AIKEN, S.C. -
A bank teller in Clearwater had a million reasons not to open an account for an Augusta, Ga., man Monday, authorities said. Alexander D. Smith, 31, was charged with disorderly conduct and two counts of forgery after he walked into the bank and tried to open an account by depositing a fake $1 million bill, said Aiken County Sheriff's spokesman Lt. Michael Frank.
The employee refused to open the account and called police while the man started to curse at bank workers, Frank said.
The second forgery charge came after investigators learned Smith bought several cartons of cigarettes from a nearby grocery store with a stolen check, Frank said.
The federal government has never printed a million-dollar bill, Frank said.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Shocked Leno staffers fired as strike drags on
By Paul Bond
Fri Nov 30, 8:47 PM PST
A couple of days after the Writers Guild of America strike began November 5, the star of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" told some 80 of his idled staffers that they need not worry about their finances.
Leno was so adamant about paychecks being safe, many didn't bother looking for new jobs even though NBC was forecasting layoffs.
So it came as quite a shock Friday when the entire staff was told that they were not only out of a job but also that they weren't guaranteed of being rehired once "The Tonight Show" returns.
"Some people were crying. Some people were screaming," said one employee speaking on condition of anonymity.
NBC declined comment on the firings beyond a brief statement that it had "regretfully informed the people who work on 'The Tonight Show With Jay Leno' and 'Late Night With Conan O'Brien' that their services are not needed at this time due to our inability to continue production of the shows."
According to several staffers, tensions at "Tonight Show" have been mounting for weeks, and matters weren't helped by news that other late-night hosts have been preserving the jobs of their nonwriting staffs or paying those who had been laid off. O'Brien confirmed Thursday, for example, that he would pay the salaries of at least 50 nonwriting "Late Night" staffers out of his own pocket on a week-to-week basis.
Some "Tonight Show" insiders are angry at Leno, because of an upbeat conference call he held shortly after the WGA strike began.
"He was on speaker phone," a staffer said. "There were 80 of us. He told us not to panic. He said to trust him. He said: 'I can't get into details, but nobody will miss a car payment or lose their house. We're family. Trust me. I'm going to take care of this.' But that was the time we should have been looking for new jobs."
More recently, a letter NBC sent to now-laid-off staffers said, "If your services are needed, we will contact you."
"That's standard boilerplate," said Joe Medeiros, a striking writer who has worked with Leno for 18 years. "It's corporate butt-covering."
According to insiders, the early confidence that Leno expressed stemmed from several options in the works, including the hiring of guest hosts. Leno himself guest-hosted for "The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson" during the 1988 writers strike, according to the WGA. This time around, comedian Wanda Sykes was a top pick, but she turned down the offer. Using rock stars on a rotating basis also was considered, insiders said.
Another option was having Leno do a show without a monologue or writers, relying heavily on musical acts and stand-up comedians.
None of the options, though, came to fruition, and "The Tonight Show" has continued airing reruns.
Beyond Leno's misplaced optimism about the financial well-being of his staff, he further damaged himself -- in the eyes of some workers -- with his public behavior. While he privately expressed concern for the jobs of all staff members, to the media he seemed preoccupied with supporting striking writers, including handing out doughnuts to picketers and mugging for press photos.
"He even joked that because of the writers strike, he had more time to work on his car collection," a staffer said. "That didn't sit well with us."
Medeiros said that Leno made his doughnut appearance on Day One of the strike at his request. "I asked him to come out and he did. We thought it sent a message to end the strike."
Asked if writers would object to Leno working without them during the strike in order to save jobs, Medeiros said: "I can't answer that. The story to me is that the corporations are doing this in order to pit groups against each other and break the strike."
The fact that some of Leno's writers are paid $500,000 or more annually also didn't sit well with suddenly out-of-work production staffers who make a fraction of that amount. Writers also are getting residuals on "Tonight Show" reruns that air during the strike.
The final indignation was a Christmas bonus that many thought lacking. Staffers with a couple of years on the job were given $200. Some higher-paid employees were awarded three days of salary or a bit more, about the same bonuses they got last year.
The Leno representative defended the bonuses as well, pointing out that they amounted to $500,000 in aggregate out of Leno's pocket. He also noted that Leno handed out $2 million five years ago to staffers in celebration of his 10th year as host.
"Jay is a very generous man," added Medeiros. "I don't know what people expected. How much more should he give over a situation that he didn't cause?"
But, said one staffer: "When the most powerful man in TV tells you to relax, then you relax. That's why we expected the bonuses to cover us through the strike. He could've at least covered us through Christmas. That would have been nice."
