From L.A. Dodgers to Alleged Tax Dodgers: The McCourt Saga Continues

Jamie McCourt arriving with her attorney

Photo:  AP

It’s got to be hard to be a Dodgers fan these days. All Star center fielder Matt Kemp just came off the DL only to find himself injured again this week. Injuries continue to plague other players including Mark Ellis, Ted Lilly and Juan Rivera. And the Dodgers have little money to buy their way out of this one as their finances continue to dwindle amid charges that the former owners, the McCourts, plundered the team during their tenure, using it as their personal ATM.

(And yet the Dodgers are sitting on top of the National League West – there’s really no need to point out that my beloved Phillies are at the bottom of the National League East.)

It seems that Dodgers fans aren’t the only ones who want to know what happened to the team’s finances. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a federal grand jury is investigating possible criminal misconduct of the Dodgers relating to the financial (mis)management of the team.

So wow, right? Bad behavior and bad judgment is one thing but criminal conduct is another.

And it gets worse. It appears that the investigation is focused not only on your run of the mill fraud but on federal and state income tax issues (the MLB has already confirmed via the bankruptcy petition that the Dodgers owe the City ofLos Angeles nearly a quarter of a million dollars in back taxes).

You can read the petition here:

Jamie McCourt had previously alleged in the nasty, public – did I mention nasty? – divorce of the former owners that the couple had paid no federal or state taxes for at least six years, beginning 2004, the year the McCourts bought the Dodgers. That was as of last year. There’s no word on whether any taxes had been filed or paid for 2010 and/or 2011. Last year, Frank McCourt’s accountant confirmed that the McCourts and/or related entities were under examination for 2006, 2007 and 2008. That was confirmed by Major League Baseball (MLB) Commissioner Bud Selig last year.

Of course, the IRS isn’t going to speak publicly about any ongoing tax investigations. But as I’ve noted before, in most cases, the behavior has to be fairly reprehensible before it turns criminal.

If you believe the MLB, the behavior is pretty awful. Among other allegations, the MLB alleges that Frank McCourt “systematically stripped the [Dodgers] of assets and liquidity for his own personal uses.” The MLB also accused McCourt of “destroying a storied franchise by using it as his personal piggy bank” which took the team down “a path of destruction.” How much of a piggy bank? The MLB alleges that Frank McCourt – who holds a degree in economics from Georgetown University – improperly converted as much as $189 million. If that’s true – and if he didn’t report it as income – that could result in a pretty sizable tax bill and potentially, criminal charges.

The McCourts lived lavishly after buying the Dodgers. They reportedly bought a $20 million home and spent nearly that much ($14 million) to bring it up to snuff. They later spent nearly $50 million to buy his and hers Malibu beach houses (there’s a Barbie joke in there somewhere, I know it). At the time of her divorce, Jamie McCourt claimed that her monthly expenses ran nearly a half million dollars. She further stated that her lifestyle had been financed largely by the Dodgers with many of their expenses “paid directly” by the team or related entities.

Those words, if true, may come back to haunt her.

Full article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/05/31/from-l-a-dodgers-to-alleged-tax-dodgers-the-mccourt-saga-continues/2/

How Evil Are Google's New Paid Shopping Search Results?

Photo:  Forbes.com

Google announced today a change in the rule of engagement for the ‘inclusion’ of products in search results. From now on, if you see a picture of a product at the top of the page of search results, you can bet that the merchant paid to be there.

Up until now, Google has maintained a very clear “church and state” demarcation between ads and search results. If you search for a product, say “telescopes,” you will be returned a page with a tan “ad words” box at the top of the page with highlighted text ads as well as possibly some paid  product listing ads with images. Then there will be “related searches” and the top, non-shopping result. Below that will be (unpaid) “Shopping results for telescopes illustrated by a prominent product, and beyond that the rest of the standard search results.

In the new regime, the large, tan premium ad words box will be reduced in height and directly below it will be a white box clearly marked “sponsored” with an image gallery of five products related to your search.

Not So Evil

On the one hand, if you see it from Google’s point of view, this is an attempt to “build delightful shopping experiences for consumers in close partnership with merchants.” The paid aspect of this will actually improve things for consumers, because “having a commercial relationship with merchants will encourage them to keep their product information fresh and up to date. Higher quality data—whether it’s accurate prices, the latest offers or product availability—should mean better shopping results for users, which in turn should create higher quality traffic for merchants.” This is a little like saying that therapy only works if you pay for it, but I see their point.

