Tag Archives: commission

Now Samsung Washing Machines Are Exploding Too

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Holy cow. Now Samsung washing machines are exploding too:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission said the tops can detach during use. The company has received more than 700 reports of incidents and nine reports of injuries including a broken jaw, the agency said Friday….In August, three consumers filed suit against Samsung, alleging that their machines suddenly exploded while in use.

….In April 2013, Samsung initiated one of Australia’s largest consumer recalls—of about 150,000 washing machines that it had sold there since 2010— after rescue services reported a spate of house fires believed to be caused by Samsung washers.

Luckily this doesn’t affect me. I plan to buy an LG washing machine someday thanks to their clearly superior technology:

Source article: 

Now Samsung Washing Machines Are Exploding Too

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now Samsung Washing Machines Are Exploding Too

EPA chief says her agency “has a lot to prove” on environmental justice.

The Ross Sea marine reserve, which covers 600,000 square miles of the Southern Ocean off coast of the Antarctic, will be protected from commercial fishing for the next 35 years. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, an international consortium of governments, approved it unanimously on Thursday.

At nearly twice the size of Texas, the area is home to over 10,000 species of flora and fauna, including penguins, seals, whales, seabirds, and fish.

But Ross Sea is also important for the valuable role it plays in research on the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Secretary of State John Kerry celebrated the park as “one of the last unspoiled ocean wilderness areas on the planet,” and a sign of “further proof that the world is finally beginning to understand the urgency of the threats facing our planet.”

There are some environmentalists who say the designation doesn’t go far enough. World Wildlife Foundation’s Chris Johnson noted that the agreement must be made permanent.

Taken from:  

EPA chief says her agency “has a lot to prove” on environmental justice.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA chief says her agency “has a lot to prove” on environmental justice.

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee will introduce a bill on Monday afternoon aiming to help solve the long-running fight between the government and the tech and privacy communities over encryption, which has made headlines recently thanks to the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The bill, which will be introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and is backed strongly by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), would create a commission of 16 experts with a range of backgrounds—from cryptographers and intelligence officials to privacy advocates and tech executives—to “examine the intersection of security and digital security and communications technology in a systematic, holistic way, and determine the implications for national security, public safety, data security, privacy, innovation, and American competitiveness in the global marketplace,” according to text of the legislation that was provided to Mother Jones.

It’s part of a larger push to have the government and private sector work together to create new ways to solve the impasse over encryption and other digital security issues. While the government wants to be able to access encrypted devices and messages when needed, tech companies and cryptographers have said there is simply no current way to create such a backdoor for the government without also potentially giving that same access to cybercriminals and hackers. Hillary Clinton has called for a “Manhattan-like project” to square that circle, with other presidential candidates calling for similar public-private cooperation.

McCaul and the commission’s backers hope the panel may find a new, previously undiscovered way to reconcile the legal and technical demands of the two sides, but there appears to be little idea of what that could be. In conversations with lawmakers, privacy advocates, national security lawyers, and technologists, none were able to offer Mother Jones any concrete notion of what a solution may look like. Many members of the technology and privacy communities also view calls for more cooperation and discussion as disingenuous. They argue the technical questions are settled, and that more talking won’t solve anything—but may produce bad legislation that harms security and privacy. “‘They say they can’t do it, but let’s pass the legislation to find out, and I bet they’ll figure out the solution after we’ve mandated it.’ That seems like a bad idea to me,” Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute told Motherboard last year.

Each party would get to nominate eight members of the commission, with each nominee coming from a different one of eight fields. Six of the slots would go to law enforcement and intelligence community representatives, with the other 10 given to tech business and economics experts along with two cryptographers and two members of the civil liberties community. The group would have a year to draft a final report, which would require the approval of 11 of the 16 members.