Fri Nov 30, 8:47 PM PST
A couple of days after the Writers Guild of America strike began November 5, the star of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" told some 80 of his idled staffers that they need not worry about their finances.
Leno was so adamant about paychecks being safe, many didn't bother looking for new jobs even though NBC was forecasting layoffs.
So it came as quite a shock Friday when the entire staff was told that they were not only out of a job but also that they weren't guaranteed of being rehired once "The Tonight Show" returns.
"Some people were crying. Some people were screaming," said one employee speaking on condition of anonymity.
NBC declined comment on the firings beyond a brief statement that it had "regretfully informed the people who work on 'The Tonight Show With Jay Leno' and 'Late Night With Conan O'Brien' that their services are not needed at this time due to our inability to continue production of the shows."
According to several staffers, tensions at "Tonight Show" have been mounting for weeks, and matters weren't helped by news that other late-night hosts have been preserving the jobs of their nonwriting staffs or paying those who had been laid off. O'Brien confirmed Thursday, for example, that he would pay the salaries of at least 50 nonwriting "Late Night" staffers out of his own pocket on a week-to-week basis.
Some "Tonight Show" insiders are angry at Leno, because of an upbeat conference call he held shortly after the WGA strike began.
"He was on speaker phone," a staffer said. "There were 80 of us. He told us not to panic. He said to trust him. He said: 'I can't get into details, but nobody will miss a car payment or lose their house. We're family. Trust me. I'm going to take care of this.' But that was the time we should have been looking for new jobs."
More recently, a letter NBC sent to now-laid-off staffers said, "If your services are needed, we will contact you."
"That's standard boilerplate," said Joe Medeiros, a striking writer who has worked with Leno for 18 years. "It's corporate butt-covering."
According to insiders, the early confidence that Leno expressed stemmed from several options in the works, including the hiring of guest hosts. Leno himself guest-hosted for "The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson" during the 1988 writers strike, according to the WGA. This time around, comedian Wanda Sykes was a top pick, but she turned down the offer. Using rock stars on a rotating basis also was considered, insiders said.
Another option was having Leno do a show without a monologue or writers, relying heavily on musical acts and stand-up comedians.
None of the options, though, came to fruition, and "The Tonight Show" has continued airing reruns.
Beyond Leno's misplaced optimism about the financial well-being of his staff, he further damaged himself -- in the eyes of some workers -- with his public behavior. While he privately expressed concern for the jobs of all staff members, to the media he seemed preoccupied with supporting striking writers, including handing out doughnuts to picketers and mugging for press photos.
"He even joked that because of the writers strike, he had more time to work on his car collection," a staffer said. "That didn't sit well with us."
Medeiros said that Leno made his doughnut appearance on Day One of the strike at his request. "I asked him to come out and he did. We thought it sent a message to end the strike."
Asked if writers would object to Leno working without them during the strike in order to save jobs, Medeiros said: "I can't answer that. The story to me is that the corporations are doing this in order to pit groups against each other and break the strike."
The fact that some of Leno's writers are paid $500,000 or more annually also didn't sit well with suddenly out-of-work production staffers who make a fraction of that amount. Writers also are getting residuals on "Tonight Show" reruns that air during the strike.
The final indignation was a Christmas bonus that many thought lacking. Staffers with a couple of years on the job were given $200. Some higher-paid employees were awarded three days of salary or a bit more, about the same bonuses they got last year.
The Leno representative defended the bonuses as well, pointing out that they amounted to $500,000 in aggregate out of Leno's pocket. He also noted that Leno handed out $2 million five years ago to staffers in celebration of his 10th year as host.
"Jay is a very generous man," added Medeiros. "I don't know what people expected. How much more should he give over a situation that he didn't cause?"
But, said one staffer: "When the most powerful man in TV tells you to relax, then you relax. That's why we expected the bonuses to cover us through the strike. He could've at least covered us through Christmas. That would have been nice."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush pushes for telecom immunity
By JENNIFER LOVEN,
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.
A proposed bill unveiled by Democrats on Tuesday does not include such a provision. Bush, appearing on the South Lawn as that measure was taken up in two House committees, said the measure is unacceptable for that and other reasons.
"Today the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees are considering a proposed bill that instead of making the Protect America Act permanent would take us backward," the president said.
Bush wants legislation that extends and strengthens a temporary bill passed in August. Democrats want a bill that rolls back some of the new powers it granted the government to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists.
Under pressure to close what Bush officials called a dangerous gap in intelligence collection, Congress hastily passed a the temporary bill before leaving Washington for a summer break. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned, and civil liberties groups are saying the changes they've already legislated gave too much new latitude to the administration and provided too little protection against government spying on Americans without oversight.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain eavesdropping warrants from a secret intelligence court.