More Evil

From the consumers point of view, some amount of trust will be eroded by the new arrangement. As soon as consumers begin to question one thing, they begin to question everything. Google has introduced new features recently like Google Hotel Finder and Google Flight Search that are, in fact, incredibly useful. But if consumers feel that the results that are returned are not necessarily the best deals and are there for purely commercial reasons, they may begin to look suspiciously at all of the new structured data displays that Google is rolling out.

Really Evil

From the merchants point of view, this will increase the cost of selling through search. Even though the image gallery is clearly marked “sponsored,” the eye naturally goes there. If a customer is in a hurry and you see an image of what you want, they’re going to click it. If you’re a merchant and your results are halfway down the page (or, horrors, on the second page) your traffic is going to be reduced compared to what you might be getting presently. Beyond that, if pay-to-play really does shape purchase volumes, Google will position itself as a collector of a tithe on all commerce that flows through it. Think Amazon without the warehouse space.

I don’t want to make this sound like a bigger deal than it is, but it is clear that Google has to get the balance right both for consumers and merchants if they want to ramp up the monetization of their search results. Unlike Facebook, when people see ads on Google, they are almost always for what they are looking for. As Jon Mitchell writes in ReadWriteWeb, “By searching for a product, you’ve demonstrated a possible intent to buy it, so Google has extended its search results with a department store where merchants can sell it to you.” Let’s hope that Google keeps to their creed and minimizes evil while maximizing utility.

\

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/05/31/how-evil-are-googles-new-paid-shopping-search-results/

Jamie Dimon Will Testify But Don't Expect Much From Him

Jamie Dimon

Photo:  AP

JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimonwill be making a couple of visits toWashington next month.

Lawmakers invited the CEO and chairman of JPM to testify following news that his bank lost over $2 billion on a supposed hedge gone wrong. Dimon will take them up on the offer on June 13 when he testifies before the Senate Banking Committee.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson says he expects Dimon “to come prepared to provide the Committee a better understanding of this massive trading loss so we can take the implications into account as we continue to conduct our robust oversight over the full implementation of Wall Streetreform.”

Johnson can expect all he wants from Dimon but that doesn’t mean he will get any of it. We’ve seen plenty of Wall Street executives testify before lawmakers over the last few years but it’s not often they provide much insight.

Remember MF Global chief Jon Corzine’s appearance before Congress back in December? Not long after his firm went bankrupt and lost$1.2 billion of client money Corzine testified before the House Committee on Agriculture. When asked about the missing funds (which have still yet to be recovered) the former head of Goldman Sachs said “I simply do not know where the money is or why the accounts haven’t been reconciled.”

He did take responsibility for the incident but that hasn’t meant much for clients who lost money.

None of that is to say that JPMorgan’s mess is anything like MF Global’s. Dimon has been quick to point out that no clients were affected by the $2 billion loss.

Like Corzine Dimon will take responsibility for the loss as head of JPMorgan but will ultimately tell lawmakers that he’s doing everything he can to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. Committee members will ask for details behind the strategy of the bet and question whether it was a legitimate hedge or blatant speculation. Dimon will likely argue it was simply a hedge gone bad and then most certainly point to his bank’s stellar balance sheet as a means to remind the public that JPMorgan is “the good bank” on the Street. In other words, we won’t hear much new information from Dimon.

It gets even better. (Or worse.) Dimon will end up testifying twice as a House Committee is also expected to invite him to talk about the loss.




Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/31/jamie-dimon-will-testify-but-dont-expect-much-from-him/

Apple iPhone Success Strangles Profits At Sprint, AT&T, Verizon

Apple’s iPhone is selling like hotcakes.

This should be good news for Sprint (S), AT&T (T), and Verizon (VZ).  The reality is far different; Apple is killing phone carriers.

Sprint just reported quarterly earnings and says it sold 1.8 million iPhones.  However, the earnings report showed that iPhone is killing profits at Sprint.  Sprint said that 40% of iPhone sales in the fourth quarter were to new customers.

The iPhone is certainly bringing in new business to Sprint, but Sprint has to  subsidize iPhones heavily.  Sprint wanted the iPhone so bad that it guaranteed Apple $15.5 billion for the ability to sell Apple products over the next four years.

Previously when AT&T reported earnings for the fourth quarter, they were also dragged down by heavy iPhone subsidization costs.

I have previously written about the impact of the iPhone on Verizon in an article titled Apple iPhone A Bittersweet Taste For Verizon.

An iPhone 4S that a consumer can buy for $199 with a two year contract reportedly costs carriers about $500.

Moreover, iPhones are data hogs.  Carriers have to make major investments to support the huge traffic volume.

iPhone 4S is particularly troublesome to carriers.  The Siri virtual assistant feature in iPhone 4S connects to an Apple data center every time it is used.  For background, please see my prior article Siri Is Apple’s Post-Jobs Ticket To $1,000.  Siri users end up consuming twice the bandwidth compared to those who do not use Siri.

Special Offer: Get 13 undervalued stocks from value expert John Buckingham in the Free Special Report2012: Time For Value. Click here for instant access.

Increased traffic is a vicious cycle for carriers.  More traffic means more dropped calls and more difficulties using Siri.  This results in more calls to customer service and churn of users.

Carriers are between a rock and a hard place.  They have to carry the iPhone to attract customers, but it costs them.  In comparison, devices based on Google(GOOG) Android, and those from Research In Motion(RIMM) are subsidized to a lesser degree.

From an investors perspective Apple is the only winner here.

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/02/09/apple-iphone-success-strangles-profits-at-sprint-att-verizon/

Apple's Breakout May Be Contagious

Photo:  Crunchbase


My single digit ragamuffins include Sirius XM Radio and Bank of America.  What I find so curious, even ironic, is that security analysts can’t even analyze (or prophesize) mega cap properties like Apple and Google. Apple now ticking at plus $400 billion was a ragamuffin a decade ago.

Even IBM and ExxonMobil elude so-called sharp penciled analysts and money managers.  Nobody had factored in ExxonMobil’s drastic shrinkage in downstream earnings in the fourth quarter.  As for IBM, the consensus waits impatiently for IBM to roll over and play dead.  It ain’t happening.

Actually, few “investable” stocks still sell in the teens.  Morgan Stanley and Cisco border the teens decile, but there is Ford and there was General Motors.  General Electric is dangerously close to twenty bucks.  My Xstrata on its takeover by Glencore goes from teens to maybe over $20.  I remember Walt Disney at the bottom of the market in ’09 sold at $14, now $41 and thriving.  Fundamental properties can get trashed, too.

Not that I’m looking for penny stocks which normally capitalize with 500 million shares or more and no fundamentals to speak of – maybe some leased acreage in Wyoming.  What I’m focused on are mispriced stocks and mispriced market sectors.  They’re all over the lot starting in technology, with a capital “A” as in Apple.

If you believe as I do that leveraged earnings power is the bold theme, consider four sectors now outperforming – technology, financials, materials and industrials.  Reason for the outperformance is nobody can get his hands around the fundamentals and model major properties like Apple, Google, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs – even U.S. Steel and DuPont, let alone Freeport McMoRan and General Motors.

They’re gut plays.  Security analysts don’t get paid to make gut plays, only feisty money managers.  Analysts frequently model companies employing as many as 25 variables.  If 100 analysts are within a penny of each others’ earnings projections (Coca-Cola) the stock is efficiently priced and only levitates with earnings growth.

In bear markets, many of us hide in stocks like Coca-Cola where your numbers can’t be off more than a penny or two.  Same goes for Merck and United Technology because management’s “guidance” is hands on and usually accurate.

As far back as I can remember Apple’s management played fast and loose with the Street.  A busload of analysts, regularly manipulated, missed quarterly projections by as much as 50 percent (the December period.)  Apple low balls its numbers and analysts, who are natural cowards, hesitate to dash far ahead of the pack.

How can anyone, including management, forecast quarterly demand for iPhones and iPads?  It’s even difficult to project where we are in terms of market saturation.  Why can’t everyone own 2 smart phones and tablets?  I do.

When the cellular telephony sector took off industry pundits projected the sector would reach an 8 percent saturation level in 5 years.  Currently, we’re approaching 100 percent and beyond.

The same goes for Google and internet advertising.  The Street projected internet share of advertising would move from 1 percent to maybe 5 percent over 5 years.  This kind of low balling made Google a great stock.  Internet advertising is at a mid-teens market share.

Comparisons with Facebook in terms of “going public” initial valuation favor Google which currently sells at a mid-teens price-earnings ratio.  This is comparable with many media houses in the entertainment sector, Disney, for example.

Google’s valuation in the 2004 underwriting was pegged at 7.5 times revenues, 24 times EBITDA and 58 times earnings.  Underwriters and investment bankers get paid to squeeze every last buck from the public’s purse.

Facebook actually breaks the bank, coming at 24 times revenues, 45 times EBITDA and 90 times earnings.  Even if Facebook’s earnings double next year this is pricey merchandise and I’ll pass it by, maybe even buy more Google.  After all, advertising is cyclical, governed by GDP momentum or lack of same.  Facebook’s valuation can only be rationalized if you believe mobile ad spending mushrooms 50 percent a year for the next 5 years.

Back to Apple.  The stock broke out last week coincidentally with the release of a serious, relatively lengthy but sharply focussed research report by Charlie Wolf of Needham.  Charlie is the only analyst I’ve ever talked to about Apple, once, two years ago, on Steve Job’s longevity.  Charlie’s at $620 from $540 but this ain’t really relevant because nobody’s valuation model has ever worked.  Three years ago Apple ticked at par.  Nobody ever rants a stock is going to the moon.  Periodically, you update numbers, quarterly if necessary.

Charlie believes there’s a halo effect on Macintosh computer sales from iPad and iPhone market penetration.  I discount this impact but agree that Apple today is more iPhone vulnerable than iPad in terms of approaching market saturation.  The iPod did add luster to iMac sales.  At that juncture, I bought Apple, reasoning that the iPod would put away the Sony Walkman which had a worldwide footprint of 500 million users.  It was 2001 and Apple ticked in the thirties shortly after the internet bubble imploded.

My dream is that ancillary recurrent income from internet advertising and thousands of apps evolve into a major profit segment in coming years.  Software and peripherals are probably no more than 5 percent of earnings today.  There are over 170,000 apps written for the iPad, alone.

Is Apple a more dangerous stock to own at 11 times earnings than any other piece of paper with a comparable value tag?  Pressing this valuation issue, is Google likely to revert to Apple’s multiplier or vice versa?  I say versa.  Either Apple is too cheap or Google is overpriced.  Deep basic, neither stock is overpriced to the market considering its free cash flow multiplier and liquid assets.

Take Cisco.  Sells at 11 times earnings, no net debt, annually buys back 5 percent of its outstanding stock, holds a boodle of liquid assets (alas, most of it overseas) but is finally controlling its expense lines and growing revenues near 10 percent per annum.  A nice profile.

The market’s insanity is paying up for mediocre industrial properties like U.S. Steel on what they possibly could earn in 2013 if everything comes up roses and daffodils.  But, everything doesn’t ever go right for U.S. Steel. Its yearend quarterly report was a mess.  Despite the recovering GDP setting, U.S. Steel lost hundreds of millions.  They dropped serious money in 2010 as well.  Its flat rolled product segment remains in negative territory.

Big Steel is shedding liquidity as well.  Capital expenditures exceed depreciation and they’re down to $408 million in cash.  In a bad setting U.S. Steel burns cash fast.  What caught my eye was a huge write-down on sale of U.S. Steel Serbia to the Republic of Serbia for a nominal sum.  One dollar? A write-off is coming for over $400 million on their plant account of $6.6 billion.  U.S. Steel has more debt than equity.

As a stock U.S. Steel bottomed at $18 and now sells near $30.  When I checked analysts’ projections the best I could come up with is $3 a share in 2013 – if all goes well.  Apple earns $51 a share with $150 a share in cash on the balance sheet if all goes well.

Which one would you rather own?  The breakout in Apple adumbrates sharper focus on growth stocks, particularly technology.  Recovery in capital goods properties is overdone, energy is just fairly priced, consumer non-durables as in PepsiCo, are boring and the financials…. well the financials remain inscrutable.

If you believe as I do that Wall Street experiences a better year in underwriting, investment banking and trading you hang onto Bank of America et al., but gimme growth at 10 times anytime, anyplace bar nothing.

What in the world was U.S. Steel doing in Serbia?

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/martinsosnoff/2012/02/14/apples-breakout-may-be-contagious/3/

Why Apple Is Smart to Double Down on Siri

Photo:  AP

One area he was pressed on by Walt Mossberg was Siri, Apple’s voice-automated personal assistant that comes as part of the new iPhone 4S.

“When it works, it works really well,” said Mossberg. “But a lot of times, it doesn’t work.”

Mossberg isn’t the only one to criticize Siri.  Henry Blodget of Business Insider has said ”Steve Jobswould have killed Siri months ago” and that ”Frankly, it’s concerning that Apple is still advertising a product as flawed as Siri.” Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky saidthat some ex-Apple insiders believe Apple employees are embarrassed by Siri.

Tim Cook’s response, which is here, was that:

- “Customers love it.”

- “There’s more that it can do. We have a lot of people working on this. I think you’re going to be pleased with what we’re doing in the next few months.”

- “Siri’s proved to us that people want to relate to the phone in a new way.”

- Cook implied that voice recognition wasn’t what makes Siri special.  What makes Siri special is the Artificial Intelligence.  ”It’s not voice recognition. It’s the understanding.”

- “I’d put it on the profound list.”

- “This is something that people dreamed of for years. And, it’s here.”

- “We’re doubling down on it.”

I’ve been a big believer in Siri since its introduction last October.  This Forbes article, “Why Siri is a Google Killer,” explains my thinking.

If you took one thing from Cook’s entire talk on Tuesday, it’s that this guy’s a good poker player.  He’s very…. controlled.  Every word – as well as every detail in Apple’s supply chain – is measured.

You get the sense that nothing happens by chance at Apple.  Every move is well-planned.

That’s why I think Blodget and others were supremely arrogant by stating that Steve Jobs wouldn’t have approved of Siri’s release.  Jobs was of course still around and involved in green-lighting Siri before last October’s release.

More importantly, these critics fail to understand the long-term potential of Siri and what’s needed to get there from here.

As Cook said, what makes Siri special is her personality, which is to say the AI.

To get to where Apple (and more importantly its customers) want Siri to be, it needs to improve the AI and for that it needs data.  So, Blodget and others are fundamentally off base by thinking Steve Jobs’ answer to Siri’s current shortcomings would be to pull it and let the guys tinker with it for another year or two back in Apple’s labs.

You can’t get it any better with some tinkering by a few guys. Siri wouldn’t improve at all with another year of tinkering.  You need massive amounts of data.  They’re getting that given how popular the 4S is and the Siri usage they’re currently getting.

Apple said it was in “beta” to let the world knows this is a little different from any kind of product release they’d done before.  But the long-term gain of doing this exercise is going to more than compensate for the short-term pain.

And that’s the reason for all the Siri ads we’ve had since it launched last Fall.  And now Apple’s doubling down on those too.  Why? It’s driving more usage and more data.

It sounds like Siri will be profoundly better before its first birthday 6 months from now.  Just imagine was it will be like at age 2 — or age 7.

So, let the critics howl.  Apple was always about doing something for the benefit of the mainstream. Siri is no different.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/05/31/why-apple-is-smart-to-double-down-on-siri/2/

Axelrod's Attack Rich Plan Not Working:  Obama Plays Hardball and Loses Favorability

“The president wants to make this a personal attack campaign; he’s going after me as an individual. Look, I’m an American, I love this country. I have experience in the economy that’s going to help me get good jobs for Americans so we can be secure again.”
-- Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in an interview with FOX News colleague Bill Hemmer.

President Obama has adopted a new, tough-guy persona for the general election, but so far it doesn’t seem to be paying off.  The rationalization for the harsh new Obama approach is that unless Democrats destroy Romney now, the president will get swamped in a flood of negative advertising from conservative groups in the fall. By making it ugly, early Obama hopes to press his advantage in organization and money while it still exists and define Romney as a bad man.

Obama, stung for years by complaints from his political base that he was a pushover and facing a Republican rival clearly unafraid to throw punches, the president is trying to show some edge.

The opening argument of the general election from Obama has been weeks of attack ads and harsh personal attacks on the character of GOP nominee Mitt Romney. On the stump, Obama has called out Romney by name and said that the former Massachusetts governor was too cruel to be president.

Simultaneously, the administration is touting the president’s role as a terrorist killer. The lavishly leaked New York Times piece on how Obama passes sentence on suspected terrorists for push-button assassinations overseas, including American citizens, is part of a longer effort to show Obama has evolved from his dovish days.

The new message from Obama: Times are tough, and so am I.

One of Obama’s leading biographers John Heilemann, laid out the new-look Obama persona in New York Magazine. His extensively sourced, well-reported piece shows the Obama organization remade as a blunt instrument. Profane, tough-talking, cynical campaign leaders explain why they are trying to absolutely destroy Romney. Short answer: because that’s what it takes to win.

One adviser explains to Heilemann that even though some voters are presumably racist, Romney can be shown to be such a villain that they would still prefer the company of the half-African-American Obama:  “[Romney is] not likable. He’s not trustworthy. He’s not on your side. You live in Pittsburgh and you’ve got dirt under your fingernails, who do you want to have a beer with? It ain’t f***ing Mitt Romney. You’re like, ‘S**t, I’d rather have a beer with the black guy than him!’”  His point is that even those who bitterly cling (in this case, to an ice-cold can of Iron City instead of guns and religion) can be made to find Romney more personally objectionable than Obama.

This swagger is comforting to some Democrats who worried that Team Obama lacked the thick-skin and aggressive instincts to do battle with Romney, who has a gift for getting in the heads of his political opponents.

Attack politics are hardly new to the Obama organization, but the concern among many on the Blue Team was that the president wasn’t taking the threat from Romney seriously.

There’s little doubt of that now. No incumbent American president has ever gone so negative, so early against an opponent. As in other cases, like dropping out of federal limits on campaign contributions in 2008 or blessing unlimited political action committee expenditures this year, Obama’s argument is that he has no choice but to do what is wrong now in order to have the power to do the right thing later on.

The rationalization for the harsh new Obama approach is that unless Democrats destroy Romney now, the president will get swamped in a flood of negative advertising from conservative groups in the fall. By making it ugly, early Obama hopes to press his advantage in organization and money while it still exists and define Romney as a bad man.

So far, though, it’s not going so well.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Romney’s favorability ratings are up 8 points since late March, just before the Obama launched his spring offensive. Obama’s numbers are going the other direction, down 4 points.

The worrisome thing for the president is where this movement is happening. While Romney can credit much of his gains to the gradual coalescence of the Republican Party following the flame-throwing final act of their nominating process, swing voters are moving Romney’s way.



Romney showed substantial favorability gains among moderates, independents and saw his largest jump among female voters, a full 10 points. Obama, on the other hand, lost ground in all of the key categories. While Obama still holds a 5-point edge in overall favorability, Romney does 4 points better on unfavorability.

Put simply, 97 percent of voters have an opinion on Obama, and it’s an even split. Voters are also evenly divided on Romney, but only 88 percent have rendered a decision.

Romney has more room to grow, or, as Obama hopes, farther to fall.

Team Obama understands well the risks of negative campaigning, especially for a candidate whose previous persona was one of hopeful change and healing. But their calculation is that they can afford to take the beating now for the sake of ruining Romney and then have time in the fall to shift back to a less grim message.

The goal is that when Obama takes the stage to formally accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, that he will find a way to unite and inspire and that swing voters will have forgotten or forgiven his spring and summer attacks. Remember, Obama and his team very much believe in his power to reset the debate with a speech. Obama’s oration at Bank of America Stadium will be a seriously high-stakes affair.

Team Obama says it wants a replay of the 2004 election, just a pumped up version. Incumbents in tough times want choice elections, a referendum on issues, rather than stewardship elections, a referendum on the leadership of the incumbent.

In 2004, the choice was about the Iraq war. John Kerry wanted to leave, George W. Bush wanted to stay the course. Lots of things were said and done, but the election boiled down to that choice: stay or go.

Team Obama says the choice this time is between “forward” and “a return to the failed policies of the past.” This choice devolves quickly into minutiae about tax rates, mortgage incentive programs, Pell grants and other policy points. There is nothing like the starkness of the choice in 2004. Kerry explicitly wanted to leave Iraq. Bush explicitly wanted to stay. Voters narrowly chose the latter.

Given the repetitive nature of Obama’s policy proposals in the past two years, it seems highly unlikely that he will be offering any such bright-line choices. Certainly he could make it a choice election about his policies, particularly his 2010 health law, but that would not work out very well.

The actual choice Obama is seeking is between the two men personally and is right now whaling away on Romney in a hope that the dirty-fingernail set in the swing states will deem the former Massachusetts governor and quarter-billionaire unacceptable.

