends bested their younger chart-topping competition on the concert trail in 2012, according to data released on Friday by trade publication Pollstar.


Pop matriarch Madonna, 54, led all competition, grossing some $ 296.1 million in ticket sales in her 88-show world tour. She topped Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band ($ 210.2 million) and Pink Floyd founder Roger Waters ($ 186.4 million).






The elder statesmen of the music world, while no longer topping the charts or scoring radio hits, are doing well because their older audiences can afford to pay higher ticket prices, Gary Bongiovanni, Pollstar editor, told Reuters.


“Certainly the older acts charge more because they can get away with it,” he said.


The Rolling Stones were able to command an eye-popping $ 529.51 average ticket price. Their five-show tour in November and December grossed $ 35.5 million, good enough for No. 33 on the list.


British rockers Coldplay were No. 4 on the list, taking in $ 171.3 million. Lady Gaga placed fifth grossing $ 161.4 million while at No. 6 Cirque Du Soleil‘s tribute to late King of Pop Michael Jackson grossed $ 140.2 million during a 172-show tour.


Teen sensation Justin Bieber, who played a 35-show tour, failed to crack the top 20, taking in $ 40.2 million, at No. 23.


Acts that cemented their reputations decades ago dominated the top-grossing tours even while playing fewer shows.


Country stars Kenny Chesney and Tim McGraw placed seventh grossing $ 96.5 million in 23 shows, while heavy metal pioneers Metallica were one spot lower at $ 86.1 million over 30 shows.


Some artists have been enticed to jack-up their own ticket prices after seeing how much more re-sellers were able to command, Bongiovanni explained.


“Now it’s a matter of how much money can I make,” he said. “Some artists like Springsteen are very popular but if you look at their average ticket price it’s nowhere near Roger Waters, Madonna and Lady Gaga.”


The average face-value ticket price for a Springsteen concert was $ 91.95, which was well below the $ 140.38 average for Madonna and $ 110.96 for Roger Waters.


Eight separate Cirque Du Soleil shows appeared in the top 50, which did not include the circus company’s non-traveling shows in Las Vegas and elsewhere. All told, the Canadian company may have earned close to $ 1 billion in gross ticket sales, Bongiovanni said.


Elton John ($ 69.9 million) and Red Hot Chili Peppers ($ 57.8 million) rounded out the top 10.


(Reporting by Eric Kelsey, editing by Jill Serjeant)


Music News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: Madonna, Bruce Springsteen biggest 2012 world tours
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/madonna-bruce-springsteen-biggest-2012-world-tours/
Link To Post : Madonna, Bruce Springsteen biggest 2012 world tours
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..

F.D.A. Offers Rules to Stop Food Contamination





The Food and Drug Administration on Friday proposed two sweeping rules aimed at preventing the contamination of produce and processed foods, which has sickened tens of thousands of Americans annually in recent years.







Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Checking the temperature of lettuce at an Arizona farm. Safety measures would start at farms.







The proposed rules represent a sea change in the way the agency polices food, a process that currently involves taking action after contamination has been identified. It is a long-awaited step toward codifying the food safety law that Congress passed two years ago.


Changes include requirements for better record keeping, contingency plans for handling outbreaks and measures that would prevent the spread of contaminants in the first place. While food producers would have latitude in determining how to execute the rules, farmers would have to ensure that water used in irrigation met certain standards and food processors would need to find ways to keep fresh food that may contain bacteria from coming into contact with food that has been cooked.


New safety measures might include requiring that farm workers wash their hands, installing portable toilets in fields and ensuring that foods are cooked at temperatures high enough to kill bacteria.


Whether consumers will ultimately bear some of the expense of the new rules was unclear, but the agency estimated that the proposals would cost food producers tens of thousands of dollars a year.


A big question to be resolved is whether Congress will approve the money necessary to support the oversight. President Obama requested $220 million in his 2013 budget, but Dr. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the F.D.A., said “resources remain an ongoing concern.”


Nonetheless, agency officials were optimistic that the new rules would protect consumers better.


“These new rules really set the basic framework for a modern, science-based approach to food safety and shift us from a strategy of reacting to problems to a strategy for preventing problems,” Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said in an interview. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for the safety of about 80 percent of the food that Americans consume. The rest falls to the Agriculture Department, which is responsible for meat, poultry and some eggs.


One in six Americans becomes ill from eating contaminated food each year, the government estimates; most of them recover without concern, but roughly 130,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die. The agency estimated the new rules could prevent about 1.75 million illnesses each year.


Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2010 after a wave of incidents involving tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands of people and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.


But it took the Obama administration two years to move the rules through the regulatory agency, prompting complaints that the White House was more concerned about protecting itself from Republican criticism than about public safety.


Mr. Taylor said that the delay was a function of the wide variety of foods and the complexity of the food system. “Anything that is important and complicated will always take longer than you would like,” he said.


The first rule would require manufacturers of processed foods sold in the United States to come up with ways to reduce the risk of contamination. Food companies would be required to have a plan for correcting problems and for keeping records that government inspectors could audit.


An example might be to require the roasting of raw peanuts at a temperature guaranteed to kill salmonella, which has been a problem in nut butters in recent years. Roasted nuts would then have to be kept separate from raw nuts to further reduce the risk of contamination, said Sandra B. Eskin, director of the safe food campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts.


“This is very good news for consumers,” Ms. Eskin said. “We applaud the administration’s action, which demonstrates its strong commitment to making our food safer.”


The second rule would apply to the harvesting and production of fruits and vegetables in an effort to combat bacterial contamination like E. coli, which is transmitted through feces. It would address what advocates refer to as the “four Ws” — water, waste, workers and wildlife.


Read More..

Op-Ed Contributors: Is Google Like Gas or Like Steel?





AFTER a two-year investigation, the Federal Trade Commission concluded this week that Google’s search practices did not violate antitrust law. Those who wanted to see an epic battle like the one the government fought with Microsoft in the 1990s were sorely disappointed. But the analogy to the browser war of the Web’s early days was never the right one. It failed to capture the dangers free speech would have faced if regulators had agreed with Google’s critics.




The theories that many critics advanced — that search must be “neutral” because it is akin to a public utility, or that computer-generated search results are not speech and therefore not protected under the First Amendment — would have undermined free press principles across the Internet. That the F.T.C. decision permits Google to continue to use its judgment in analyzing search requests and presenting pertinent results is a victory for online expression and is consistent with First Amendment law since the 1940s.


Seven decades ago, a lawsuit against The Associated Press applied antitrust rules to the media and was resolved in a way that ultimately protected First Amendment interests. This case was always a better parallel than Microsoft to the F.T.C. investigation of Google. Like Google today, The A.P. had extraordinary influence. Then as now there were questions about whether something more than common antitrust law should govern companies that play such an important role in the delivery of information to the public.


Back then, the Justice Department alleged that A.P. bylaws allowed its member papers to impede local competitors by denying them access to The A.P.’s expansive news network. A trial court agreed but applied a theory far broader than routine antitrust law. It held that news was not an “ordinary” product like “steel” governed solely by antitrust, but rather something more “vital” because it was “clothed with a public interest.”


In other words, the trial court wanted to treat the mass media like a public utility, which carried considerable consequences. For example, while it would be illegal under antitrust law for a large steel company to conspire with competitors to fix prices, that company has no obligation to sell to every carmaker that wants steel. A public utility, on the other hand, has to serve everyone in the marketplace equally. Applying that standard to The A.P. would have opened the door to far broader regulation and could, in theory, have meant something as absurd as requiring newspapers to cover every press release or publish every letter to the editor.


When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1945, the modern understanding of the First Amendment, with its insistence on an independent news media, had yet to take shape. So it was with great significance that — even though The A.P. lost its appeal and had to allow more access to its services — the court steered entirely clear of the public-utility model. It looked instead to standard antitrust law in finding The A.P.’s conduct to be a classic restraint on trade.


The court went further in setting down a marker that to this day restrains government regulation of the media. Justice Hugo L. Black, who would become a leading champion of the First Amendment, wrote that nothing in the ruling could “compel A.P. or its members to permit publication of anything which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”


This began a historic run in which the court transformed the media into an institution with the autonomy to serve as a check on government power. The First Amendment as we know it would look very different if public utility obligations had been forced onto the press that day.


If The A.P. was concerned about a regulator in every newsroom, Google was concerned about a regulator in every algorithm.


Advocates of aggressive action against Google saw the computer algorithms behind search as a utility that should be heavily regulated like the gas or electricity that flows into our homes. But search engines need to make choices about what results are most relevant to a query, just as a news editor must decide which stories deserve to be on the front page. Requiring “search neutrality” would have placed the government in the business of policing the speech of the Internet’s information providers. To quote Justice Black, it would have made search engines publish those results “which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.”


Others argued that the F.T.C. did not need to be guided by First Amendment concerns at all because search results are created by computers, not by human beings. Yet computers “speak” in many ways today. Lawmakers could have used F.T.C. precedent against Google to regulate the content of Amazon’s book recommendations, the locations on Bing’s maps, the news stories that trend on Facebook and Twitter, and many other online expressions of social and political importance.