This year's update to the law allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even when the communications flow through the U.S. communications network — or if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.
The original law generally prohibited surveillance inside the U.S., unless a court first approved it.
Seeking to increase the pressure on the Democratic-controlled Congress, Bush said the update has already been effective, with intelligence professionals able "to gather critical information that would have been missed without this authority."
"Keeping this authority is critical to keeping America safe," he said.
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.
Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.
If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.
A top Democratic leader opened the door on Tuesday to allowing an immunity provision. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the Bush administration must first detail what the companies did. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws.
Bush detailed criteria that the bill must meet before he would sign it, including the immunity provision and the broad requirement that it "ensure that protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us."
"Congress must make a choice," he said. "Will they keep the intelligence gap closed by making this law permanent. Or will they limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us."
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.
A proposed bill unveiled by Democrats on Tuesday does not include such a provision. Bush, appearing on the South Lawn as that measure was taken up in two House committees, said the measure is unacceptable for that and other reasons.
"Today the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees are considering a proposed bill that instead of making the Protect America Act permanent would take us backward," the president said.
Bush wants legislation that extends and strengthens a temporary bill passed in August. Democrats want a bill that rolls back some of the new powers it granted the government to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists.
Under pressure to close what Bush officials called a dangerous gap in intelligence collection, Congress hastily passed a the temporary bill before leaving Washington for a summer break. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned, and civil liberties groups are saying the changes they've already legislated gave too much new latitude to the administration and provided too little protection against government spying on Americans without oversight.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain eavesdropping warrants from a secret intelligence court.
This year's update to the law allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even when the communications flow through the U.S. communications network — or if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.
The original law generally prohibited surveillance inside the U.S., unless a court first approved it.
Seeking to increase the pressure on the Democratic-controlled Congress, Bush said the update has already been effective, with intelligence professionals able "to gather critical information that would have been missed without this authority."
"Keeping this authority is critical to keeping America safe," he said.
The temporary law requires court review, but only four months after the fact and only involving the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases. Until then, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general would oversee and approve the process of targeting foreign terrorists.
Setting a collision course with the administration, the Democratic bill would provide greater jurisdiction to the secret FISA court.
If the government wants to eavesdrop on a foreign target or group of targets located outside the United States, and there is a possibility they will be communicating with Americans, the government can get an "umbrella" or "blanket" court order for up to one year. In an emergency, the government could begin surveillance without a blanket order as long as it applies for court approval within seven days, under the Democratic bill.
A top Democratic leader opened the door on Tuesday to allowing an immunity provision. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the Bush administration must first detail what the companies did. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws.
Bush detailed criteria that the bill must meet before he would sign it, including the immunity provision and the broad requirement that it "ensure that protections intended for the American people are not extended to terrorists overseas who are plotting to harm us."
"Congress must make a choice," he said. "Will they keep the intelligence gap closed by making this law permanent. Or will they limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us."
Monday, October 8, 2007
Sudan army attacks Darfur partners in peace: rebels
By Opheera McDoom
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese government troops and allied militia on Monday attacked a town belonging to the only Darfur rebel faction to sign a 2006 peace deal, the faction said.
"Government planes have attacked Muhajiriya, which belongs to us, and government forces and Janjaweed militia are fighting our forces," said Khalid Abakar, a senior representative from the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA).
Abakar is from the SLA faction led by Minni Arcua Minnawi, the only one of three rebel negotiating factions to sign a May 2006 peace deal with Khartoum. The movement then became part of the government and control Muhajiriya town in South Darfur.
"We consider this a very serious development," the head of Minnawi's office, Mohamed Bashir, told Reuters.
"Half of Muhajiriya is burnt down," he said adding, Minnawi would return to Khartoum from Darfur following the attack.
Rival rebel factions who did not sign the May 2006 deal also confirmed the attack on Muhajiriya, adding government troops were also amassing near Tine town, on the Chadian border, preparing to attack rebel-controlled areas in North Darfur.
Bashir said the assault was a continuation of the Sudanese army offensive in the former rebel town of Haskanita in southeast Darfur, which had been burnt to the ground and emptied of civilians.
On Monday a leading Darfur rebel said 105 people were killed in Haskanita, which the army occupied last week following a vicious attack, initially blamed on rebels, on African Union peacekeepers there.
Suleiman Jamous, a respected humanitarian coordinator for the Sudan Liberation Army, said the government and allied militia razed Haskanita over several days.
"Around 105 people killed is the last figure we have," Jamous told Reuters. "There are many others in the bush who may die of thirst -- they need water," he added.
