Cherokees to protest Warren at convention

Cherokees angered by Elizabeth Warren’s claims of Native American heritage said today they’ll stand in silent protest against the embattled Senate candidate during Saturday’s Democratic Convention in Springfield.

“I believe we need a presence there. Warren hasn’t recanted her claims or apologized to the Cherokee people,” said David Cornsilk, a 53-year-old citizen of Cherokee Nation who co-created a group called “Cherokees Demand Truth from Elizabeth Warren.”

The protest will come as Warren’s Democratic rival Marisa DeFranco pushes to get 15 percent of delegate support at the Saturday convention in order to get on the ballot. Warren nabbed Gov. Deval Patrick’s endorsement yesterday, only three days before the convention as questions continue about whether she used her alleged roots to get a teaching job at Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania.

Cornsilk said Warren’s admission today that she did inform both ivy league schools of her alleged American Indian ties points to her character. Warren had originally said she didn’t know the universities were listing her as Native American until she read about it in the Boston Herald.

“I think there’s a pattern of deception that is emerging, and she’s showing that she did know and that she did do these things,” said Cornsilk.

Warren said she told the school about her claims of Native American links, but only after she already received a job.



Full article:  http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061135629

Israel Returns Remains of Palestinian Militants

Israel Returns Remains of Palestinian Militants

Photo:  AP

JERUSALEM — Israel on Thursday handed over the remains of 91 Palestinian militants, including suicide bombers, to the West Bank government in an effort to induce President Mahmoud Abbas to renew peace talks.

All 91 were killed over the past decades while carrying out suicide bombings or other attacks on Israeli targets, Palestinian officials said. At least one of the attacks dated back to the 1970s.

The bodies had been buried in coffins in Israel and were dug up for the transfer. The Palestinian official in charge of Thursday's transfer, Salem Khileh, said Israeli officials handed over the remains to Palestinian liaisons in the Jordan Valley.

Eighty bodies were then transported to Ramallah, and 11 to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Palestinian government ceremonies honoring the dead militants were to be held in the West Bank and Gaza later Thursday.

"We hope that this humanitarian gesture will serve both as a confidence-building measure and help get the peace process back on track," Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said. "Israel is ready for the immediate resumption of peace talks without any preconditions whatsoever."

Abbas has given no sign that the gesture would persuade him to return to talks.

On Wednesday, he reiterated that the Palestinians would not return to negotiations unless Israel freezes all settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Palestinians see those areas, captured by Israel in 1967, as the core of a future state that would also include Gaza.

Israel rejects that demand. Israeli-Palestinian talks stalled more than three years ago and have failed to take off again despite U.S. mediation, primarily because of the dispute over settlement construction.

Full article:  http://www.newsmaxworld.com/middle_east/israel_palestine_remains/2012/05/31/453722.html

Axelrod Booed by Pro-Romney Crowd in Boston

President Barack Obama’s top campaign adviser David Axelrod appeared rattled as he was booed and shouted down by Mitt Romney supporters during an appearance in Boston on Thursday, the New York Times reported.

What was meant to be a press conference criticizing the Republican nominee’s record as Massachusetts governor in front of the statehouse he once occupied turned into a kind of political rally for Romney supporters, who chanted, “We Want Mitt!” “Broken Record!” and “Go Back to Chicago!”

Axelrod and Democratic state lawmakers pressed on throughout the relentless chants and boos to make their case to the cameras—CNN carried it live—and Axelrod responded to the shouts at one point, saying, “You can’t handle the truth, my friend. You can’t handle the truth,” according to the Times. His attempts to attack Romney’s tenure as governor were mostly lost in the din of the chants. He said Massachusetts under Romney’s leadership was 47th in job creation, according to the Times and that its government expanded at a rate of 6.5 percent.

Axelrod also had to face questions from reporters about the Elizabeth Warren, who admitted yesterday for the first time that she claimed minority status as a Native American at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. Warren is the Democratic party’s front-runner in the campaign against incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown.


Full article:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/axelrod-booed-boston-romney/2012/05/31/id/440844

Romney Declares Solyndra a ‘Symbol of Failure’ for Obama

Romney Declares Solyndra a ‘Symbol of Failure’ for Obama



Photo:  AP


Mitt Romney visited the closed facilities of Solyndra LLC, the solar-panel manufacturer that went bankrupt after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, and called the company a “symbol of failure” for President Barack Obama’s administration.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee spoke today outside the factory Solyndra constructed with government funds at its headquarters in Fremont, California, terming it “the Taj Mahal of corporate headquarters.” The campaign didn’t disclose the speech location until Romney arrived.

“This building, this half-a-billion dollar taxpayer investment, represents a serious conflict of interest on the part of the president and his team,” Romney said.

The former Massachusetts governor has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration’s decision to extend the $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, saying it was part of a pattern of rewarding companies and people that supported the president with taxpayer dollars. The family foundation of Obama fundraiser George Kaiser was Solyndra’s biggest investor.

“Free enterprise to the president means taking money from the taxpayers and giving it freely to his friends,” Romney said.

FBI Raid

Solyndra, heralded by Obama as proof that “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith,” filed for bankruptcy last September, days before the FBI raided its headquarters. The company received its loan guarantee under an Energy Department program in September 2009.

Its demise has sparked investigations by Congress, the FBI and watchdogs at the Energy and Treasury departments.

“If the business had done spectacularly well, the shareholders -- his friends -- would have done very, very well, but the taxpayers would have just gotten their money back,” Romney said. “On the other hand, of course, if the business failed -- as it did -- it’s the taxpayers that get stuck with losing a half a billion dollars.”

Solyndra received funding through a program created under President George W. Bush’s administration that “has supported tens of thousands of jobs across the country,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said today in a news release.

“In fact, both Republican and Democratic administrations advanced Solyndra’s application, and the company was widely praised as successful and innovative both before and after receiving the Department of Energy loan guarantee,” Smith said.

Nomination Wrap-Up

Romney, 65, founder of Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC, sealed the Republican presidential nomination on May 29 by winning the Texas primary, which gave him more than the required 1,144 delegates.

Since then, Romney’s focus has been on raising campaign cash. He conducted a fundraiser last night in Hillsborough, California, where he was endorsed by two former secretaries of state: Condoleezza Rice, who served under Bush, and George Shultz, who held the post under President Ronald Reagan.

Romney, who holds another fundraiser tonight in Beverly Hills, also attacked Obama over Solyndra at the Hillsborough gathering.

U.S. Republican Boehner Holds Firm on No Tax-hike Pledge

U.S. Republican Boehner Holds Firm on No Tax-hike Pledge


House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner on Thursday dismissed suggestions that Republicans were warming to raising revenue as a part of a plan to cut the deficit, adding that tax hikes on millionaires would cost jobs.

The top Republican in Congress blasted a proposal from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to raise taxes only on those earning more than $1 million, saying it would hurt too many small business owners, who hire the most U.S. workers.

"I believe that raising taxes at this point in our recovery is a big mistake," Boehner told reporters. "At a time when we're trying to help small businesses create jobs, this proposal would kill jobs."

Boehner's comments came after some Senate Republicans recently indicated they might be willing to change some key parts of U.S. tax law to eliminate some exemptions, credits and deductions as a part of broad tax reforms that would allow income tax rates to be lowered while shrinking federal deficits.

In a sign of potential progress, a bipartisan group of 47 senators and as many House members are working with the leaders of a 2010 fiscal commission - former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and Democratic ex-White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles - on a plan to solve U.S. fiscal problems .

The commission's recommendations to shrink deficits through tax hikes and spending cuts were not adopted, but still serve as a model for some in Congress who favor a more pragmatic approach to deficit reduction.

A so-called "grand bargain" on taxes, deficit- and debt- reduction is not likely until after the Nov. 6 election, but both parties are trying to lay the groundwork for legislation to deal with the expiring tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush.

In April, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was overheard saying at a private fundraiser that he might seek to limit tax deductions for mortgages as a revenue-raising measure and reduce tax credits as part of a plan to slash U.S. tax rates by 20 percent.

Aides later said Romney was simply throwing out ideas, not outlining policy.

In the Republican-controlled House, where fiscal conservatives aligned with the Tea Party movement have held sway, any plan to bring in more tax revenue is expected to be extremely difficult to pass. Nearly all House Republicans have signed a pledge promoted by influential conservative activist Grover Norquist to reject tax increases.

Boehner told reporters that the House, in June, would vote to extend current tax rates into next year, bringing certainty to the tax code for businesses reluctant hire workers for fear of their tax bills rising.

The move is intended avoid a spike in rates that would hurt economic growth and to buy time for Congress to craft a broader tax reform plan, but it is likely to stall in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, Pelosi continued to push on Thursday for her plan to raise taxes on millionaires, which caused a stir last week because it represented a retreat from Democrats' longstanding position of raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.

"I urge the Speaker to bring a middle income tax cut to the floor of the House. Put on the table whatever you want to put on the table. Let's have that debate," Pelosi told reporters.

Reiterating a key campaign theme of President Barack Obama's Democrats, Pelosi said Republicans will show voters that they will go "to any length to protect the wealthiest people in America at the expense of the middle class."

More revenues are needed to shrink deficits, she added. "Everybody has to pay his or her fair share."


Full article:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-house-speaker-republican/2012/05/31/id/440836

Dershowitz: Edwards’ Jury Made Right Decision

Alan M. Dershowitz’s Perspective: It is a wise person who knows when not to decide. The jury in the John Edwards case rendered exactly the right verdict. Of course they couldn’t make up their mind on most of the charges. 

No rational person could.

The judge essentially instructed them to get into John Edwards’ mind (as well as into the minds of several other actors in this political soap opera) and to determine precisely what his intention was in receiving money from friends. 

If his intention was primarily personal (to try to save his marriage and not humiliate his wife any further), then there was no crime. But if his intent was primarily political (to help him get elected president), then there may have been a crime. 

Precisely how many angels were dancing on the head of that pin! No one, not even Edwards himself, could calculate the precise quantification of his complex and multiple intentions. This kind of decision should never be the subject of a criminal case, and the jury was right to find a reasonable doubt as to one of the charges and to throw its hands up as to the others.

All reasonable people should now hope that the Justice Department sees the light of day and does not seek a retrial. The jury has spoken, though ambiguously, and there is no reason to believe that another fairly picked jury will be able to discern the precise intentions of the actors with any greater certainty or precision.

This entire farce of a trial is part of a larger problem that infects not only America but other Western countries as well: the criminalization of policy differences and of personal sin. 

No one can justify what John Edwards did to his family, to American politics, and to himself. He will forever pay a steep price for his selfishness and arrogance. 

But it is not a price that all Americans should have to pay by the distortion of the criminal justice system into a Rorschach test, in which the jury is asked to interpret vague action and attribute precise intentions to actions done with mixed motives.

The criminal law should be limited to what I call “Hamlet decisions.” 

Before a person is charged with a serious crime, the government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually engaged in a “to be or not to be” decision — to be a felon or not to be a felon, to step over a clear line that separates criminality from sin! 

There is no reason to believe that John Edwards ever made that decision, because the law governing his conduct is vague, subjective and unclear in the extreme.

At the time of the founding of our Republic, there was a common expression that said that a criminal law must be so clear that a potential defendant “can read it while running and still understand it.” The law under which Edwards was tried was so unclear that a bevy of lawyers could not understand it while sitting and studying it for hours.

So let the remaining charges be dropped against John Edwards. Let him be relegated for his deserved place in history and let us reserve the criminal law for real felons who knowingly violate clear criminal statutes. 

If Congress wants to criminalize what Edwards was accused of doing, let it enact a clear law that gives fair warning to all politicians that they may not accept any gifts, regardless of intent. I doubt Congress will pass such a law. In the absence of clear guidance, the Edwards jury showed wisdom and common sense. Let’s hope the Justice Department now does the same.

Full article:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Edwards-corruption-trial/2012/05/31/id/440847

Author Ed Klein: Obama's Biggest Lie

Veteran journalist Edward Klein has shot to the top of the New York Times’ best-seller list with a blockbuster new book about Barack Obama — the president Klein calls the “most divisive in modern history.”

Klein’s book “Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,” which is debuting on the Times’ list at No. 1, is buttressed by nearly 200 interviews, many of them with insiders who know Obama best, and features explosive disclosures about one of the most secretive White Houses.

Klein is the former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, former foreign editor of Newsweek, and a contributing editor to Vanity Fair. He sat down in New York with former Congressman and Newsmax columnist John LeBoutillier for an exclusive interview about Klein’s expose, which is being hailed as the most riveting political book of the year.

LeBoutillier asked Klein what is the biggest lie Obama has told the American public.

“He promised that he would bring us together. He promised that he would not be partisan,” Klein responds. “He promised that he would reach out to the other side, the Republican side.

“Instead, he and his small little group of people in the White House hunkered down, have not reached out, not compromised, making it impossible for Washington to work.

“It’s not Republicans who are at fault here, it’s the president, who does not know how to use the leverage of power and his powers of persuasion. He’s the anti-Lyndon Johnson in that he doesn’t know how to get things done.

“And so he’s been more divisive, more partisan than any president we’ve seen in modern history.”

Full article:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/klein-obama-amateur-promises/2012/05/31/id/440846

Wisconsin unions see ranks drop ahead of recall vote

Wisconsin unions see ranks drop ahead of recall vote

Public-employee unions in Wisconsin have experienced a dramatic drop in membership -- by more than half for the second-biggest union -- since a law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker sharply curtailed their ability to bargain over wages and working conditions.

Now with Mr. Walker facing a recall vote Tuesday, voters will decide whether his policies in the centrist state should continue -- or whether they have gone too far.

The election could mark a pivot point for organized labor.

Mr. Walker's ouster would derail the political career of a rising Republican star and send a warning to other elected officials who are battling unions. But a victory for the governor, who has been leading his Democratic opponent in recent polls, would amount to an endorsement of an effort to curtail public-sector unions, which have been a pillar of strength for organized labor while private-sector membership has dwindled.

That could mean the sharp losses that some Wisconsin public-worker unions have experienced is a harbinger of similar unions' future nationwide, union leaders fear. Failure to oust Mr. Walker and overturn the Wisconsin law "spells doom," said Bryan Kennedy, the American Federation of Teachers' Wisconsin president.

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/wisconsin-unions-see-ranks-drop-ahead-recall-vote/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1wUTGqP00

John Edwards Beats the Rap But Bears the Scars of His Decisions

Photo:  AP

He could have been President of the United States. He was almost Vice President. But John Edwards did himself in, quite thoroughly. With the mistrial, he will not be welcomed back into Democratic Party politics. He will spend his days chasing ambulances in North Carolina.

This afternoon Edwards was found not guilty on one count of illegal campaign contributions. This was after a nine day deliberation which left his North Carolina jury in a deadlock on the other five counts. The judge declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury. It’s unlikely the Department of Justice will re-try the case. It’s over. John Edwards has won.

What are his crimes? Lying and being a sneak. Living one life in public and another in public. As his wife battled cancer, and became a national celebrity, Edwards hooked up with — you fill in the blank– and fathered her child. He lied repeatedly to his wife. In her book, “Resilience,” Elizabeth Edwards said when she was first told about Rielle Hunter, she threw up.

Edwards promised her it was a one time thing. But it wasn’t. It was a full fledged affair. He would sneak into the Beverly Hilton Hotel from the basement elevator to see mother and daughter. When he was caught, he lied.

But now Elizabeth is dead. John Edwards has skated on the whole thing. It was too complex for a North Carolina jury. They couldn’t handle the truth. And the truth was, Rielle Hunter hated Elizabeth and wanted to get rid of her. So she has. I do hope that her own family, Elizabeth’s, will stand up and say something.

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/05/31/john-edwards-beats-the-rap-but-bears-the-scars-of-his-decisions/

President Obama's Wealth Destroying Goal: Taking The 'Curley Effect' Nationwide

Detroit 

Photo:  AP

It’s hard to think of anything more perverse in American politics than the Curley effect. The Curley effect historically has been an urban phenomenon, but President Obama seems bent on taking the entire country down this wretched path.

As defined by Harvard scholars Edward L. Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer in a famous 2002 article, the Curley effect (named after its prototype, James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston in the first half of the 20^th century) is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Translation: A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.

Here’s an example of how the Curley effect works: Let’s say a mayor advocates and adopts policies that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the not-so-prosperous by bestowing generous tax-financed favors on unions, the public sector in general, and select corporations. These beneficiaries become economically dependent on their political patrons, so they give them their undivided electoral support—e.g., votes, campaign contributions, and get-out-the-vote drives.

Meanwhile, the anti-rich rhetoric of these clever demagogues, combined with higher taxes to fund the political favors, triggers a flight of tax refugees from the cities to the suburbs. This reduces the number of political opponents on the city’s voter registration rolls, thereby consolidating an electoral majority for the anti-wealth party. It also shrinks the tax base of the city, even as the city’s budget swells. The inevitable bankruptcy that results from expanding expenditures while diminishing revenues can be postponed for decades with the help of state and federal subsidies (“stimulus” in the Obama vernacular) and creative financing, but eventually you end up with cities like Detroit—called by Glaeser and Shleifer “the first major Third World city in the United States.”

The Curley effect is extensive. Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961, and those two (Cincinnati and Cleveland) haven’t had one since the 1980s. Democratic mayors have had a lock on City Hall despite these once-great and prosperous cities stagnating on their watch. This is the Curley effect in action.

Let me comment on the city on that list that I know the best—Detroit. (I grew up a few miles from its city limits.) In the 1920s, Detroit was arguably the richest city in the world. Today it is broke—a shadow of its former self after 51 years of Democratic hegemony and a Curley-like agenda.

I’m going to say something provocative that leftists will surely quote out of context, but it needs to be said: Detroit was a lot better off in the 1950s, when the city funded one of the best zoos in the country but had not yet built today’s gravy train for favored segments of the human population. Detroit’s decline has paralleled a shift toward funding far fewer zoo animals and far more human beings.

Critics may take this to mean that I value animals more than people. On the contrary, it is because I value humans more than animals that I find the policy shift to be morally offensive in addition to being so obviously destructive economically. It is bad enough to see a trapped lion carrying 80 pounds of flab that a lion in the wild would never have, but why would you reduce human beings to a similarly pathetic dependency? The bars that ensnare humans behind the economic and psychological cages of the government dole may not be physical, but it is pathetic to see people reduced to lives of unproductive idleness and despair, all in the name of “compassion” and, of course, for the sake of cementing Democratic mayors in office.

What is most troublesome about the Curley effect is that it is spreading beyond its historical setting of cities. Entire states—most notably our most populous, California—are manifesting all the symptoms of the Curley effect: Democrats enjoying electoral hegemony; businesses and middle-class individuals, more Republican than Democratic, emigrating to states with less oppressive tax regimes; reduced job opportunities; a budget careening toward bankruptcy.

The ultimate political prize for the Democrats, of course, would be to control the national government. (Note: Yes, I know that technically we have a “federal” government, but if Big Government Democrats find a way to forge a permanent majority, you can kiss the last vestiges of federalism goodbye.)

Everything Obama has done has been designed to strengthen Democratic constituencies (e.g., stimulus spending steered predominantly toward unions and strategically allied state and municipal entities; waivers from Obamacare for unions; a hefty 23 percent increase in the Index of Dependence on Government during Obama’s first two years) and to weaken Republican constituencies (e.g., making small business formation more difficult by impeding venture capitalists; refusing to amend Sarbanes-Oxley; using Dodd-Frank regulations to discourage loans; fewer waivers from Obamacare; proposing lower tax rates for large corporations, but not on the “S” corporations that are the preferred choice of small business owners; constant efforts to raise taxes on the “rich”—which means, as we’ve seen in Detroit, California, and other Curley effect victims, higher taxes on the middle class).

Obama’s smash-mouth, Curley-like politics is all about choosing winners and losers. Reread his State of the Union address from January, and you see a parade of proposals to take from A to give to B, to encourage businesses to do C and discourage them from doing D. Indeed, Obama seems incapable of suggesting a single economic policy that does not redistribute wealth from his political opponents to his political allies. The message is clear: He wants Americans to be dependent on the government; consequently, he is hostile to the private sector, because a vibrant private sector enhances economic independence and self-reliance.

If Obama and his fellow progressives succeed in applying the Curley strategy on the national level, Americans will no longer be able to move to a new city or state to escape the withering economic impact of Curley-effect policies; their only option would be to leave the country. However, it appears that Obama has anticipated that response. To close the escape hatch from an Obama-Curley American, the president signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act that mandates closer monitoring of Americans’ offshore accounts. apparently approves of policies to impose financial penalties on anyone desiring to give up U.S. citizenship, and periodically calls for “global minimum taxes.”

The Curley effect already has inflicted great economic damage on important American cities and states. It now presents an existential threat to our entire country. That one of our major political parties has based its own success on such a ruthlessly cynical strategy is disgusting, if not diabolical. How we get off this suicidal path is one of the most urgent challenges facing us today.

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/05/31/president-obamas-wealth-destroying-goal-taking-the-curley-effect-nationwide/2/

Mark Zuckerberg Has First Winning Day As Facebook Shares Finally Tick Up

Mark Zuckerberg was the big winner in the markets Thursday as Facebook shares finally reversed their two-week nosedive.

The stock closed Thursday at $29.60, a relatively small step up from Wednesday’s close of $28.19, but a victory nonetheless. Since the social network debuted at $38 a share on May 18, shares have been dropping daily. Zuck must be breathing a little easier in his hoodie now that he’s worth an additional $685 million.

But it was an up-and-down kind of day for the Facebook billionaires. At midday, around 1:34 p.m. Eastern time to be precise, Zuckerberg was the second biggest loser of the billionaires we track, down $611 million. Also around that time, fellow Facebooker Dustin Moskovitz was down $168 million. But like Zuck, Moskovitz ended the day a richer man, his net worth up $188 million.

Jeff Bezos was  the day’s second-biggest winner, up $324 million as Amazon agreed to collect state sales tax in New Jersey from customers in that state, where it is building two new distribution plants. Thursday was also a good day for Larry Ellison: he gained $303 million as tech news site CRN reported that Oracle had snapped up Gary Koopman, former vice president of U.S. distribution at Hewlett Packard, as the company’s group vice president of North America hardware and channel sales.

The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, was Thursday’s biggest loser as his America Movil shares dropped 1.8%. That’s not much of a change, but Slim owns a lot: at market’s close he was $711 million poorer than the day before. Sheldon Adelson, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s potential odd political bedfellow, was the second biggest loser of the day; shares in his Las Vegas Sands dropped 3.4%, taking his net worth $604 million lower. He’s probably not too worried about it, since his stakes of his three largest holdings are still worth $19.9 billion.

All in all, Thursday was a more normal day in the markets than Wednesday, when all but two billionaires lost big money. Thursday’s trading finished with 33 billionaires worth less than Wednesday, and 17 worth more.

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2012/05/31/mark-zuckerberg-has-first-winning-day-as-facebook-shares-finally-tick-up/

Kim Kardashian Sponsored Shoes Lead to Settlement:  Skechers Proves We Need Clinical Trials Of Running Shoes

Kim Kardashian with her "Shape-Ups"

Photo:  AP

I’m of the opinion that we don’t run enough clinical trials for things that are not obviously medicines or medical devices, but that people generally assume have health benefits. Things like yogurt — and sneakers. Today, Skechers proved my point by getting in trouble with the feds.

Today the Federal Trade Commission announced that Skechers USA, the discount sneaker maker that found its way to premium pricing by selling “toning shoes” with rounded soles that were supposed to strengthen muscles better than regular sneakers, would pay $40 million to settle claims “that the company deceived consumers by making unfounded claims that Shape-ups would help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles.”

Consumers who bought the shoes should go to www.ftc.gov/skechers. Besides Shape-ups, Skechers also made deceptive claims about its Resistance Runner, Toners, and Tone-ups shoes, the FTC argues, and. Consumers who bought these “toning” shoes will likewise be eligible for refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit.

Central to the FTC’s allegations is the argument that Skechers used bad science and celebrity endorsements (including Kim Kardashian and Brooke Burke) to sell the shoes. Two egregious-sounding examples from the FTC news release:

Shape-ups ads with an endorsement from a chiropractor named Dr. Steven Gautreau, who recommended the product based on the results of an “independent” clinical study he conducted that tested the shoes’ benefits compared to those provided by regular fitness shoes. The FTC alleges that this study did not produce the results claimed in the ad, that Skechers failed to disclose that Dr. Gautreau is married to a Skechers marketing executive, and that Skechers paid Dr. Gautreau to conduct the study.

An ad that claims consumers who wear Resistance Runner shoes will increase “muscle activation” by up to 85 percent for posture-related muscles, 71 percent for one of the muscles in the buttocks, and 68 percent for calf muscles, compared to wearing regular running shoes. The FTC alleges that in citing the study that claimed to back this up, Skechers cherry-picked results and failed to substantiate its ad claims.

via Skechers Will Pay $40 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers with Ads for “Toning Shoes”.

The idea that one type of shoes could be better than another is a testable claim — and there’s no reason that a company that wants to launch a marketing blitz on how their product will help you get in shape couldn’t spend a few million dollars on a reasonably sized study to prove that those benefits are actually there. Certainly, they could do better than relying on the husband of a marketing executive or using a weak, probably meaningless data point like “muscle activation.”

I’d like to see more studies like this one, being conducted by Nike, that randomly assigns runners to get one of three shoes: a traditional running shoe, a Nike minimalist shoe with less support, and a Vibram Five Fingers — those funny shoes that fit toes like gloves. (Full disclosure: I’ve been running in Vibrams lately, and like them, but I have no idea if I’m just falling for the latest fad.) There have been great arguments made that overly cushioned running shoes can increase the risk of certain injuries, based on studies of human biomechanics. A randomized trial can actually tell you whether that’s true.

Of course, having to actually prove marketing claims with science can be a rude awakening to companies who aren’t used to doing so. One example: Lifeway Foods, which, as I wrote in a magazine feature two years ago, complained when a clinical trial of its yogurt-like drink did not show the expected benefits. Or, to pick a bigger target, General Mills who was recently marketing Cheerios as if they were a cholesterol-lowering drug made by Merck or Pfizer. (Actually, the Cheerios ads were better than the drug company ones.) Coca-Cola‘s Vitaminwater brand is built entirely on putting vague-sounding benefits around sugar water that contains vitamins with little proof the vitamins are actually good for you. (There’s actually little evidence vitamin supplements help most people.)

One thing that’s pretty clear is that we need a better way of regulating these kinds of studies than the FTC, which applies relatively small fines after the fact. Having all these claims go through the FDA would probably be too expensive and time consuming, but we need better mechanisms to convince marketers to actually prove their claims before they push them on the broader market.

And I really am waiting for some more clinical trials of running shoes.

How To Get An Awesome Internship

Photo:  AP

There are a jazillion websites, blog posts, articles, books, seminars and YouTube videoson how to land an internship.

Chances are, you’ve read or heard 98 percent of this advice before: edit and proofread your resumes and cover letters, clean up your social media accounts, dress appropriately for an interview, be 15 minutes early to an interview, send thank you notes, don’t be too shy, find a way to stand out, look people in the eye, have a firm handshake, build your network. I don’t want to dismiss this advice, but I would call it common sense. Job applicants who aren’t doing these things are little leaguers trying to get an invite to the Olympic trials. If you’re in your twenties and this is new information, a really good article to read is here.

A lot of people tell you how to get a gig, but not the gig. Unlike jobs, internships (in general) are fairly easy to land, because some small shop in some small town or suburb will let you work for them for free. As a consequence, all internships are not created equal. Some internships, unlike the humdrum nobody-knows company internships, are the golden ticket that take you up the glass elevator to the economic penthouse, getting interns a substantial starting salary position come graduation, which means security and not having to live with their parents- every soon-to-be and recent college graduate’s dream.

How do candidates get THOSE internships? With such a high application volume, and having all the crème candidates all applying to their shop, how does anyone stand out? What makes them pick a resume out of the pile?

I asked three jackpot companies what it takes to be an intern. I interviewed intern managers from Linkedin, mtvU and Facebook to get the juice on how to score an internship at some of the most famous and influential companies in the world. Here’s what they had to say:

1.    Do your Research

This is advice that I would also put in the common sense file, but my sources mentioned this as a common mistake, I’m going to write it.

Spending 20-30 minutes looking at a company’s website is not research. That’s skimming the material before a test when you haven’t bothered to go to lecture in awhile.

“The first question I always ask is, ‘How much do you know about mtvU?’” says Jordana Cohen, manager of mtvU Marketing and Distribution. “I’m shocked candidates will answer, “I don’t know anything” or tell me about their favorite MTV shows. “

MtvU produces original content, independent from MTV and reaches nearly 9 million students over 750 college campuses nationwide. They have a website,mtvU.com that gives access to everyone who may not have the channel.

Research includes not only the company and its products, but the business itself. Who are the major league companies and who are the minor league companies? What are they known for? How are they doing in the stock market? Have they been in the news lately? If yes, then why? What sort of people work there? What are their backgrounds? What are their products? What product is most popular? Which is the least popular? If people are writing about those products, what are they praising and what are they criticizing?

Potential interns who get noticed in an interview or on the job are the ones who have an opinion- they aren’t afraid to speak up, give input and contribute to brainstorming sessions. But in order to have effective and credible input, one has to put in the time and do the research.

These are the questions you should know the answers to, not word vomiting a mission statement or telling them how much you love The Real World.

2.    Use and know the product  

I like to think I’m the brightest bulb in the tanning bed as much as the next girl, but I hope I’m not the only person who thinks this is painfully obvious. But as my dad used to say, “Some people need 8 x 10, color glossy photos with paragraphs and arrows on the back.”

There are certain things you can wing in an application or in an interview. But being unfamiliar with the product, web site, whatever your dream company’s schtick is, is fatal- because they’ll know.

“We can generally tell when they really love Linkedin, we see them being proactive, sending inmails, Linkedin groups,” explains Doris Tong, University Relations manager, aka the intern manager. “They’ll share insight and knowledge, they’ll have stories about how Linkedin has helped them in their career and lives as students, how they’ve benefited, how they’ve used our product, connected with alums, etc.”

Tong also told me a story about how an intern candidate for their mobile app went on and on in his application and interview about how much he loved creating apps. When she asked what he thought of Linkedin’s mobile app, he said he didn’t know because he hadn’t downloaded it.The light bulb flickers on sooner for some than others, I guess.

Most interviewers are bound to ask you why you want the internship. Answers like “I love procrastinating on Facebook,” “I’m the next Mark Zuckerburg,” “I want to hang out with celebrities at the MTV events” or “I’ve heard so many good things about Linkedin,” are like eating dessert for dinner. It seems like a good idea at the time but it won’t satisfy the interviewer or your metabolism.

“The most successful answers to the question “why Facebook?” are things you’d really like to change about Facebook – whether it’s a feature you wish existed, or a bug you’d like to fix, or just a design you think we got wrong,” says Jocelyn Goldfein, a Director of Engineering at Facebook. “ If you get an internship at Facebook, you get the same access to the source code that all of our full-time engineers do. We want to hire people who’ll use that access to make a big, positive impact.”

3.    See the Big Picture 

The single most important thing about seeing the big picture is to know where you stand in it.

In the process of researching your desired business, the companies within that business, companies’ individual products and the internship you want, you start aligning what you have with what they have, what you want with what they want, and begin to figure out which company’s shoes you believe will fit you best.

Once you have done that, you can break down to an interviewer what you’ve done, and demonstrate the qualities you possess that go hand-in hand with the company. Because during the application process your job is to illustrate what you can do for the company, and why you’re the best choice. And in order to effectively do that you have to know a great deal about the company, a great deal about their products, and have an unwavering belief in yourself and your abilities.

“Prepare an answer to the question, ‘what makes you stand out?’ that actually makes you stand out. One candidate, who I hired, talked about how he loved how mtvU gives opportunities to students to launch their career goals in a different way than his university did,” says Cohen. “We loved that he understood, on his own, the big picture of how and why we partner with universities, and that was a big factor in him getting the position.

4.    Passion Beats GPA   

Many candidates see passion as giving fiery speeches or being a huge fan. To an extent that’s part of it. But college students don’t get an internship at Googlebecause they Google everything.  Infusing passion into employment requires the passion to manifest itself during spare time. What does that mean? It means an applicant would do their job even if they weren’t paid to do it, and it becomes a part of everything else they do.