The F.T.C. resisted these harmful theories, and as a result speakers all over the Internet won. But that doesn’t mean Google is exempt from regulation. The First Amendment is not a grant of immunity for any business, and antitrust scrutiny does not end where editorial judgment begins. But the A.P. case shows that antitrust laws can be enforced while protecting the right of a free press to print what it chooses and nothing more.


This makes regulation of the media difficult. But regulating speech should not be easy, like regulating a public utility, but hard, as the F.T.C. has correctly found.


Bruce D. Brown is the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a lecturer at the University of Virginia Law School. Alan B. Davidson is a visiting scholar at M.I.T.’s Technology and Policy Program and a former director of public policy for the Americas at Google.



Read More..

Audit of L.A. County assessor's office urges key changes









An audit of the embattled Los Angeles County assessor's office released late Thursday recommends key changes, including the appointment of a chief deputy with "managerial competence" and the requirement that private tax consultants register with the county.


Conducted by Strategica Inc., the audit comes as elected Assessor John Noguez fights accusations that he pocketed $185,000 in bribes from a prominent tax consultant and campaign contributor who requested lower tax appraisals on client properties.


Though the audit did not comment specifically on Noguez's alleged malfeasance, its authors wrote that the controversy had helped undermine public confidence in the department with potentially grave results.





"If taxpayers feel that the property tax system in Los Angeles County is being gamed by politically connected taxpayers or contributors to the Assessor's political campaigns then they will be tempted to game the system themselves to re-establish equity," the auditors wrote.


As a means of improving overall management of the department and restoring integrity, auditors said, the county charter should be amended so that supervisors could appoint a permanent chief deputy with strong management and tax assessment skills. Doing so would ensure institutional knowledge and continuity as newly elected assessors rotate through the post.


The position also would make up for the elected official's operational shortcomings.


"The criteria for being the Assessor is not management experience but rather the number of votes received," the auditors wrote.


To avoid potential abuses or the perception of favoritism, the county should adopt new rules that essentially treat tax agents as lobbyists, requiring them to register with the county, prohibiting them from offering gifts and outlining exactly which officials they are authorized to negotiate with.


The audit released Thursday is one of four that have been commissioned by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. It will be formally presented to the board Tuesday.


Among other findings, auditors cited a significant "brain drain" in the assessor's office: 44% of its senior managers have left since 2010 and have been replaced by managers who lack experience or training in running a department. Additionally, the report said, staffers have been given very little supervisory or management training since 2007.


The assessor's office oversees 2.4 million parcels and has a staff of almost 1,400 employees, making it the largest assessment jurisdiction in the nation.


In the last five years, the office has seen the number of assessment appeals quadruple. That increased workload, combined with an antiquated computer system, has greatly increased staff workload, according to the report. Auditors recommended establishing a $35 fee for the filing of all assessment appeals, to help offset expenses and to deter frivolous appeals.


Supervisors called for the audit in April after several stories by The Times about allegations that Noguez and his staff were giving tax breaks to political supporters, who then donated to Noguez's campaign fund. About the same time, Noguez gave two conflicting projections of 2012-2013 tax roll revenues. In December 2011, Noguez estimated that the county's property tax base would grow by $18.7 billion, but then changed the number to $5.1 billion.


So far, the ongoing probe at the assessor's office has resulted in the arrests of Noguez, his chief deputy Mark McNeil, former county appraiser Scott Schenter and private tax consultant Ramin Salari. All four have pleaded not guilty to numerous charges, including conspiracy, bribery and misappropriation of public funds.


To date, auditors have completed three of four audits that the board has requested. The next audit will focus on properties with reductions in value exceeding 20%.


ruben.vives@latimes.com





Read More..

A Google-a-Day Puzzle for Jan. 4











Our good friends at Google run a daily puzzle challenge and asked us to help get them out to the geeky masses. Each day’s puzzle will task your googling skills a little more, leading you to Google mastery. Each morning at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time you’ll see a new puzzle posted here.


SPOILER WARNING:
We leave the comments on so people can work together to find the answer. As such, if you want to figure it out all by yourself, DON’T READ THE COMMENTS!


Also, with the knowledge that because others may publish their answers before you do, if you want to be able to search for information without accidentally seeing the answer somewhere, you can use the Google-a-Day site’s search tool, which will automatically filter out published answers, to give you a spoiler-free experience.


And now, without further ado, we give you…


TODAY’S PUZZLE:



Note: Ad-blocking software may prevent display of the puzzle widget.




Ken is a husband and father from the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works as a civil engineer. He also wrote the NYT bestselling book "Geek Dad: Awesomely Geeky Projects for Dads and Kids to Share."

Read more by Ken Denmead

Follow @fitzwillie and @wiredgeekdad on Twitter.



Read More..