Jamous, who across the border from Darfur in Abeche, Chad, said all the residents of villages surrounding Haskanita had fled too after seeing the town razed.
"EXAGGERATION"
The United Nations, which inspected the town for two hours on Saturday, confirmed it had been burnt to the ground but could not say by whom or whether there were any casualties.
U.N. officials said only the mosque and school were left standing and most of Haskanita's 7,000 population had fled.
Sudan's army said a fire, the cause of which was unclear, started in the market and spread to the rest of the town, and said the United Nations had exaggerated the damage.
"There was a fire but it was brought under control," an army spokesman said. "The United Nations have made this into something bigger than it is."
Growing tensions, which have been growing in the run-up to AU-U.N.-mediated peace talks in Libya scheduled for Oct 27, exploded on September 29 when armed men in 30 vehicles descended upon an AU peacekeepers' base near Haskanita, destroying the base and killing 10 peacekeepers.
Haskanita had been a rebel-controlled town and AU officials had privately suspected breakaway rebel factions were behind the attack, the worst since the AU mission deployed in 2004. The AU said it was still investigating.
The AU asked the government to secure the area while they withdrew, leaving no international observers in the region beset by clashes between the army and rebels.
The rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) breakaway commander Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, said government militiamen had since looted the AU base and Haskanita, and were selling stolen goods in nearby town markets.
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese government troops and allied militia on Monday attacked a town belonging to the only Darfur rebel faction to sign a 2006 peace deal, the faction said.
"Government planes have attacked Muhajiriya, which belongs to us, and government forces and Janjaweed militia are fighting our forces," said Khalid Abakar, a senior representative from the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA).
Abakar is from the SLA faction led by Minni Arcua Minnawi, the only one of three rebel negotiating factions to sign a May 2006 peace deal with Khartoum. The movement then became part of the government and control Muhajiriya town in South Darfur.
"We consider this a very serious development," the head of Minnawi's office, Mohamed Bashir, told Reuters.
"Half of Muhajiriya is burnt down," he said adding, Minnawi would return to Khartoum from Darfur following the attack.
Rival rebel factions who did not sign the May 2006 deal also confirmed the attack on Muhajiriya, adding government troops were also amassing near Tine town, on the Chadian border, preparing to attack rebel-controlled areas in North Darfur.
Bashir said the assault was a continuation of the Sudanese army offensive in the former rebel town of Haskanita in southeast Darfur, which had been burnt to the ground and emptied of civilians.
On Monday a leading Darfur rebel said 105 people were killed in Haskanita, which the army occupied last week following a vicious attack, initially blamed on rebels, on African Union peacekeepers there.
Suleiman Jamous, a respected humanitarian coordinator for the Sudan Liberation Army, said the government and allied militia razed Haskanita over several days.
"Around 105 people killed is the last figure we have," Jamous told Reuters. "There are many others in the bush who may die of thirst -- they need water," he added.
Jamous, who across the border from Darfur in Abeche, Chad, said all the residents of villages surrounding Haskanita had fled too after seeing the town razed.
"EXAGGERATION"
The United Nations, which inspected the town for two hours on Saturday, confirmed it had been burnt to the ground but could not say by whom or whether there were any casualties.
U.N. officials said only the mosque and school were left standing and most of Haskanita's 7,000 population had fled.
Sudan's army said a fire, the cause of which was unclear, started in the market and spread to the rest of the town, and said the United Nations had exaggerated the damage.
"There was a fire but it was brought under control," an army spokesman said. "The United Nations have made this into something bigger than it is."
Growing tensions, which have been growing in the run-up to AU-U.N.-mediated peace talks in Libya scheduled for Oct 27, exploded on September 29 when armed men in 30 vehicles descended upon an AU peacekeepers' base near Haskanita, destroying the base and killing 10 peacekeepers.
Haskanita had been a rebel-controlled town and AU officials had privately suspected breakaway rebel factions were behind the attack, the worst since the AU mission deployed in 2004. The AU said it was still investigating.
The AU asked the government to secure the area while they withdrew, leaving no international observers in the region beset by clashes between the army and rebels.
The rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) breakaway commander Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, said government militiamen had since looted the AU base and Haskanita, and were selling stolen goods in nearby town markets.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Intruders at Paris' Orsay damage a Monet
By CECILE ALMENDROS, Associated Press Writer
PARIS - Intruders entered the Orsay Museum early Sunday and punched a hole in a renowned work by Impressionist painter Claude Monet, the French culture minister said. She described the damage as an attack on "our memory, our patrimony."
A surveillance camera caught a group entering the museum, which houses a major collection of Impressionist art on the Left Bank of the French capital along the Seine River.
