Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (305776)	5/25/2011 7:24:57 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

NPR Newsroom 'Deeply Concerned' About Taking Money From George Soros .......................................................... Glynnis MacNicol \| May 25, 2011 businessinsider.com Last year NPR announced that it was accepting $1.8 million from the Open Society Foundations, which you likely know is funded by George Soros. The money is being used to fund a local-national initiative, known as the Impact on Government project. According to NPR the plan is to have two public radio reporters in every state keeping tabs on state government issues. So far, so good? Not really. The NPR newsroom was apparently less than thrilled that NPR had accepted Soros money. NPR's ombudsman Alicia Shepard writes that "a deep current of concern has run through the newsroom about taking money from someone with a well-known, documented political agenda supporting Democrats and Democratic causes." From one staffer: "I remember the email announcing the Impact of Government project only mentioned the Open Society Institute...My cubicle mate immediately said, 'Isn't that Soros?' We Googled to confirm...and were appalled that his name had not been included, as if the company didn't think it was important or were trying to hide something." Apparently this discomfort is widespread. So much so, President and CEO of Chicago's powerhouse WBEZ stations Torey Malatia declined to even apply for the funding. Read more: businessinsider.com

To: tejek who wrote (305776)	5/25/2011 7:55:43 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Obama budget receives zero votes in Senate ["Not a single Democrat voted for it] ................................................... The Hill By Jordan Fabian - 05/25/11 thehill.com No senators voted for President Obama's 2012 budget when it came up for a vote in the Senate Wednesday. A procedural vote to move forward on the president's plan failed 0-97.

To: tejek who wrote (305776)	5/25/2011 8:02:29 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

MSNBC suspends Schultz for calling Ingraham a 'slut' May 25, 2011 politico.com MSNBC has suspended Ed Schultz for one week without pay for calling Laura Ingraham a ‘right-wing slut’ on his radio program Tuesday. “Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” MSNBC said in a statement Wednesday evening. Schultz will address the remarks on his television show Wednesday night, and begin his leave immediately afterward, MSNBC said. "MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program," MSNBC said. The Daily Caller first noted the epithet in the midst of Schultz's critique of Ingraham’s criticisms of the president’s trip to Ireland. “And what do the Republicans thinking about?” Schultz said. “They’re not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They’re just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.” Feminists, not normally ones to line up behind conservative talk radio hosts, were outraged at the comment. The Women’s Media Center, the nonprofit founded by Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, sent out an alert urging MSNBC to suspend Schultz. (See: Schultz sued over TV deal) “While conservative bloggers and watchdog organizations are highlighting Schultz’s remark, the Women’s Media Center also calls on MSNBC to suspend Schultz for his comments, since they not only attack Ingraham, but all women,” the group wrote in an alert Wednesday, according the Daily Caller. “Ms. Ingraham is no friend to the Women’s Media Center, but a sexist and misogynist attack based on her gender and not her political views or comments is harmful to women in media, politics, and beyond.”

To: tejek who wrote (305776)	5/31/2011 4:00:15 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Breaking: Kloppenburg concedes; ............................................................. May 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey hotair.com JoAnn Kloppenburg finally conceded the Wisconsin Supreme Court race this morning, announcing that she had called incumbent Justice David Prosser to congratulate him on his win. She had until today to file a challenge to the recount, which gained her 312 votes but still left her slightly over 7,000 votes behind Prosser in the hotly-contested election: Candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg has accepted the results of the recount in her state Supreme Court race and conceded to incumbent Justice David Prosser. Prosser originally won the election by 7,316 votes, out of 1.5 million cast. Kloppenburg requested a statewide recount through, which she picked up 312 votes. She had until Tuesday to decide whether to challenge the results in court.Prosser’s campaign has said there’s no basis for a challenge and it’s time to move on. The news conference is still ongoing, although the TMJ4 live stream provided by the Journal-Sentinel has the sound turned off. Stay tuned for more … Update: Again, I missed her statement, but 620TMJ has a couple of quotes: Kloppenburg asked for a statewide recount after preliminary figures had her losing to Prosser. “Wisconsin law makes it clear that even when such a record has been developed in such a recount, the threshold for a court to overturn such an election is appropriately very high,” said Kloppenburg. “It would serve no purpose to bring a suit with insufficient legal basis.” Why not? The recount had insufficient common-sense basis, and Kloppenburg didn’t hesitate to spend taxpayer money on a fruitless attempt to reverse a 7316-vote deficit. Maybe it would serve no purpose because Kloppenburg would foot the bill in an election challenge — and because she might want to run for office again in a state that would get pretty angry over a nonsensical challenge to a 7000-vote margin loss.