HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Dalai_1 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Nov 6, 2007, 08:55 AM
Number of posts: 1,117

Journal Archives

Daily Show,'Colbert Report' Cease Streaming online Due to Viacom vs Direct TV Battle

The battle between DirecTV and Viacom has just claimed a big casualty: Online streaming episodes of "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report."

Viacom and DirecTV have been publicly battling over DirecTV's reluctance to pay the fees Viacom demands to carry their 26 channels. On Tuesday evening, the satellite provider dropped Viacom channels, including Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV, from their lineup.

DirecTV has noted to customers that although they are losing Comedy Central on DirecTV, anyone can easily watch popular shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" on the Internet, where videos found on official Comedy Central websites are embeddable so they can be played on other sites (such as The Huffington Post).

But Viacom continued to play hardball. As of Thursday, full episodes of the shows have been removed from the official "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" websites, although individual clips of the episodes are still available.

The move is likely to upset viewers who do not subscribe to DirecTV, but who will still be unable to watch full episodes of their favorite shows due to the two corporations' feud. Presumably, the suspension will not be permanent, and episodes will resume streaming online when DirecTV and Viacom reach an agreement to reinstate Viacom programming.

Both "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are on hiatus this week, but their official websites are running ads encouraging fans to call DirecTV to voice support of Viacom shows.


Voter ID: The GOP's Last Gasp

From Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum| Fri Jul. 13, 2012 3:00 AM PD

Voter ID Laws Are the Last Gasp of a Fading GOP Strategy

I wrote about the long-standing hope of Democrats that demographic changes are working in their favor and will soon create a durable national Dem majority. There are several moving parts to this theory, but the two big ones are (a) young people are trending Democratic, and (b) the Dem-leaning nonwhite population is getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know, Republicans don't really deny that these things are happening. After all, the trend in the youth vote jumps out in every poll, and the growing nonwhite share of the population is regularly front-page news. George Bush and Karl Rove, who desperately wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill in 2006 in order to stanch the flow of Hispanic votes into the Democratic column, knew perfectly well how important this was.

So what's the Republican response to all this? They have two options:

Start to move leftward on social issues, especially gay marriage, in order to win back their share of the youth vote; tone down the anti-immigration rhetoric from the tea partiers; and stop tolerating casual racism among their core supporters.


Double down on the demographic groups who already support them. This is basically the South, angry white men, the rich, and the elderly.

Eventually, they might be forced to adopt Option 1, but for now they seem to have abandoned the idea of pushing back against their base (as Democrats eventually did in the late '80s), and instead have gone all in on Option 2. There are two elements to this. The first is to push ever harder for higher turnout among the Fox News set. That was pretty successful in 2010,when the "enthusiasm gap" powered a Republican landslide that year. But there's only so far that can go"

For All of It Go To Source:


Three Reasons why Romney's Quit Date Matters

So what? Three reasons why it matters:

Outsourcing. There are two Democratic attacks that Romney has defended himself from by citing the 1999 departure date from Bain: that he's an outsourcer and that he's a corporate raider. President Obama's ad calling Romney an "outsourcing pioneer" are based on a June 21 Washington Post story looking at how Bain, led by Romney, was an early outsourcer. FactCheck.org rates the Obama commercial false, because much of the outsourcing happened after 1999. For example, Bain didn't become a majority shareholder in Stream International, which set up call centers overseas, until later in 1999. A subsidiary created by the deal, Modus Media, closed a California plant in 2000 and opened one up in Guadalajara, Mexico. Again, FactCheck.org rated the Obama ad based on the Modus outsourcing false, because Romney said he'd left Bain in 1999. The same goes for SMTC, which closed plants in Denver and opened them up in Mexico in 2001.

Corporate raiding. As for the corporate raider charge, Obama's campaign says Bain took over companies, extracted huge fees, and then let them fail. One example is Ampad, which NPR's Planet Money has cited as an example of private equity gone wrong. Bain bought the paper company in 1992, took on a ton of debt, and the promised turnaround never happened. Instead, Planet Money explains, workers lost their jobs, stockholders were "wiped out," and lenders "got back a fraction of what they were owed." But so what? Ampad declared bankruptcy in January 2000, almost a year after Romney's official quit date. But the Globe's report makes that more complicated. Likewise, GS Industries, which Bain formed in the early 1990s by merging multiple steel plants, went bankrupt in 2001, "two years after Romney left Bain," as the Los Angeles Times reported. Or one year before he left?