An alarm sounded and the group left, but not before damaging an invaluable painting, "Le Pont d'Argenteuil," an aide to Culture Minister Christine Albanel said by telephone.
No arrests were immediately made.
Albanel told France-Info radio that the painting could be restored, but she deplored the attack on "our memory, our patrimony."
"This splendid Monet painting punched right in the middle," the minister said with emotion.
According to the aide, a 4-inch tear was made in the Monet. The official, not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, asked not to be named.
Monet led the 19th century Impressionist movement, experimenting notably with light and color in works now deemed priceless.
"Le Pont d'Argenteuil" shows a view of the Seine at a rural bend, featuring a bridge and boats.
Albanel told France-Info that she would seek improved security in museums and stronger sanctions against those who desecrate art.
The break-in occurred during Paris' annual all-night festival which brings thousands of people into the streets for concerts and exhibits.
PARIS - Intruders entered the Orsay Museum early Sunday and punched a hole in a renowned work by Impressionist painter Claude Monet, the French culture minister said. She described the damage as an attack on "our memory, our patrimony."
A surveillance camera caught a group entering the museum, which houses a major collection of Impressionist art on the Left Bank of the French capital along the Seine River.
An alarm sounded and the group left, but not before damaging an invaluable painting, "Le Pont d'Argenteuil," an aide to Culture Minister Christine Albanel said by telephone.
No arrests were immediately made.
Albanel told France-Info radio that the painting could be restored, but she deplored the attack on "our memory, our patrimony."
"This splendid Monet painting punched right in the middle," the minister said with emotion.
According to the aide, a 4-inch tear was made in the Monet. The official, not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, asked not to be named.
Monet led the 19th century Impressionist movement, experimenting notably with light and color in works now deemed priceless.
"Le Pont d'Argenteuil" shows a view of the Seine at a rural bend, featuring a bridge and boats.
Albanel told France-Info that she would seek improved security in museums and stronger sanctions against those who desecrate art.
The break-in occurred during Paris' annual all-night festival which brings thousands of people into the streets for concerts and exhibits.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Jena mayor calls song inflammatory
Jena mayor calls song inflammatory 10/06/2007 6:19 AM, APA video in which rapper-actor Mos Def asked students around the country to walk out Oct. 1 to support the "Jena Six" escaped comment by this town's mayor. But when John Mellencamp sang, "Jena, take your nooses down," he took issue.
"The town of Jena has for months been mischaracterized in the media and portrayed as the epicenter of hatred, racism and a place where justice is denied," Jena Mayor Murphy R. McMillin wrote in a statement on town letterhead faxed on Friday to The Associated Press.
He said he had previously stayed quiet, hoping that the town's courtesy to people who have visited over the past year would speak for itself. "However, the Mellencamp video is so inflammatory, so defamatory, that a line has been crossed and enough is enough."
Mellencamp could not comment immediately because he was on a plane from California to Indiana and had not heard about McMillin's comments, publicist Bob Merlis said late Friday.
A brief note from Mellencamp posted Thursday on his Web site says he is telling a story, not reporting. "The song is not written as an indictment of the people of Jena but, rather, as a condemnation of racism," it says.
Nooses hung briefly from a big oak tree outside Jena High School a year ago, after a black freshman asked whether black students could sit under it. A white student was beaten unconscious three months later, in December.
Six black students, four of them 17 years old and legally adults, were arrested. Five were initially charged with attempted murder, although that charge has been reduced to aggravated second-degree battery as four of the older youths have been arraigned. The only youth tried so far was convicted, but that conviction was overturned on appeal and the case was sent to juvenile court.
Mellencamp's song opens, "An all-white jury hides the executioner's face; See how we are, me and you?" As he sings, images of Jena, the high school and the tree are followed by video from the 1960s, including civil rights marchers, police beatings, and President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King speaking. Still images include one of a protest sign reading, "God demands segregation," a stylized drawing of people in Ku Klux Klan robes and an older image of a black man in shackles, begging.
"I do not want to diminish the impression that the hanging of the nooses has had on good people," McMillin wrote. "I do recognized that what happened is insulting and hurtful."
But, he said, "To put the incident in Jena in the same league as those who were murdered in the 1960s cheapens their sacrifice and insults their memory."
At McMillin's request, the Jena Town Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to create an interracial committee to study racial relations and suggest solutions to any problems.
John Mellencamp "Jena (take your nooses down)"
"The town of Jena has for months been mischaracterized in the media and portrayed as the epicenter of hatred, racism and a place where justice is denied," Jena Mayor Murphy R. McMillin wrote in a statement on town letterhead faxed on Friday to The Associated Press.