But unless Obama can crystallize for voters what the real choice here is, Obama risks just looking mean spirited and nasty, the very qualities he hopes voters come to see in Romney.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/obama-plays-hardball-and-loses-favorability/#ixzz1wTsFAplc

Seahawks confirm tryout for former high school star exonerated in rape case

Seahawks confirm tryout for former high school star exonerated in rape case

Photo:  AP

Brian Banks will get a crack at the NFL, even if it's simply a tryout.

The Seattle Seahawks confirmed Wednesday they will hold a tryout for Banks, a former high school football star who was exonerated last week in a California rape case in which he was falsely accused.

Seattle coach Pete Carroll did not speak following the Seahawks' offseason workout on Wednesday, but the team confirmed that Banks will work out for the team on June 7.

"This is what I have dreamed about my entire life," Banks said in a statement from the California Western School of Law, home of the California Innocence Project. "I am ready to show the NFL what I am capable of doing. I want as many opportunities with as many NFL teams who are willing to give me a shot."

Seattle may not be the only team. The statement says a half-dozen NFL teams have gotten in contact withBanks, and ESPN.com reported some of those include the Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins and Miami Dolphins.

Banks' attorney, Justin Brooks, head of the California Innocence Project, could not be immediately reached for comment.

The 26-year-old Banks pleaded no contest 10 years ago on the advice of a lawyer after a childhood friend falsely accused him of attacking her on their high school campus. Last Thursday, a judge threw out the conviction that sent Banks to prison for more than five years.

It's not surprising Carroll and the Seahawks appear to be the first ones willing to give Banks a shot.

Before the charges, Banks was a star middle linebacker at Long Beach Polytechnic High School and was attracting interest from college football powerhouses such as USC, Ohio State and Michigan. He gave a verbal commitment to USC to play for Carroll.

Then, a teenage girl Banks had known since childhood claimed he had raped her. He was arrested and, on advice of counsel, pleaded no contest to rape and an enhancement of kidnapping in order to avoid a possible life sentence if tried by a jury.

Banks served five years and two months in prison, but in a strange turn of events, the woman, Wanetta Gibson, later recanted her claim and offered to help Banks clear his name after he was out of jail. Banks was on probation and was wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet at the hearing last week where he was completely exonerated.

At the press conferences that followed the court hearing, Brooks appealed to NFL teams to give Banks a chance. He said Banks has been training six days a week to get in shape for the career he wants.

"He has the speed and the strength. He certainly has the heart," Brooks said. "I hope he gets the attention of people in the sports world."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/05/31/seahawks-confirm-tryout-for-former-high-school-star-exonerated-in-rape-case/?test=latestnews#ixzz1wTrTXB93

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/05/31/seahawks-confirm-tryout-for-former-high-school-star-exonerated-in-rape-case/?test=latestnews#ixzz1wTrMAUU1

Edwards jury ordered to resume deliberations after reaching verdict on only one count

Edwards jury ordered to resume deliberations after reaching verdict on only one count

Photo:  AP

In an afternoon marked by confusion and miscommunication, the jury in the John Edwards trial was ordered Thursday to resume deliberations after announcing they had reached a verdict on just one of six counts.

Judge Catherine Eagles ordered the jury to keep trying to reach a unanimous verdict on the rest of the counts, granting the request of the prosecution.

The decision came an hour after the judge initially indicated the jury was ready to announce a verdict on all counts. This was apparently a miscommunication -- the jury only reached a verdict on one count, and was deadlocked on the rest.

In response, the defense argued for a mistrial. But Eagles, after considering the matter for about 15 minutes, told the attorneys for both sides that she would send the jurors back for more deliberations.

She apologized for calling them into the courtroom and then sending them back for more discussions. "I was obviously under the impression you had reached a verdict on all six counts," Eagles said.

The unusual scene played out on the ninth day of deliberations in the tense trial of one of the nation's most well-known politicians. Edwards himself appeared stressed when the jury was first called in, drinking water and at times holding his head in his hands -- he began to smile after the foreman said the jury was deadlocked on most of the counts.

Edwards is on trial in Greensboro, N.C., for allegedly skirting campaign finance law by using contributions to help keep secret his extramarital affair during the 2008 campaign.

The one count on which a verdict was reached pertains to a charge that Edwards received campaign contributions from wealthy donor Rachel "Bunny" Mellon in excess of the legal limit in 2008. It's unclear what the verdict actually was, as it was never read.

Prosecutor David Harbach, in arguing for an extension of deliberations Thursday afternoon, told the judge, "It appears that they are not finished."