You can read the full text of the bill below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2725649-McCaul-Commission.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2725649-McCaul-Commission”
);

McCaul-Commission (PDF)

McCaul-Commission (Text)

See the original post – 

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Cyber, FF, Gandhi, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Exxon Mobil’s insane argument against action on climate change

Exxon Mobil’s insane argument against action on climate change

By on 26 Feb 2016commentsShare

Exxon Mobil has devised a bizarre new argument to wriggle away from its shareholders’ demands: Humanity can’t fix the problem we created, so we shouldn’t even try. Yep — as it turns out, Exxon Mobil’s shareholders care a lot more about climate change than the company itself does.

The planet’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company challenged a resolution about climate change regulations from its own shareholders on Friday, arguing that it’s a practical improbability that the emissions-restricting goals set forth by the recent climate accord in Paris will actually be achieved. Therefore, Exxon Mobil says, it shouldn’t have to address the impact that the regulations would have on its business.

“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying, ‘If I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,’” Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative, told InsideClimate.

The resolution, originally brought by the New York State Comptroller and four other Exxon Mobil shareholders earlier this week, had asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to force the company to address how its business would be impacted by climate mitigation efforts. Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, whose office manages a state pension fund that has a large stake in the oil and gas giant, told Reuters that investors “need to know how Exxon Mobil’s bottom line will be impacted by the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and what the company plans to do about it.”

For decades, other investors have been filing resolutions asking Exxon Mobil to take action on climate change, with most of them falling on deaf ears. Among their demands: Transparency about its anti-climate action lobbyists, a board member devoted to climate issues, and even a request for it to take “moral responsibility” for its contribution to climate change.

With Exxon Mobil blatantly ignoring climate science on one hand and giving up on emissions regulations on the other, the company seems to have flipped from willful ignorance to purposeful complacency. We’re not sure which one is worse, but either way: Exxon Mobil is clearly a nightmare for the planet.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Source article: 

Exxon Mobil’s insane argument against action on climate change

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exxon Mobil’s insane argument against action on climate change

Inside the Scandal Rocking the Fantasy Sports World

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

You’ve almost certainly seen the commercials. Turn on the TV or browse the Internet, and you’ll be bombarded with ads for daily fantasy football leagues that offer huge potential winnings each week of the season. But in recent days, the two largest daily fantasy sites—DraftKings and FanDuel—have been rocked by scandal. Now, the companies are facing a lawsuit, a state probe, and possible congressional hearings.

The controversy started last week, after a DraftKings employee won $350,000 in a FanDuel contest after inadvertently publishing information showing how many competitors had drafted certain players—before that information was supposed to be made public.

Earlier this week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opened an investigation into the business practices of DraftKings and FanDuel, seeking to determine whether employees at the sites won payouts based on access to internal information. In separate letters to each company obtained by the New York Times, Schneiderman demanded information on how both companies operated, their policies surrounding employee participation in fantasy games, and what access employees had to sensitive data.

And on Thursday, a class action lawsuit was filed in a federal court in New York against the two powerhouse fantasy sites, alleging that the companies “fraudulently induced” players to pay fees to participate in contests without acknowledging that employees participated in matches and had access to confidential, non-public information.

DraftKings CEO Jason Robins defended his company’s response to the data leak, saying in an interview with the Boston Globe that he runs a “very ethical company.”

An investigation of the daily fantasy sports industry, which gaming firm Eilers Research estimates will generate about $2.6 billion in entry fees this year alone, could disrupt the largely unregulated business. Lawmakers have called for hearings and Federal Trade Commission intervention into a world that walks the line between traditional fantasy leagues and online sports gambling.

And it all began with a mishap. Let’s start at the beginning:

What are fantasy sports, anyway? For years, fantasy leagues have captivated audiences, giving people a new way to follow their favorite professional sports. Basically, participants enter a league, draft athletes to their rosters, and compete in weekly or nightly matches against others based on their players’ statistical performances. So, for instance, it’s football season, so you get together with a few buddies and act as your own general manager—every time one of the players on your team scores a touchdown or kicks a field goal in real life, you get points in your fantasy league. In the United States, about 31 million people participate in fantasy football leagues. You often play for free, for money, or for bragging rights.

What makes daily fantasy leagues such as DraftKings and FanDuel different? Unlike the typical office pool, at DraftKings and FanDuel, participants must drop an entry fee—anywhere from 25 cents to $1,000—into contests and draft a fresh team on a nightly or weekly basis to compete against hundreds of opponents. The stakes are higher: Competitors can win as much as $2 million, depending on the size of the competition. What’s unique about daily fantasy sites is the inclusion of a “salary cap.” Participants are given a limited budget to draft a lineup of players. That means it’s important to predict which undervalued players will perform well that week.

Who’s making money off this? While participants have the chance to win millions of dollars in these competitions, the reality is, you’re more likely to lose the money you’ve put in than to gain anything substantial. An analysis by the Sports Business Journal showed the disparity between the most successful competitors and the rest of the field. The top 1.3 percent of participants in the daily fantasy baseball economy accounted for 91 percent of all player profits. And while the majority of small-time players lose about $10 per month on games, a few—5 percent of the field known as the “big fish”—accounted for 75 percent of the losses. “Hence, the DFS economy depends heavily on retaining the big fish,” Ed Miller and Daniel Singer wrote.

Eilers Research partner Adam Krejcik told Bloomberg in September that DraftKings and FanDuel would bring in a combined $60 million in entry fees in the first week of the NFL season, compared to the $30 million the sports bookies in Las Vegas would handle. At the same time, the two companies, which are each valued at more than $1 billion, hauled in a combined total of nearly $800 million in funding from investors. Those investors included New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Fox Sports, Comcast/NBC, Major League Baseball, and the National Basketball Association, among others.

This summer, Disney (which owns the majority of ESPN) pulled out of a potential $250 million investment deal with DraftKings. But ESPN subsequently reached an advertising agreement with DraftKings, making it the network’s exclusive fantasy partner. After the scandal came to light, ESPN partially distanced itself from the company, and Outside the Lines host Bob Ley announced the network would stop airing segments sponsored by DraftKings on its original programming. ESPN told media outlets such as Deadspin and CNN Money that it would be evaluating how it incorporates DraftKings into its programming “day-to-day.” â&#128;&#139;

OK, so what’s the current controversy all about? The scandal surfaced after Chris Grove, editor of legalsportsreport.com, reported that Ethan Haskell, a content manager at DraftKings, had inadvertently released lineup data for his employer’s most popular contest—the Millionaire Maker—before it was supposed to go public but after games started at FanDuel.

Before the scandal hit, employees at FanDuel and DraftKings were barred from competing in their own companies’ events, but they were still allowed to compete elsewhere. So when Haskell came in second place in a million-dollar FanDuel competition and raked in $350,000, eyebrows were raised. Questions swirled about employees’ access to data that can be used to gain a competitive advantage—in this case, information about the percentage of participants who drafted certain players.

No evidence has surfaced suggesting that Haskel actually used that information to gain an advantage. In a statement on Tuesday, DraftKings said that after a “thorough investigation,” the fantasy site found “this employee could not have used the information in question to make decisions about his FanDuel lineup” because he did not see the data until after all FanDuel lineups were finalized.

“This clearly demonstrates that this employee could not possibly have used the information in question to make decisions about his FanDuel lineup,” DraftKings stated. “Again, there is no evidence that any information was used to create an unfair advantage and any insinuations to the contrary are factually incorrect.”

A FanDuel spokesperson told ESPN that 0.3 percent of its prize money had been won by DraftKings employees—though that still amounts to at least $6 million. Both companies have now banned their employees from participating in any daily fantasy events for money. DraftKings enlisted former US Attorney John Pappalardo to conduct an internal investigation, and FanDuel has asked former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey to “review the facts and evaluate our internal controls, standards, and practices,” according to a company statement.

How exactly could non-public information skew the results? In daily fantasy sports, data is crucial. Participants make roster decisions based largely on which players are doing well at that point in the season and how much value they are likely to offer at their going “salary.” The complaint in the lawsuit against DraftKings and FanDuel explains why it would be so valuable to know how often each player is drafted: “Because the goal is to beat the other players, a player with statistical data about ownership percentages of competitors would have an edge over players without this data in many ways, including the ability to make rosters with enough players different from competitors’ rosters.â&#128;&#139;”

While DraftKings says it found no evidence indicating the employee in question used that information to his advantage, the lawsuit suggests that employees’ ability to access such information and the company’s awareness that employees participated in these outside competitions constitutes wrongdoing. DraftKings and FanDuel declined to comment on the lawsuit.

What are the legal implications of all this? Marc Edelman, an associate professor of law at the City College of New York, told Mother Jones that while the most recent scandal doesn’t necessarily reflect “insider trading,” it lifts the curtain on the “lack of institutional walls in place” on online fantasy groups. Sports legal expert Michael McCann wrote on SI.com that if the companies “knowingly” failed to prevent their employees from making money off their access to non-public data, other users could argue that both DraftKings and FanDuel “are engaged in anti-competitive conduct that violates antitrust law.”

It’s no surprise then that an investigation is under way in New York, which has one of the stronger consumer protection laws in the country. McCann noted that the Federal Trade Commission could also dive into the case and explore “whether insider knowledge in the DFS industry poses an anticompetitive, consumer-harmful practice in violation of federal trade regulations.” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has said she will not pursue an investigation into DraftKings, which is headquarted in Boston. Healey noted that no federal or state law prevents the company from operating.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, a Kentucky-based fantasy player named Adam Johnson, argues that DraftKings breached its duties by “failing to prevent persons with inside information and data by virtue of their employment at other DFS sites from competing” against other players. The complaint alleges that DraftKings also “willfully failed to disclose” that employees with access to non-public information could compete at other sites, causing financial damage to players. The lawsuit alleges that by letting employees at both sites play in competitors’ contests, both companies “committed negligence and/or fraud.”

Why isn’t this considered sports gambling? In 2006, Congress passed legislation that outlawed online gambling. Fantasy sports, however, were left in the clear and exempted from the law. Lawmakers were apparently persuaded by an intense lobbying campaign from the professional sports industry, which argued that success in fantasy sports requires skill, not chance. As a result, it’s legal and largely unregulated.

What’s going to happen now? Lawmakers may now reconsider whether fantasy sites should be regulated. New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., (D) recently made the argument that the rise in popularity of daily fantasy sites supports the case for the legalization of sports gambling nationwide. He and Sen. Bob Menendez, (D-N.J.) wrote a letter to FTC director Edith Ramirez asking whether the commission could regulate and set for rules the industry.

“Like professional sports betting, fantasy sports should be legal, but both are currently operating in the shadows,” Pallone said in a statement.

Other lawmakers have joined the fray. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who once oversaw the Nevada Gaming Commission, told the Huffington Post that Congress should scrutinize the fantasy sports industry in light of its “scandalous conduct.” And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) requested that the House Judiciary Committee hold a hearing to examine whether the multi-billion dollar industry should be allowed to police itself.

The New York Times and the Boston Globe have penned editorials calling for regulation. Fantasy enthusiasts are calling for changes, too: Cory Albertson, who, along with his playing partner Ray Coburn, has won millions from fantasy sports, declared in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, “Let’s cut to the chase here: Playing daily-fantasy sports games for money is gambling. And it should be regulated.â&#128;&#139;”

View article:  

Inside the Scandal Rocking the Fantasy Sports World

Posted in alo, Anchor, Bragg, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside the Scandal Rocking the Fantasy Sports World

The Obama Administration Will Force Companies To Show How Out of Touch CEO Pay Really Is

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Soon, you will be able to see just how bad income inequality is within major US companies.

On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a long delayed rule that will force all publicly traded companies to publish a ratio between the amount it pays its CEO and the median salary at the company. The rule was finalized by a 3-2 vote. Companies will need to start revealing this information starting in 2017. “After too much delay, the Securities and Exchange Commission did the right thing today,” Jim Lardner, a spokesperson for the liberal Americans for Financial Reform, said in a statement Wednesday.

The rule comes from the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law signed by President Obama in 2010 to address the Wall Street crash. Democrats slipped in this provision as a means to try to publicly shame companies that reward CEOs with overly lavish compensation, but liberals and consumer advocates had grown increasingly frustrated with the delays in getting this rule in place. Democratic senators had urged the SEC to hurry up, and earlier this summer Elizabeth Warren attacked SEC Chair Mary Jo White for being unclear about the timing on the rule (she also had other complaints against the SEC). “You have now been SEC Chair for over two years, and to date, your leadership of the Commission has been extremely disappointing,” Warren wrote in a letter to White.

Hillary Clinton joined the cause right before the SEC finally acted. In a speech two weeks ago, the Democratic front-runner specifically called out the agency for dragging its feet on this proposal. “There is no excuse for taking five years to get this done,” she said during one of her first economic speeches of the 2016 campaign. “Workers have a right to know whether executive pay at their company has gotten out of balance—and so does the public.”

Read article here – 

The Obama Administration Will Force Companies To Show How Out of Touch CEO Pay Really Is

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Obama Administration Will Force Companies To Show How Out of Touch CEO Pay Really Is

Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Martin O’Malley amped up his effort Thursday to win over the Democratic Party’s left wing—to out-Sanders Bernie Sanders—and become the progressive alterative to presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, releasing an antagonistic open letter to “Wall Street’s Megabanks.”

The former Maryland governor’s desired niche in the Democratic field is currently occupied by Sanders, the Vermont senator and a self-described Democratic socialist who is drawing massive crowds and surging in the polls. Sanders and O’Malley have been duking it out with a series of policy proposals aimed at outflanking each other on the political left, with O’Malley the underdog in this two-man face-off.

Yesterday, in response to Sanders’ pitch for tuition-free college, O’Malley came out for debt-free college. Today, O’Malley’s brandished his aggressively worded missive to Wall Street.

“So here’s the bad news—for you: As President, I have no plans to let up on you,” O’Malley wrote in his open letter, circulated to supporters and reporters, along with his plan for financial reform. “I’ll work tirelessly to eliminate the unique danger posed by the handful of too-big-to-fail banks. And while I’m doing that, I’ll finally bring real enforcement and oversight to the federal government—to agencies and departments like the Department of Justice, Securities Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission—so that they start doing the job the American people expect them to do and stop sitting on their hands.”

O’Malley’s confrontational approach to Wall Street isn’t just about Sanders. It’s also a challenge to Clinton, who has longstanding ties to Wall Street and a history of taking large speaking fees from big banks. And though Clinton praises Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, she hasn’t adopted that progressive champion’s favorite Wall Street reform policies.

Read the full O’Malley letter below:

Open Letter to Wall Street’s Megabanks

As you may have read, I’ve expressed grave concern about the state of our national economy, especially as it relates to the behavior of a select group of financial institutions on Wall Street—the institutions that you work for and represent. I have called for significant structural and accountability reforms to prevent another economic crash and protect hard-working families from losing their jobs, homes, and life savings once again.

Most of our financial system works quite well. Of the almost 6,500 banks in our country, most of which work hard every day to serve their communities, just 29 have more than $100 billion in assets and only four have more than $1 trillion in assets. The high-risk, reckless, and illegal activities of your megabanks were the primary cause of the 2008 crash, which caused the worst recession since The Great Depression, and cost the American economy an estimated $14 trillion to $22 trillion.

I know that many of you have tried to dismiss and undermine my calls for stronger reforms as “anti-capitalist.” Let me be clear- the ongoing reckless behavior of your megabanks isn’t capitalism—it’s the antithesis of it. True capitalism requires a level playing field on which everyone plays by the same set of rules. True capitalism requires competition. True capitalism means that just as businesses and banks can succeed—they can also fail.

Today, your—too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-manage, and too-big-to-jail—megabanks pose an enormous risk to the financial system, the economy, and American families. They are so big and so interconnected with the entire financial system that the failure of one or more of them could cause the collapse of the entire U.S. economy.

After several misguided deregulatory measures taken in the 1990’s, your handful of megabanks went from having assets of approximately 15% of our country’s GDP to now having assets of nearly 65% of our GDP. As your megabanks grew in size, who gained from it? Credit card fees didn’t get smaller. Mortgage rates didn’t go down. The median wages of Americans certainly didn’t increase. The only tangible gain we’ve seen from your institutions’ explosion in size is your ability to concentrate unprecedented power and wealth in the hands of your executives and to acquire the guarantee that all of your risky bets will be covered by taxpayers.

Now, because your institutions are so large, so leveraged, and pose such a grave threat to our economy, you don’t face the same rules of the free market that apply to everyone else. If your bets go bad, you don’t face bankruptcy—taxpayers bail you out. When things go well, the upside is all yours and you get to cash in exorbitant bonuses. This violates the very principle of free market capitalism.

For similar reasons, both your megabanks—and your executives—have been somehow classified as too big to prosecute and too big to jail. Exacerbating the problem, our financial regulation system is defined by conflicts of interest and a lucrative revolving door. Former financial executives are hired to regulate their former colleagues and, when they leave for government, they’re given golden parachutes. Then, they turn right around and return to the firms they were supposed to be regulating.

All of this explains why, when laws are broken, you and your institutions get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist—fines paid by shareholders that you can write off as nothing more than business expenses. No admission of guilt, no one faces jail time, everybody keeps their jobs — back to bonuses as usual.

As President, I would end this double standard of justice. It is bad for our economy, and it is bad for our country.

A strong American economy depends on a strong, financial industry that plays by the rules. And among the greatest victims of your megabanks have been the thousands of community banks that are the backbone of our economy. These banks provide the financing for the American Dream of homes, businesses, educations, and secure retirements. Yet they’re forced to compete on an un-level playing field—one where they bear the brunt of declining credit and wages—and where megabanks are rewarded with subsidies and bailouts.

So here’s the bad news—for you: As President, I have no plans to let up on you. I’ll work tirelessly to eliminate the unique danger posed by the handful of too-big-to-fail banks. And while I’m doing that, I’ll finally bring real enforcement and oversight to the federal government—to agencies and departments like the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission—so that they start doing the job the American people expect them to do and stop sitting on their hands.

If you—and your megabanks—which we, the American taxpayer, saved want to begin to restore the confidence in your leadership, you need to start by saying two things: “we’re sorry” and “thank you.”

Then, you have to do the right things: stop your war on financial reform, start following the law, and end your highest-risk, most dangerous activities so that your megabanks are in fact no longer too-big-to-fail.

View original: 

Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Martin O’Malley to Wall Street: "I Will Not Let Up on You’"

The Combined Black Workforces of Google, Facebook, and Twitter Could Fit on a Single Jumbo Jet

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

We already knew that Google, Facebook, and Twitter employed relatively few African Americans, but new details show that the gap is truly striking. All three companies have disclosed their full EEO1 reports, detailed accounts of their employees’ race and gender demographics that the law requires them to submit to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The reports show that out of a combined 41,000 Twitter, Facebook, and Google employees, only 758, or 1.8 percent, are black. To put this in perspective, all of those workers could fit onto a single Airbus A380. Have a look:

African Americans comprise 13 percent of the overall workforce, which means they are underrepresented at Google, Facebook, and Twitter by a factor of 7. Here’s a visual comparison of the black employees…

versus all other employees:

Race and gender gaps in tech hiring have been hot-button issues as of late. Since last May, when Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up at Google’s shareholder meeting, he has won some serious diversity concessions from major tech companies—but the pace of minority hiring remains slow. As the Guardian noted yesterday, Facebook hired 1,216 new people last year, and only 36 were black. Since last year, the percentage of black Google workers has not changed.

It should be easier to shift workplace demographics at smaller companies. Twitter, with fewer than 3,000 employees in 2014, has a huge black user base that is sometimes referred to as “Black Twitter.” Jackson wants the company to do more to move the needle. “I am very disappointed,” he told the Guardian. “We are becoming intolerant with these numbers. There’s a big gap between their talk and their implementation.”

Airplane image: Anthony Lui/Noun Project

Correction: An early version of this story misstated the number of black employees at Google and incorrectly suggested that Twitter had released its 2015 EEO1 report. Mother Jones regrets the errors.

Taken from:

The Combined Black Workforces of Google, Facebook, and Twitter Could Fit on a Single Jumbo Jet

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Combined Black Workforces of Google, Facebook, and Twitter Could Fit on a Single Jumbo Jet

Uber Drivers in California Are Employees, Labor Commission Rules

Mother Jones

California’s Labor Commission just delivered what could potentially be a significant blow to Uber’s business model. After a former driver sued to be reimbursed for driving expenses, the commission ruled that drivers working for the popular ride-hailing app are employees, not independent contractors.

“The defendants hold themselves out as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation,” the commission wrote in its ruling. “The reality, however, is that defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”

The ruling, which for now only applies to California drivers, is the result of a claim filed back in September by Barbara Ann Berwick, a former Uber driver. Berwick argued she was owed payment for expenses, such as mileage, incurred while working for the company, but Uber insisted that she was only an independent contractor and therefore not eligible for reimbursement. On Tuesday, the commission ordered the company to pay Berwick $4,000 in expenses.

The difference in classification is significant, as an employee status may force Uber to provide drivers benefits such as social security, health insurance, and unemployment insurance. Uber is in the process of appealing the decision.

Read the ruling its entirety below:

Uber vs Berwick by SuperAdventureDoug

Visit site – 

Uber Drivers in California Are Employees, Labor Commission Rules

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uber Drivers in California Are Employees, Labor Commission Rules

Jeb Bush’s Nonexistent Campaign Faces Nonexistent Hurdles

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Technically, Jeb Bush is not yet running for president. So technically, there have not been recent staff changes in the former Florida governor’s presidential campaign.

According to an NBC Nightly News report on Wednesday, two top campaign aides, Danny Diaz and David Kochel, were given new titles and new responsibilities. Diaz became campaign manager, and Kochel became chief strategist. While on a trip to Europe, Bush was asked by NBC’s Chris Jansing why he replaced his campaign manager, and his reply was firm. “Well first of all, we don’t have a campaign,” Bush said. “So there was no switching.”

Bush’s strategy seems to be to eliminate any potential questions about internal campaign discord by insisting that the campaign itself does not exist.

But what works for a staff shake up may not be so effective with the Federal Election Commission. Some watchdog organizations contend that this non-campaign campaign could get him into legal hot water. Candidates must follow strict FEC regulations when they raise their campaign war chests, but those regulations don’t apply to candidates who are merely “testing the waters.” Bush’s ambivalence has attracted the attention of some watchdog organizations. Yesterday, the nonpartisan watchdog groups Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 sent a letter to the Department of Justice urging it to “investigate apparent campaign finance violations by Jeb Bush and his associated Super PAC.” The groups allege that Bush’s super-PAC has violated federal contribution laws in the way it has raised and spent its money:

We are writing to make clear that Bush’s formal declaration of candidacy has absolutely no effect on the allegations made in our May 27 letter requesting an investigation of the Bush Super PAC scheme. In the letter, we showed that Bush already is, and has for some time been, a candidate for federal office under the statutory definition of “candidate” set forth in the federal campaign finance laws. Bush cannot evade the statutory definition of “candidate” by proclaiming he is not a candidate.

On Monday, Bush is expected to announce that his presidential campaign actually does exist.

More here – 

Jeb Bush’s Nonexistent Campaign Faces Nonexistent Hurdles

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush’s Nonexistent Campaign Faces Nonexistent Hurdles