He said he had previously stayed quiet, hoping that the town's courtesy to people who have visited over the past year would speak for itself. "However, the Mellencamp video is so inflammatory, so defamatory, that a line has been crossed and enough is enough."
Mellencamp could not comment immediately because he was on a plane from California to Indiana and had not heard about McMillin's comments, publicist Bob Merlis said late Friday.
A brief note from Mellencamp posted Thursday on his Web site says he is telling a story, not reporting. "The song is not written as an indictment of the people of Jena but, rather, as a condemnation of racism," it says.
Nooses hung briefly from a big oak tree outside Jena High School a year ago, after a black freshman asked whether black students could sit under it. A white student was beaten unconscious three months later, in December.
Six black students, four of them 17 years old and legally adults, were arrested. Five were initially charged with attempted murder, although that charge has been reduced to aggravated second-degree battery as four of the older youths have been arraigned. The only youth tried so far was convicted, but that conviction was overturned on appeal and the case was sent to juvenile court.
Mellencamp's song opens, "An all-white jury hides the executioner's face; See how we are, me and you?" As he sings, images of Jena, the high school and the tree are followed by video from the 1960s, including civil rights marchers, police beatings, and President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King speaking. Still images include one of a protest sign reading, "God demands segregation," a stylized drawing of people in Ku Klux Klan robes and an older image of a black man in shackles, begging.
"I do not want to diminish the impression that the hanging of the nooses has had on good people," McMillin wrote. "I do recognized that what happened is insulting and hurtful."
But, he said, "To put the incident in Jena in the same league as those who were murdered in the 1960s cheapens their sacrifice and insults their memory."
At McMillin's request, the Jena Town Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to create an interracial committee to study racial relations and suggest solutions to any problems.
John Mellencamp "Jena (take your nooses down)"
THE GOLDEN STATE MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AFRICAN-AMERICAN ART COLLECTION Auction results
+After+Attempting+to+Escape,+Frederick+Douglass+was+Put+in+Jail..jpg)
CHARLES WHITE (1918 - 1979) After Attempting to Escape,
Frederick Douglass was Put in Jail.
Sold for $9,000
+General+Moses+(Harriet+Tubman)..jpg)
CHARLES WHITE (1918 - 1979) General Moses (Harriet Tubman).
Sold for $300,000
+The+Brother..jpg)
CHARLES WHITE (1918 - 1979) The Brother.
Sold for $120,000
+Negro+es+Bello+I+(Black+is+Beautiful)..jpg)
ELIZABETH CATLETT (1915 - ) Negro es Bello I (Black is Beautiful).
Sold for $3,600
+Man+Wearing+Sunglasses..jpg)
RICHARD WYATT, JR. (1955 - ) Man Wearing Sunglasses.
Sold for $6,500
NONI OLABISI Brother and American Flag.
Sold for $2,600
+Love+is+Love+-+The+Family..jpg)
VARNETTE P. HONEYWOOD (1950 - ) Love is Love - The Family.
Sold for $2,400
For the rest of the results you can go to Swann Auction Galleries
Thursday, October 4, 2007
White House denies torture assertion
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - House Democrats demanded Thursday that the Justice Department turn over two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects — despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.
Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department said a memo written in February 2005 on this subject did not change an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal opinions that reportedly "explicitly authorized the use of painful and psychological tactics on terrorism suspects."
"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods," Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler wrote in a letter Thursday to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department's acting chief of legal counsel, "be made available for prompt committee hearings."
The memos were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of simulated drownings and freezing temperatures while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denied that the 2005 opinion cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics or superseded U.S. anti-torture law. "This country does not torture," she told reporters. "It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture and we do not."
Perino did confirm existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion, however. But she would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning, and said the 2005 opinion did not reinterpret the law.
Additionally, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the 2004 opinion remains in effect and that "neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion."
"Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum," Roehrkasse said in a statement.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
"The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives," Little said in a statement. "The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists."
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation techniques, including simulated drowning known as waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.
"As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions," McCain said in a statement, adding that he was "personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law."
The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to investigate the Justice Department's torture opinions, calling the memos "a cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to perpetuate the administration's unlawful interrogation practices."
The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement. "We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach."
The February 2005 Justice opinion was followed later in 2005 by another one, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill, secretly declaring that none of the CIA's interrogation practices violated the new law's standard against "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, The Times said. The newspaper cited interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.
WASHINGTON - House Democrats demanded Thursday that the Justice Department turn over two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects — despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.
Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department said a memo written in February 2005 on this subject did not change an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal opinions that reportedly "explicitly authorized the use of painful and psychological tactics on terrorism suspects."
"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods," Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler wrote in a letter Thursday to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department's acting chief of legal counsel, "be made available for prompt committee hearings."
The memos were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of simulated drownings and freezing temperatures while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denied that the 2005 opinion cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics or superseded U.S. anti-torture law. "This country does not torture," she told reporters. "It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture and we do not."
Perino did confirm existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion, however. But she would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning, and said the 2005 opinion did not reinterpret the law.
Additionally, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the 2004 opinion remains in effect and that "neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion."
"Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum," Roehrkasse said in a statement.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
"The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives," Little said in a statement. "The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists."
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation techniques, including simulated drowning known as waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.
"As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions," McCain said in a statement, adding that he was "personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law."
The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to investigate the Justice Department's torture opinions, calling the memos "a cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to perpetuate the administration's unlawful interrogation practices."
The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement. "We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach."
The February 2005 Justice opinion was followed later in 2005 by another one, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill, secretly declaring that none of the CIA's interrogation practices violated the new law's standard against "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, The Times said. The newspaper cited interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Selling the Dream
An African American firm's art auction betrays its legacy and the community.By Cecil Fergerson October 3, 2007
I'm not an intellectual. (A friend has removed most of the "ain'ts" and cuss words from this article.) I know something about art, but I'm not powerful or rich. I'm an old man now, tired and with some health issues. So it sometimes amuses me that whenever an African American cultural institution is under attack in this city, folks start phoning me like I'm the hero of "Shaft," as if I could fly out the door and take care of it.
What's got everyone so upset this time is the news that one of the black community's most admired businesses, the 82-year-old Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Co., has put up for auction 94 of the works in its important and beloved collection of African American art. Among those on the block this Thursday in New York: sculptures by Elizabeth Catlett, a print by famed painter Jacob Lawrence and drawings by the father of Afro-American art, Charles White. Each one is a priceless work by an acknowledged American master.
The whole idea of the sale has put a knot in my stomach. Golden State Mutual has struggled in recent years, and auctioning this treasure -- for maybe as much as $2 million (chicken feed in the white art world, by the way) -- may provide capital it needs. If it's true, the thought of Golden State Mutual holding out its hand for pennies is almost equally painful.
When I was a boy, in the 1930s and '40s, Golden State Mutual and its proud agents literally did hold out their hands for pennies. In those days, blacks could, if they were lucky, buy burial insurance from white companies, but that was all. White folks were ready to plant us but not protect us. All that changed when Golden State Mutual came along. Black mothers, like my own, saved their pennies for life insurance policies that initially cost less than my shoes. Golden State Mutual grew into the largest black-owned insurance company west of the Mississippi.
The Golden State Mutual insurance man, in his rumpled seersucker suit and little briefcase, was a symbol of the entrepreneurial spirit of the black community. In 1949 (one year after I graduated from Jordan High School in Watts and took my first job as a janitor at the County Museum in Exposition Park), Golden State Mutual finally had enough capital, on the strength of all those mothers' pennies, to expand its business from a one-room office on Central Avenue into a five-story building on the corner of Western and Adams boulevards designed by the renowned black architect, Paul R. Williams. Its three founders -- George A. Beavers, Norman O. Houston and William Nickerson Jr. -- understood that the black community and its capital had made them, and they wanted to give something back.
They commissioned two dynamite artists from the Harlem Renaissance -- Charles Alston and Hale Woodruff -- to create two murals for the lobby of the new building. Under the joint title "The Negro in California History," they together tell the history of black people's struggles and achievements. Also in the lobby were bronze sculptures of the founders, commissioned from another Harlem Renaissance master, Richmond Barthé. The selection of artists like this to engage big themes like this made a hell of a statement.
In July 1965, 40 years after it was founded, the company dedicated the new "Golden State Mutual Afro-American Art Collection"; it was, in effect, those founding men's gift to the black community in Los Angeles. They hired local watercolorist William Pajaud to curate and build the collection. Because black artists had bought into the company's inspirational, socially-conscious vision, Pajaud was able to purchase works at a fraction of their market value. With his tiny budget of $5,000 a year, he amassed a collection that is -- by any historical or cultural standard, but certainly by aesthetic ones -- priceless. It includes pieces by muralist John Biggers, sculptor Edmonia Lewis and assemblage artist (and Watts Towers director) John Outterbridge as well as early works from Betye Saar's 50-year career. It also includes works by L.A.'s young masters, artists I am proud to have mentored, such as Varnette Honeywood, Noni Olabisi, Willie Middlebrook and Richard Wyatt Jr.