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell, though, argued that the jury has "spent many hours" behind closed doors.

"It seems to me they don't need to be told to be any more conscientious," he said, before the judge denied his request for a mistrial.

The trial began more than a month ago. Edwards, a former U.S. senator, faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted on all six counts. 

Full article:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/jury-reaches-verdict-in-edwards-trial/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/jury-reaches-verdict-in-edwards-trial/#ixzz1wTqaoptY

Before The Ban On Sugary Drinks: 7 Other Controversial Mayor Bloomberg Initiatives

Before The Ban On Sugary Drinks: 7 Other Controversial Mayor Bloomberg Initiatives

Photo:  AP

New York City’s billionaire mayor,Michael Bloomberg, announced on Wednesday his intentions to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. That covers everything from sodas to sweetened iced teas to energy drinks.

This isn’t the first time Bloomberg has gone out of his way to enact laws that he deems good for our health, our environment and our economy. He seems to have made it something of a personal quest to improve our well-being through government action.

Here’s a recap of some other notable Bloomberg initiatives:

1. Calorie Counting At Restaurants

To combat a growing obesity epidemic, the New York City Board of Health voted in December 2006 to post all calorie counts on menus and menu boards. Before that, they were often found in brochures hidden behind displays, or buried on websites. Now caloric intake listings are increasingly the norm throughout the city, and country.

2. Trans-Fats Banned

The Board of Health passed legislation, also in December 2006, banning the use of artificial trans-fats in foods, giving restaurants until July 2007  to stop frying foods in oils that contain trans-fats, and until July 2008 to completely remove them from all foods. The ban allowed for restaurants and stores to serve offending foods so long as their were in the manufacturer’s original packaging. “Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers — I love those things, too,” Bloomberg said after the decision was announced. “But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that.”

3. Bullying Salt

In January 2007, Bloomberg’s commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden pushed for a 10 year plan to cut the sodium levels in processed and pre-packaged foods by 25% twice in two back-to-back five year periods. And if there isn’t progress? He has legislation planned for that.

4.  Smoking Limits

In February 2011, Bloomberg announced a ban on smoking in public places, including Times Square and Central Park. More recently, he has announced plans to require building owners to create written policies outlining exactly where smoking is allowed in and outside their properties, and to share this with potential renters. Of the plan, Bloomberg said: “We’re not trying to ban anything. I’ve always believed, as you know, that if you want to smoke I think you should have a right to do so. But it kills you.”

5. Hybrid Taxi Fleet

In May 2007, Bloomberg announced plans to convert the city’s 13,000 taxi fleet into one composed of hybrid cars, replacing the emblematic CrownVictoria, which got 10 to 15 miles per gallon in the city. (The hybrid Ford Escape, in contrast, gets 34 miles per gallon). He argued that the switch would save drivers $10,000 a year in fuel costs, offsetting the increased investment in the more expensive hybrid vehicles. About 1,100 of the 13,000 cabs were hybrids by fall 2008, and the mayor’s plan has called for a 20% increase each year since.

6. Limiting Liquor Access

This one is still in the planning phases, but in January, Bloomberg announced his support for a plan, in coordination with the group Healthier New York City to reduce “alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol.” As well as to “reduce the exposure to alcohol products and bar advertising and promotion in retail and general (trains, buses, etc.) settings (stores, restaurants, etc.)” So keep a lookout for that one.

7. Money For Laid Off Financiers

Bloomberg’s fortune comes from the world of finance, and his eponymous firm, Bloomberg L.P., still makes a killing selling the Bloomberg Terminal, a one stop shop for trading tools, resources and news. As mayor of one of the world’s most important financial capitals, he can’t ignore the prominent contributions to the New York tax base that NYC’s financial community provides. In February 2009, following predictions that the financial crises could cost Wall Street 65,000 jobs, Bloomberg announced a plan to invest $45 million ($15 million in city funds, and $30 million in federal funds) to retrain bankers and traders who had been laid off. He hoped to prevent a max exodus from the city. Deflecting potential cries from boot-strappers when unveiling the plan, Bloomberg admitted that he received no government funds to get Bloomberg L.P. off the ground, but that didn’t count as a reason not to act in response to the recession.

Full article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/05/31/before-the-ban-on-sugary-drinks-7-other-controversial-mayor-bloomberg-initiatives/2/