Legal issues. There are legal implications no matter which date is correct. Romney's most recent federal financial disclosure form says that "Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way." Earlier this month, in evaluating the truth of an ad by President Obama's campaign calling Romney an outsourcer, FactCheck.org said that if Romney hadn't really left Bain when he said he did, "then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony."

But the Boston Globe says that if he did leave in 1999, and kept being listed as controlling the firm, that could be problematic too. Former SEC commissioner Roberta S. Karmel told the Globe:

"If someone invested with Bain Capital because they believed Mitt Romney was a great fund manager, and it turns out he wasn’t really doing anything, that could be considered a misrepresentation to the investor... It’s a theory that could be used in a lawsuit against him."



Reid: Romney ‘Couldn’t Be Confirmed As Dog Catcher’ By The Senate

SAHIL KAPUR JULY 12, 2012, 12:52 PM 2857
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Thursday that new revelations about Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital mean he’d have trouble gaining Senate approval for pretty much any job.

“He not only couldn’t be confirmed as a cabinet secretary, he couldn’t be confirmed as dog catcher,” Reid told reporters at a Capitol press briefing, in response to a question from TPM. “Because a dog catcher, you’re at least going to want to look at his income tax returns.”

“The long report that we have in the Boston Globe today indicates that, as one of his own employees said, it doesn’t make sense,” Reid continued. “He said he left Bain to go to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and stopped any association with Bain. But his SEC filings indicated that he was Chief Executive Officer, sole stockholder, and ran the corporation for at least 3 more years. And that’s why people who say there’s been advertisements where businesses were closed, people laid off - and he says oh I wasn’t there, I left in 1999. As his own operative said, it doesn’t make sense. And it doesn’t.”

Source and More


SEC said "Romney was the Controlling Person of Bain Capital in 2001

SEC Rule 405 of definition of "Controlling"

Control. The term control (including the terms controlling, controlled by and under common control with) means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.


Public Filings Disagree on Romney's Role at Bain Capital in 1999

Mitt in 2011: I retired from Bain Capital in 1999

Public Financial Disclosure Report (pdf) dated August 12, 2011. Signatory: Mitt Romney.
via Factcheck.org

Bain Capital affiliate in 2001: Mitt is still in charge

EC 13D Filing of US LEC Corp. (then a Bain Capital affiliate) dated February 11, 2001. Signatory: Michael Krupka, Managing Director at Bain Capital Investors IV, Inc.
via TPM


Mitt Romney Stayed at Bain 3 Yrs Longer than He Stated-Boston Globe

Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated
Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999
By Callum Borchers and Christopher Rowland | GLOBE CORRESPONDENT | GLOBE STAFF JULY 12, 2012

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.



Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm

EXCLUSIVE: Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm That Profited on US Outsourcing
—By David Corn | Wed Jul. 11, 2012 8:10 PM PDT

Last month, Mitt Romney's campaign got into a dustup with the Washington Post after the newspaper reported that Bain Capital, the private equity firm the GOP presidential candidate founded, invested in several US companies that outsourced jobs to China and India. The campaign indignantly demanded a retraction, claiming that these businesses did not send jobs overseas while Romney was running Bain, and the Post stood by its investigation. Yet there is another aspect to the Romney-as-outsourcer controversy. According to government documents reviewed by Mother Jones, Romney, when he was in charge of Bain, invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.

This previously unreported deal runs counter to Romney's tough talk on the campaign trail regarding China. "We will not let China continue to steal jobs from the United States of America," Romney declared in February. But with this investment, Romney sought to make money off a foreign company that banked on American firms outsourcing manufacturing overseas.



Bain & Co.Employed "Director of Outsourcing"

"Bain & Co., the management consulting company Mitt Romney worked at before leaving with several colleagues to found the private equity firm Bain Capital, employed a "director of outsourcing," according to news reports.

Mark Gottfredson, now a director at the firm's Dallas office, has worked and written extensively about corporate outsourcing strategies — including a piece in Harvard Business Review on the successes 7-Eleven had in so-called capability sourcing.



Mitt Romney's Refusal to Release More Tax Returns

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »