Vote This Week May Close Long Island College Hospital

State university trustees will vote this week on whether to close Long Island College Hospital, officials of the Brooklyn hospital said on Tuesday, despite protests from doctors and nurses that northern Brooklyn would lose an essential source of emergency care.

Dr. John Williams, president of SUNY Downstate Medical Center, which runs Long Island College Hospital, said on Tuesday that he would formally recommend closing the hospital at a SUNY meeting in Manhattan on Thursday, followed by a public hearing that same day.

An executive committee of the SUNY board will vote on the recommendation on Friday and is expected to approve it, which would clear the way for the state Health Department to make the final decision, based on whether comparable care is available to people now served by the hospital. About 2,000 doctors, nurses and other employees would be in danger of losing their jobs.

Dr. Williams said that after five months on the job, he had concluded that the financial losses at LICH, as the hospital is called, threatened to sink SUNY Downstate, which includes a medical school that he said had trained one out of three doctors practicing in Brooklyn and one out of nine doctors practicing in New York City.

He said it was necessary to sacrifice LICH to save the rest of the enterprise. “I have to put on the big hat when I look at the campus and say what works and what doesn’t work,” Dr. Williams said in an interview on Tuesday. “The last thing I want to do is have people lose their jobs, but LICH could bring down SUNY Downstate and that’s something I’m trying to prevent.”

But doctors — many of whom heard of the plan at a meeting held Monday by Dr. Williams — said that the closing of LICH would leave more than 50,000 emergency room patients a year without a nearby hospital to go to. They accused Dr. Williams of opting to close LICH, which lies in the gentrifying Cobble Hill neighborhood, rather than more antiquated facilities in East Flatbush or Bay Ridge, because it has the most valuable real estate, and the sale could prop up SUNY Downstate’s faltering operations.

Dr. Williams said that he had chosen to close LICH, rather than facilities in lower-income areas, because Downstate’s mission was to take care of poor and underserved patients. He said that it would cost $75 million to $200 million to upgrade LICH’s aging plant. Besides, he said, in recent years, LICH had been largely abandoned by residents of the surrounding neighborhoods of Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights, Red Hook and Boerum Hill, who often worked in Manhattan and preferred to go to hospitals there, forcing the hospital to reduce its beds.

But Julie Semente, a registered nurse in LICH’s intensive care unit, said Tuesday that when it came to emergencies, those patients still went to LICH; Brooklyn ambulances, she said, generally do not go to Manhattan. If LICH closed, she said, they would have to go to hospitals deeper in Brooklyn and farther from their homes and families.

“My patient who was hemorrhaging had to call an ambulance,” Ms. Semente said of one recent patient. “He lives in Brooklyn Heights. The ambulance doesn’t go over the bridge. It came to Long Island College Hospital and his life was saved because he went to the hospital in the neighborhood.”

She said that SUNY Downstate was already “in a mess” financially before acquiring LICH in 2011 from Continuum Health Partners, which also runs St. Luke’s, Roosevelt and Beth Israel hospitals in Manhattan. “LICH is being closed because it is more attractive and it will bring them more money in a sale” than other facilities, she said.

The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said in an audit last month that SUNY Downstate had $117 million in operating losses in 2011, of which $44 million was attributable to the acquisition of LICH. The audit said that LICH had annual operating losses for 17 years going back to 1994. A report in November 2011 by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s panel on Brooklyn hospitals identified LICH as one of six hospitals that “do not have a business model and sufficient margins to remain viable and provide high-quality care to their communities as currently structured.”

Read More..

Economic Scene: Immigration Reform Issue: The Effect on the Budget

The stars could hardly have shone brighter on the prospects for immigration reform than in the early months of 2007.

The coalition pushing for change included the oddest of bedfellows — roping together business groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce with the Service Employees International Union, the fastest-growing union in the country. It had an impeccable bipartisan pedigree, including President George W. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl, a staunchly conservative Republican, as well as the Democrats’ liberal lion, Senator Ted Kennedy.

The economy was growing. The unemployment rate was at its lowest level since the dot-com bubble burst six years before. And the flaws of our immigration laws — impotent to stop a river of unauthorized immigrants drawn across the border by job opportunities — were obvious to all.

Immigration reform, however, was not to be.

Immigrants’ rights groups balked at the hurdles put in immigrants’ path toward legalization. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. hated a provision creating temporary work visas, arguing that it was a license for businesses to bring in cheap foreign labor. Then, a Senate Democrat, Byron Dorgan, offered the coup de grâce with an amendment to phase out the worker visa program after five years. Though proposed at the behest of organized labor, the amendment got the support of some of the most anti-union Republicans in the Senate. And it killed the entire enterprise, stripping away corporate America’s main reason to support a deal.

Today, the economy is not growing much. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. Yet President Obama thinks the stellar alignment may be  better than six years ago. He is proposing a wholesale change to the same flawed immigration laws. He trusts that Republicans, who lost the Hispanic vote by an enormous margin in November, cannot afford to further alienate Hispanics by voting against their top priority.

Despite the strong case for an overhaul, however, changing our immigration laws may be tougher than the president appears to believe. While we may have overcome some of the obstacles of 2007, reform will probably face deep-seated opposition from many Americans — including most conservative Republicans — to what they will view as a potentially large expansion of welfare.

President Obama’s proposal is based on principles similar to those of the 2007 attempt: a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants in the country, a legal channel for future immigrant workers and their families, and a plan to better enforce the nation’s borders and immigration laws.

Yet immigration reform today means something quite different than it did in 2007. Notably, the elements needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants north are much less important to the enterprise. The Obama administration has already spent huge amounts of money on border enforcement. Today, border policing costs about $18 billion a year — nearly 50 percent more than it did in 2006. And deportations have soared. What’s more, illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle, as Mexico has grown more robustly than the United States. The illegal immigrant population has even been shrinking in the last few years. And it may continue to do so as the Mexican population of prime migration-age people stops growing.

Also, many employers have already gotten some of what they wanted: the number of workers entering the United States on temporary visas for low-end jobs in agriculture and other industries has increased sharply.

“The discussion is in a different environment,” said Gordon H. Hanson, an expert on the economics of immigration at the University of California, San Diego. “The flow of new immigrants is not the story anymore.”

This might help the cause of reform in some ways. It could allow the discussion about work visas to focus on the highly educated workers coveted by technology companies and pre-empt the kind of argument between business and labor over visas for cheap immigrant workers that sank reform in 2007. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., for instance, has heartily embraced President Obama’s plan.

But what supporters of an overhaul of immigration law seem to be overlooking is that these very changes could also make it more difficult to build a coalition across the political divide. If reform is mainly about granting citizenship to 11 million mostly poor illegal immigrants with relatively little education, it is going to land squarely in the cross hairs of our epic battle about taxes, entitlements and the role of government in society.

It’s hard to say with precision what impact offering citizenship would have on the budget, but the chances are good that it would cost the government money. Half to three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay taxes, according to studies reviewed in a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office. And they are relatively inexpensive, compared with Americans of similar incomes. Their children can attend public schools at government expense — putting a burden on state and local budgets. But they are barred from receiving federal benefits like the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. Only their American-born children can get those.

Government revenue might not change much with legalization. Most illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes probably work in the cash economy — as nannies or gardeners — where tax compliance among citizens is low. Costs, of course, would increase. Once they became citizens, immigrants would be entitled to the same array of government benefits as other Americans. For Social Security and Medicare alone, offering citizenship to illegal immigrants would mean losing a subsidy worth several billion dollars a year in payroll taxes from immigrants who can’t collect benefits in old age.

The White House and other backers of reform have made much of a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that the failed immigration overhaul would have increased government revenue by $48 billion over a decade while adding only $23 billion to direct spending on entitlements and other programs. But the report also said that including the costs of carrying out the new law would actually increase the budget deficit by $18 billion over the decade and several billion a year after that. What’s more, it noted that most of the expected new tax revenue came from new immigrant workers, not from the newly legalized population.

Our history suggests we could have much to gain by turning illegal immigrants into citizens and putting an end to unauthorized immigration. The last time we permitted illegal immigrants to legalize, in 1986, incomes jumped for those who took advantage of the opportunity. Their children became more proficient in English and completed more years of school — becoming more productive and paying more taxes over their lifetimes.

But the same history underscores how immigration sets off fears about further sharing of government resources. Ten years after the immigration reform of 1986, reeling from some public anger, Congress passed a law barring legal immigrants from means-tested government services. The same issue is likely again to be a major flash point. Professor Hanson pointed to “the older white man who sees his entitlements at risk because of the demands placed by legalization on our fiscal resources.”

Conservative Republicans set on cutting government spending share those concerns. And for all their reasons to reach out to Hispanics, they might not find making illegal immigrants legal politically advantageous. On Tuesday, Republicans in the House argued against granting citizenship to illegal immigrants at all.

Hispanics are more liberal than the general population on economic matters, polls suggest, and more supportive of Big Government initiatives. Granting them citizenship would give them the vote.

As Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group in Washington that favors more limits on immigration, said, “They will see legalization as a voter-registration drive for Democrats.”

E-mail: eporter@nytimes.com; Twitter: @portereduardo

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 5, 2013

An earlier version misspelled the first name of one of the two United States senators from Arizona.  His name is Jon Kyl, not John.

Read More..

Brown weighs parole for Manson family member

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown has about a month to decide whether to release a former follower of notorious killer Charles Manson from prison.

Bruce Davis, 70, has been behind bars since 1970, convicted with Manson of the murder of a musician and a stuntman. He was not involved in the Manson family's infamous 1969 slayings of Sharon Tate and four others in a Benedict Canyon home.

For the second time, a state parole panel has determined that Davis should be freed. The parole board forwarded the decision to Brown on Friday, starting a 30-day period for the governor to agree, request a full board hearing or reverse the decision.

PHOTOS: The Manson family murders

Davis is incarcerated at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, where he has a clean record and is active in prison ministries, his lawyer told the parole officials. A prisons panel first granted him parole in 2010, citing his record and his completion of rehabilitation programs.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the decision. Davis won a legal challenge to the reversal but lost last year on appeal.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey has urged Brown not to release Davis. In a three-page letter to the governor Jan. 24, she described Davis as Manson's "right-hand man" and said he poses an "unreasonable risk of danger to society."

"Davis has been diagnosed with narcissistic and antisocial personality traits," Lacey wrote. "He consistently blames everyone but himself for his criminal and antisocial behavior."

Davis was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and robbery for the deaths of Gary Hinman and Donald "Shorty" Shea.

Though Davis said he had a peripheral role in the murders, prosecutor Steven Kay and former Manson family member Barbara Hoyt described Davis as a prominent member of the Manson family who "wanted to be second in command."

Hinman, an aspiring musician whom Manson believed had a substantial inheritance, was held captive in his home for several days, tortured and ultimately stabbed to death. In her letter, Lacey contended that Davis held a gun on Hinman while Manson attempted to slice off the captive's ear.

A Black Panther symbol and the words "political piggy" were written on the walls of the home with what was later identified as Hinman's blood.

Shea, a ranch hand who lived with the Manson family, was killed in August 1969 because Manson believed him to be a police informant. Lacey cited witnesses who testified that Davis bragged of his part in Shea's stabbing death.

Shea's widow, Phyllis Murphy, sent her own plea to the governor.

"The details of this [heinous] murder are like a story with description of something only a very evil person would take part in," she wrote. "If Bruce Davis is set free, how safe will the neighbors be, will he be allowed to take yet another life?"

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Read More..

Navy's Next-Gen Binoculars Will Recognize Your Face

Take a close look, because the next generation of military binoculars could be doing more than just letting sailors and soldiers see from far away. The Navy now wants binoculars that can scan and recognize your face from 650 feet away.

That’s according to a Jan. 16 contract announcement from the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, which is seeking a “Wireless 3D Binocular Face Recognition System.” During a testing period of 15 months, the plan is to improve “stand-off identification of uncooperative subjects” during daylight, using binoculars equipped with scanners that can read your mug from “100 to 200 meters” away, or about 328 to 650 feet. After scanning your mug, the binoculars then transmit the data to a database over a wireless network, where the data is then analyzed to determine a person’s identity. The no-bid contract, for an unspecified amount of money, went to California biometrics firm StereoVision Imaging.

“High level, it’s a surveillance and identification system,” Greg Steinthal, StereoVision’s president, tells Danger Room. “It’s using the ubiquitous binocular for real-time identification. The data point here is that this is to be used to add objectivity to an operation that’s highly subjective. So this is not intended for kinetic action to go arrest or detain someone. It’s more a tool to put other eyes on him or her.”

It helps that the technology — at least in a more limited form — already exists. StereoVision has developed a face-recognizing binocular system called 3DMobileID, with a maximum distance of around 328 feet, or 100 meters. “You have an unfair advantage,” the company touts in one promotional video, showing images of a human face being scanned at a distance, before the background is stripped out for a blue screen and then matched up to a database.

Depending on how well the binoculars work — and there’s reason to be cautious — it could give the Navy the ability to take advanced facial recognition into a much more portable and long-distance version than many current systems. Facebook uses the technology to match faces when users upload new photos. Google has its own version as well for its its Picasa photo service, and Apple has been researching face recognition as a way to unlock smartphones. (There are apps for iOS that do this, too.)

But the ranges on most systems also tend to max out at a few feet. For the military, that can be dangerous. Close-range biometric scanners (iris scanners are currently used by soldiers in Afghanistan) can pose a danger to the operator, as a person walking up to have their features scanned from a few inches away could be preparing to detonate an explosive vest. And what if a person happens to be on the move, or is bobbing and weaving through a crowd? That can render the scanners ineffective. Once upon a time, many face scanners also depended on the relatively crude practice of scanning 2-D images of the human face, which are an imprecise method when there are varying lighting conditions.

But the key to solving many of these problems could be a simple upgrade: StereoVision’s system scans in 3-D. When the system first scans you, it creates a 3-D model of your face instead of a 2-D image. That allows the system to isolate your face from a crowd, sharpen the image — which boosts the range — and then compares the image to a database. A filter also adjusts for varying degrees of light by smoothing out light across the face into a uniform pattern.

Now for the flaws in the system. The binoculars are not intended to work at night, and have difficulty scanning faces in twilight. When the binoculars can’t draw an image, it gives off a an audible beep to the operator, which is helpful. Otherwise, the process takes “about five to 10 seconds,” says Steinthal.

It’s also less effective when a subject is on the move. “[It] depends on how fast the target is walking,” Steinthal says. “We’re at walking, one-and-half meters per second. Somebody running? We’re not going to be able to do that right now.”

The concept of binoculars that scan and identify is also — perhaps unnervingly — not limited to the military. For one, StereoVision’s binoculars were developed in part with a $409,226 contract from the National Institute of Justice, and face scanners are a popular research topic for the FBI more broadly.

The FBI is spending $1 billion on a program called Next Generation Identification based around developing face scanners and combining the technology with other biometrics like the iris, voice, and fingerprints. A static face recognition system has also been installed at Toucumen International Airport in Panama City that can scan travelers’ faces and match them to criminal databases maintained by the FBI and Interpol. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the San Diego Police Department have also tested out the binoculars, according to Steinthal, and are intended there for gang enforcement units and even to track “celebrity stalkers” in the L.A. area. Maybe if the FBI wants its special agents to also have some pretty far-out binoculars too, it should take a peek.

Read More..

Robert De Niro cements place in Hollywood movies

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Double Oscar winner Robert De Niro cemented his place in acting history on Monday by placing his hands and feet in concrete in front of Hollywood‘s historic Chinese Theatre.

De Niro, 69, gave a short thank you speech with a few punchlines of his own.

“(Actor) Joe Pesci always said I’d end up with my feet in cement. I don’t think this is what he had in mind,” said De Niro, referring to the many gangster movies he has filmed over his 40-year career.

“They say everyone in the film industry has three homes – the home where they live, the home where their first wife lives, and Hollywood. I love New York, and I’m proud to be a citizen of Hollywood. Thank you for this honor and thank you for making me feel at home here,” he said.

De Niro, who founded the Tribeca Film Festival in 2002 in a bid to revive lower Manhattan after the September 11, 2001, attacks, is in the running for a third Oscar this month for his supporting role in comedy “Silver Linings Playbook.”

Billy Crystal, who played therapist to De Niro‘s insecure mob boss in the 1999 film “Analyze This,” praised the New York actor for his ability to bridge comedies like “Meet the Parents” and dramas such as “GoodFellas” and “Taxi Driver.”

“Even in his darkest performances, even in ‘Raging Bull‘ … he could make you laugh, and that he did in spades in ‘Analyze This.’ … I’m not used to playing straight for anybody, but it was a thrill of a lifetime to be on the opposite side of that genius,” Crystal said.

“Silver Linings Playbook” director David O. Russell praised De Niro‘s sensitivity in taking on the role of the father of a bipolar son in the movie.

“When we first read the script together he cried because he has known people who struggled with PTSD or bipolar disorder. … Many families are no stranger to these challenges and they have to find the magic and the love that Bob brought in his soul, and he did bring his soul to this movie,” Russell said.

De Niro won Oscars for his lead role in “Raging Bull” and his supporting turn in “The Godfather: Part II.”

His handprints and footprints in the courtyard of the Chinese Theatre are near those of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Robert De Niro cements place in Hollywood movies
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/robert-de-niro-cements-place-in-hollywood-movies/
Link To Post : Robert De Niro cements place in Hollywood movies
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Well: Expressing the Inexpressible

When Kyle Potvin learned she had breast cancer at the age of 41, she tracked the details of her illness and treatment in a journal. But when it came to grappling with issues of mortality, fear and hope, she found that her best outlet was poetry.

How I feared chemo, afraid
It would change me.
It did.
Something dissolved inside me.
Tears began a slow drip;
I cried at the news story
Of a lost boy found in the woods …
At the surprising beauty
Of a bright leaf falling
Like the last strand of hair from my head

Ms. Potvin, now 47 and living in Derry, N.H., recently published “Sound Travels on Water” (Finishing Line Press), a collection of poems about her experience with cancer. And she has organized the Prickly Pear Poetry Project, a series of workshops for cancer patients.

“The creative process can be really healing,” Ms. Potvin said in an interview. “Loss, mortality and even hopefulness were on my mind, and I found that through writing poetry I was able to express some of those concepts in a way that helped me process what I was thinking.”

In April, the National Association for Poetry Therapy, whose members include both medical doctors and therapists, is to hold a conference in Chicago with sessions on using poetry to manage pain and to help adolescents cope with bullying. And this spring, Tasora Books will publish “The Cancer Poetry Project 2,” an anthology of poems written by patients and their loved ones.

Dr. Rafael Campo, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, says he uses poetry in his practice, offering therapy groups and including poems with the medical forms and educational materials he gives his patients.

“It’s always striking to me how they want to talk about the poems the next time we meet and not the other stuff I give them,” he said. “It’s such a visceral mode of expression. When our bodies betray us in such a profound way, it can be all the more powerful for patients to really use the rhythms of poetry to make sense of what is happening in their bodies.”

On return visits, Dr. Campo’s patients often begin by discussing a poem he gave them — for example, “At the Cancer Clinic,” by Ted Kooser, from his collection “Delights & Shadows” (Copper Canyon Press, 2004), about a nurse holding the door for a slow-moving patient.

How patient she is in the crisp white sails
of her clothes. The sick woman
peers from under her funny knit cap
to watch each foot swing scuffing forward
and take its turn under her weight.
There is no restlessness or impatience
or anger anywhere in sight. Grace
fills the clean mold of this moment
and all the shuffling magazines grow still.

In Ms. Potvin’s case, poems related to her illness were often spurred by mundane moments, like seeing a neighbor out for a nightly walk. Here is “Tumor”:

My neighbor walks
For miles each night.
A mantra drives her, I imagine
As my boys’ chant did
The summer of my own illness:
“Push, Mommy, push.”
Urging me to wind my sore feet
Winch-like on a rented bike
To inch us home.
I couldn’t stop;
Couldn’t leave us
Miles from the end.

Karin Miller, 48, of Minneapolis, turned to poetry 15 years ago when her husband developed testicular cancer at the same time she was pregnant with their first child.

Her husband has since recovered, and Ms. Miller has reviewed thousands of poems by cancer patients and their loved ones to create the “Cancer Poetry Project” anthologies. One poem is “Hymn to a Lost Breast,” by Bonnie Maurer.

Oh let it fly
let it fling
let it flip like a pancake in the air
let it sing: what is the song
of one breast flapping?