“For example, an engineer who builds applications and tools in their spare time,” says Tong. “If they like playing guitar, they’re creating an app to help them practice guitar, they’re integrating app building into their other interests.”

How do you showcase this in your resume and/or cover letter?

“Highlight your side projects! This shows you have a passion for making things, not just going through the motions. If you’ve written an app, built a site, or contributed to open source, make that front and center on your resume,” says Goldfein. “A resume with nothing but coursework is not going to get picked up. You have to have something extra that shows you have real passion for a career in software, not just taking classes. Those are your work experience, side projects, open source, or coding competitions. If all else fails – go to our website and try one of the coding puzzles.”

You can apply for internships at mtvU here, Linkedin here and at Facebookhere.

Full Article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/francesbridges/2012/05/31/how-to-get-an-awesome-internship/2/

The World's Best New Universities

Photo:  AP

For the last eight years, Times Higher Education, a London magazine that tracks the higher ed market, has put out a list of what it deems to be the world’s top universities. Each year, THE gets more ambitious in its rankings, expanding the list from 200 schools to 400 in 2011. (I wrote about the 2011 list here.)

Today THE put out a new listing, of the top 100 schools in the world that are 50 years old or younger. According to Phil Baty, THE’s rankings editor, the magazine wanted to highlight a list of newer universities with strong ratings, in order to demonstrate that the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which dominate most higher ed lists, are facing a crop of up-and-comers. “The traditional heritage universities do not have a monopoly on excellence,” says Baty. “There are new, rising stars coming to challenge them for the best students and the best academic faculty.”

Of the top 100 institutions under 50 years old, only nine are in the U.S. The U.K. has a stronger showing, with 20 schools, which is more than any other country. But Baty says that growing institutions in the Gulf states and in Asia, are presenting a challenge to the U.S. and the U.K. There are a total of 30 countries represented in the new ranking, including Canada, France, Ireland, Brazil, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  For the complete list of 100 schools under 50 years old, click here.

The top ten on the list are a diverse group, led by South Korea’s Pohang University of Science and Technology, which is just 26 years old. Baty says the school, known as Postech, has grown in part because it gets substantial financial support from POSCO, a major Korean steel company located in Pohang. POSCO’s then-CEO, the late Tae-Joon Park, founded the institution and modeled it after the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, with an emphasis on science and engineering. Since 2010, Postech has run as a bilingual institution, with most of its lectures and faculty meetings held in English. “It’s a shining example of what can be achieved by any nation with the right support,” says Baty. (In March, THEpublished an in-depth report on Postech, calling it “a university in the ascendant.”)

Unlike the U.S. News and World Report rankings, or Forbes’ own college rankings system, THE does not measure indicators like entry requirements, graduation rates, professor ratings by students or alumni salaries. Instead, it emphasizes global scholarship and reputation. THE gathers data on points like the number of times the school is cited in academic research, the impact of those citations on other research, and the volume, income and reputation of research the school produces. It also looks at the number of degrees awarded to undergraduates and to the academic staff, and teaching measures, like staff-to-student ratios and a survey of teacher reputations. (For more on THE’s ranking methods, click here.)

One way the under-50 list differs from THE‘s top universities ranking: it is calibrated to give less weight to prestige, explains Baty, making it possible for newer, lesser-known schools to rise in the rankings.

Of the 100 schools on the under-50 list, the top 19 have all made THE’s cut for the top 200 universities, establishing themselves as competitors with the world’s top schools. “This list really points out that the world is changing,” says Baty. “There are many nations ready to invest in higher education,” he adds.

Number two on the list, the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, is arguably older than 50 years, since it started out as part of an institution founded by the Swiss government back in 1853. But in 1969, it split from the larger University of Lausanne and established its own campus in a suburb southwest of Lausanne in 1978. Like Postech, EPFL emphasizes science and engineering. It is still run by the Swiss government and it has its own nuclear reactor on campus, which it uses to teach reactor physics.

The third school on the list, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, has a similar emphasis to the top two schools. It opened its doors in 1991, and has already built a strong reputation in science, technology and business, offering an MBA program that the Financial Times has ranked as 10^th best in the world. The school runs the MBA program in partnership with the Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Ill., and it has a partnership with NYU’s Stern School of Business for students who want to get a Master’s in global finance. The school ranks at no. 62 on THE’s world university rankings.

The highest-ranked U.S. school on the under-50 list comes in at number 4, theUniversity of California, Irvine, founded in 1965 to accommodate the growing number of students enrolling in the U.C. system.

THE editor Baty says the under-50 list shows how much the world of higher education is changing, with both the private and public sectors in many countries outside the U.S. and the U.K. investing in new universities. “They are waiting in the wings to steal the crown from America,” says Baty. “It’s a changing, dynamic world.”

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/05/31/the-worlds-best-new-universities/