Another is “Barn Wish” by Kim Knedler Hewett.

I sit where you can’t see me
Listening to the rustle of papers and pills in the other room,
Wondering if you can hear them.
Let’s go back to the barn, I whisper.
Let’s turn on the TV and watch the Bengals lose.
Let’s eat Bill’s Doughnuts and drink Pepsi.
Anything but this.

Ms. Miller has asked many of her poets to explain why they find poetry healing. “They say it’s the thing that lets them get to the core of how they are feeling,” she said. “It’s the simplicity of poetry, the bare bones of it, that helps them deal with their fears.”

---

Have you written a poem about cancer? Please share them with us in the comments section below.

Read More..

DealBook: Suit to Accuse S.&P. of Fraud in Mortgage Bond Ratings

The Justice Department late Monday filed civil fraud charges against the nation’s largest credit-ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, accusing the firm of inflating the ratings of mortgage investments and setting them up for a crash when the financial crisis struck.

The suit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, is the first significant federal action against the ratings industry, which during the boom years reaped record profits as it bestowed gilt-edged ratings on complex bundles of home loans that quickly went sour. The high ratings made many investments appear safer than they actually were, and are now seen as having contributed to a crisis that brought the financial system and the broader economy to its knees.

More than a dozen state prosecutors are expected to join the federal suit, and the New York attorney general is preparing a separate action. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also been investigating possible wrongdoing at S.& P.

From September 2004 through October 2007, S.&P. “knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud investors” in certain mortgage-related securities, according to the suit filed against the agency and its parent company, McGraw-Hill Companies. S.&P. also falsely represented that its ratings “were objective, independent, uninfluenced by any conflicts of interest,” the suit said.

S.& P., which was first contacted by federal enforcement officials three years ago, said in a statement earlier Monday in anticipation of the suit that it had acted in good faith when it issued the ratings.

“A D.O.J. lawsuit would be entirely without factual or legal merit,” it said, adding that its competitors had given exactly the same ratings to all the securities it believed to be in question.

Settlement talks between S.& P. and the Justice Department broke down in the last two weeks after prosecutors sought a penalty in excess of $1 billion and insisted that the company admit wrongdoing, several people with knowledge of the talks said. That amount would wipe out the profits of McGraw-Hill for an entire year. S.& P. had proposed a settlement of around $100 million, the people said.

S.& P. also sought a deal that would allow it to neither admit nor deny guilt; the government pressed for an admission of guilt to at least one count of fraud, said the people. S.& P. told prosecutors it could not admit guilt without exposing itself to liability in a multitude of civil cases.

It was unclear whether state and federal authorities were looking at the other two major ratings agencies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch.

A spokesman for Moody’s declined to comment. A spokesman for Fitch, Daniel J. Noonan, said the agency could not comment on an action that appeared to focus on Standard & Poor’s, but added, “we have no reason to believe Fitch is a target of any such action.”

The case against S.& P. is said to focus on about 30 collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s, an exotic type of security made up of bundles of mortgage bonds, which in turn were composed of individual home loans. The securities were created at the height of the housing boom. S.& P. was paid fees of about $13 million for rating them.

Prosecutors, according to the people briefed on the discussions, have uncovered troves of e-mails written by S.& P. employees, which the government considers damaging. The firm gave the government more than 20 million pages of e-mails as part of its investigation, the people with knowledge of the process said.

Since the financial crisis in 2008, the ratings agencies’ business practices have been widely criticized and questions have been raised as to whether independent analysis was corrupted by Wall Street’s push for profits.

A Senate investigation made public in 2010 found that S.& P. and Moody’s used inaccurate rating models from 2004 to 2007 that failed to predict how high-risk residential mortgages would perform; allowed competitive pressures to affect their ratings; and failed to reassess past ratings after improving their models in 2006.

The companies failed to assign adequate staff to examine new and exotic investments, and neglected to take mortgage fraud, lax underwriting and “unsustainable home price appreciation” into account in their models, the inquiry found.

“Rating agencies continue to create an even bigger monster — the C.D.O. market,” one S.& P. employee wrote in an internal e-mail in December 2006. “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card falters.”

Another S.& P. employee wrote in an instant message the next April, according to the Senate report: “We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

The three major ratings agencies are typically paid by the issuers of the securities they rate — in this case, the banks that had packaged the mortgage-backed securities and wanted to market them. The investors who would buy the securities were not involved in the process but depended on the rating agencies’ assessments.

Although the three agencies tend to track one another, each has its own statistical methods for assessing the likelihood of a bond default. That has led to speculation that S.& P. analysts knew their method yielded unrealistic ratings, but issued the ratings anyway.

In its statement on Monday, S.& P. said it had begun stress-testing the mortgage-backed securities it rated as early as 2005, trying to see how they would perform in a severe market downturn. S.& P. said it had also sent out early warning signals, downgrading hundreds of mortgage-backed securities, starting in 2006. Nor was it the only one to have underestimated the coming crisis, it said — even the Federal Reserve’s open market committee believed at the time that any problems within the housing sector could be contained.

The Justice Department, the company said, “would be wrong in contending that S.& P. ratings were motivated by commercial considerations and not issued in good faith.”

For many years, the ratings agencies have defended themselves successfully in civil litigation by saying their ratings were independent opinions, protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. Developments in the wake of the financial crisis have raised questions about the agencies’ independence however. For example, one federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled in 2009 that the First Amendment did not apply in a lawsuit over ratings issued by S.& P. and Moody’s, because the mortgage-backed securities at issue had not been offered to the public at large. Judge Scheindlin also agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued the ratings were not opinions, but misrepresentations, possibly the result of fraud or negligence.

The federal action will be the first time a credit-rating agency has been charged under a 1989 law intended to protect taxpayers from frauds involving federally insured financial institutions, which since the financial crisis has been used against a number of federally insured banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup.

The government is taking a novel approach in this instance by accusing S.& P. of defrauding a federally insured institution and therefore injuring the taxpayer.

The government is expected to cite the demise of Wescorp, a federally insured credit union in Los Angeles that went bankrupt after investing in mortgage securities rated by S.& P. Wescorp will be showcased as an example of the contended fraud, and as a way to bring the case in California, people with knowledge of the proceedings said. The suit was filed in Federal District Court fore the Central District of California.

By bringing a civil suit, as opposed to a criminal case, the Justice Department’s burden of proof will be less, perhaps lowering the bar for a successful prosecution.

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

Read More..

Ravens win Super Bowl XLVII over the 49ers, 34-31

Ravens 34, 49ers 31 (final)

The Baltimore Ravens have defeated the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl XLVII.

It's the second championship for the Ravens and linebacker Ray Lewis, who is retiring after 17 seasons.

After taking a safety on their final possession, Baltimore punted to San Francisco, which was unable to set up a return and suffered its first loss in six appearances in the NFL championship game.

San Francisco never led in the game, but the 49ers still had a chance to win the when punt returner Ted Ginn Jr. fielded the punt. A swarming Ravens defense contained him near midfield before making the tackle.

Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco was selected the game’s most valuable player.

The championship goes to Baltimore Coach John Harbaugh over his kid brother, San Francisco Coach Jim Harbaugh.

The Times will have full coverage of the game played at the New Orleans Superdome throughout the night at latimes.com.

Ravens 34, 49ers 31 (4 seconds left)

The Baltimore Ravens are closing in on a Super Bowl title.

After moving the ball from their own 20-yard line to the Ravens’ 5, San Francisco saw Baltimore defensive back Joey Smith break up a third-down pass to Michael Crabtree.

Colin Kaepernick was then rushed heavily, forcing a throw that 49ers Coach Jim Harbaugh begged for pass interference with a Ravens defensive back and Crabtree jostling for position.

The Kaepernick pass flew beyond Crabtree with cornerback Jimmy Smith tugging on his jersey.

The Ravens went three and out on their next possession, opting to take a safety with four seconds remaining as the punter ran out of the end zone.

It’s now Baltimore 34, San Francisco 31.

Ravens 34, 49ers 29 (two-minute warning)

The San Francisco 49ers have never lost a Super Bowl, and now they find themselves in Joe Montana territory against the Cincinnati Bengals back in the day.

Taking possession at their own 20-yard line with 4:19 left in the game and trailing by five points, San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick ran for a first down, then completed a 24-yard pass to receiver Michael Crabtree to the Baltimore's 40.

A Frank Gore run moved the ball to Baltimore’s seven, and it’s now the two-minute warning.

Ravens 34, 49ers 29 (4:19 left in fourth quarter)

The Baltimore Ravens have increased their lead over the San Francisco 49ers to five points with 4:19 left in regulation.

Read More..

Wired Science Space Photo of the Day: Wheatley Crater on Venus

Magellan radar image of Wheatley crater on Venus. This 72 km diameter crater shows a radar bright ejecta pattern and a generally flat floor with some rough raised areas and faulting. The crater is located in Asteria Regio at 16.6N,267E.

Image: NASA/GSFC [high-resolution]

Caption: NASA

Read More..

Beyonce brings electricity at Super Bowl halftime

Lights out? Blame Beyonce‘s electrifying performance.

If naysayers still doubted Beyonce‘s singing’s talents — even after her national anthem performance this week at a press conference — the singer proved she is an exceptional performer at the Super Bowl halftime show.

Beyonce opened and closed the performance belting songs, and in between she danced hard and heavy — and better than most contemporary pop stars.

She set a serious tone as she emerged onstage in all black, singing lines from her R&B hit “Love on Top.” The stage was dark as fire and lights burst from the sides. Then she went into her hit “Crazy In Love,” bringing some feminine spirit to the Super Dome as she and her background dancers did the singer’s signature booty-shaking dance. Beyonce ripped off part of her shirt and skirt. She even blew a kiss. She was ready to rock, and she did so like a pro.

Her confidence — and voice — grew as she worked the stage with and without her Destiny’s Child band mates during her 13-minute set, which comes days after she admitted she sang to a pre-recorded track at President Barack Obama‘s inauguration less than two weeks ago.

Beyonce proved not only that she can sing, but that she can also entertain on a stage as big as the Super Bowl’s. She was far better than Madonna, who sang to a backing track last year, and miles ahead of the Black Eyed Peas’ disastrous set in 2011.

Beyonce was best when she finished her set with “Halo.” She asked the crowd to put their hands toward her as she sang the slow groove on bended knee — and that’s when she the performance hit its high note.

“Thank you for this moment,” she told the crowd. “God bless y’all.”

Her background singers helped out as Beyonce danced around the stage throughout most of her performance. There was a backing track to help fill in when Beyonce wasn’t singing — and there were long stretches when she let it play as she performed elaborate dance moves.

She had a swarm of background dancers and band members spread throughout the stage, along with videotaped images of herself dancing that may have unintentionally played on the live-or-taped question. And the crowd got bigger when she was joined by her Destiny’s Child band mates.

Kelly Rowland and Michelle Williams popped up from below the stage to sing “Bootylicious.” They were in similar outfits, singing and dancing closely as they harmonized. But Rowland and Williams were barely heard when the group sang “Independent Woman,” as their voices faded into the background.

They also joined in for some of “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It),” where Beyonce‘s voice grew stronger. That song featured Beyonce‘s skilled choreography, as did “End of Time” and “Baby Boy,” which featured Beyonce‘s all-female band, balancing out the testosterone levels on the football field.

Before the game, Alicia Keys performed a lounge-y, piano-tinged version of the national anthem that her publicist assured was live. The Grammy-winning singer played the piano as she sang “The Star Spangled Banner” in a long red dress with her eyes shut.

She followed Jennifer Hudson, who sang “America the Beautiful” with the 26-member Sandy Hook Elementary School chorus, an emotional performance that had some players on the sideline on the verge of tears.

The students wore green ribbons on their shirts in honor of the 20 first-graders and six adults who were killed in a Dec. 14 shooting rampage at the school in Newton, Conn.

The students began the song softly before Hudson, whose mother, brother and 7-year-old nephew were shot to death five years ago, jumped in with her gospel-flavored vocals. She stood still in black and white as the students moved to the left and right, singing background.

___

Follow Mesfin Fekadu on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MusicMesfi n

Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Beyonce brings electricity at Super Bowl halftime
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/beyonce-brings-electricity-at-super-bowl-halftime/
Link To Post : Beyonce brings electricity at Super Bowl halftime
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..