By the way, when Wyatt -- one of the city's great muralists -- was very young, he did a mural for the Golden State Mutual collection called "The Insurance Man." He gave the agent in that painting the rumpled look and briefcase that I remember seeing at my mother's door in Watts in the 1940s. We knew then that the Golden State Mutual insurance man was special; he was doing something for our comm
unity, helping us live and die in dignity. That's a legacy that no one but a fool would want to sell off.So, respectfully, I have a few questions for the man responsible for this sale, Larkin Teasley, Golden State Mutual's president and CEO. Is this auction only about money? If so, what does that say about your stewardship of one of our city's proudest financial institutions? I'm no tax lawyer, but don't you businessmen learn in Bookkeeping 101 how to donate important assets, like this collection, for fat tax write-offs? Did you consult anyone from the Los Angeles art community before you decided to sell away our heritage? Did you leak the news to any of the important collectors here -- the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Art, Eli Broad, Leon Banks, the Cosbys -- to see if any of them could help keep the collection intact and in town?
And finally, what do you think your predecessors, the ones enshrined in bronze in the lobby, would have to say about selling off the collection they used their lives and reputations to create?
These are just the questions of an old man, an art lover and a onetime fan of yours, Mr. CEO. I ain't no John Shaft, but I am still a die-hard advocate for L.A.'s black community. It took me most of 50 years to rise from a janitor to a curator working in modern art at LACMA. In that time, I learned to make the concerns of African American art, artists and history my life -- just like those insurance agents of my youth made selling policies to those black mothers the main event in their own.
Forgive me, Mr. CEO, but the very idea of selling off even part of this collection seems to me like a betrayal of the dream of those three great men who built Golden State Mutual on pennies from mothers like mine, and probably yours too.
_____________________________________________________
Cecil Fergerson retired from LACMA in 1985. He was designated an L.A. Living Cultural Treasure in 1998.
Verizon unveils iPhone rival for holiday shoppers
By Sinead CarewWed Oct 3, 4:58 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Verizon Wireless unveiled three new cell phones on Wednesday for the holiday season, including a high-end handset named Voyager that will compete with Apple Inc's iPhone.
The Voyager, made by LG Electronics, trumps the iPhone by offering faster wireless Web access. But in a nod to the Apple device, which is only available to AT&T Inc subscribers, it has a large touch screen and full Web browser.
Verizon Wireless hopes the new phone will attract customers put off by the iPhone's lack of a traditional keypad -- the Voyager hinges open to reveal a small computer keypad and a second screen.
"We think it'll be the best phone ... this year. It will kill the iPhone," Verizon Wireless Chief Marketing Officer Mike Lanman said in an interview.
Current Analysis analyst Avi Greengart said the Voyager may attract existing Verizon subscribers who do not want to switch service providers, but he doubted it would hurt iPhone sales.
"People who want a high-end media phone and want to stay with Verizon will certainly give that one a hard look. I don't know that it would pull anybody away from an iPhone," he said.
The battle for cell phone buyers' hearts this holiday shopping season is shaping up to be even fiercer than usual, as rivals to Apple and AT&T launch new challengers.
Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon Communications Inc and Vodafone Group Plc, has not been first with the hippest phones, but said this line-up is its best yet.
"Typically a carrier brings one, maybe two exciting products to the market in a year. We're bringing four," Lanman said, referring to the three new models and its existing LG Chocolate phone.
Verizon also introduced Juke, an ultra-narrow phone that comes in three colors and is shaped like a chocolate bar. The phone, made by Samsung Electronics, is less than 1 inch wide.
It also unveiled another LG phone, the Venus, which comes in black and pink, and has a phone keypad that slides out from under a touch screen. As with Voyager, it vibrates when a user taps a menu option on the screen.
Verizon Wireless would not give exact pricing beyond saying each phone would target a different segment and range from under $100 to about $400. The iPhone costs $399.
Greengart at Current Analysis said the new Verizon range is a step forward for a company that has been trumped before by AT&T, which sold Motorola Inc's Razr long before Verizon did.
"This is something Verizon had to do," Greengart said. "It's been a long time coming for them to get hotter devices."
Venus and Voyager both have 2-megapixel cameras, and high-speed wireless connections for fast music and video downloads, and a slot for 8 gigabytes of extra memory. The iPhone has 8 gigabytes of built-in storage.
Venus and Voyager will launch before the end of November
The cheapest phone in the range is the Juke, which is narrower than any U.S. phone so far and will go on sale on October 19, Lanman said.
The Juke slides open to reveal a tiny keypad and comes in dark blue, red and teal. It has dedicated keys for playing music but does not have a high-speed wireless link.
Verizon Wireless said it expects to attract more fashion-conscious young users to Juke than those who want to constantly e-mail or Web-surf on cell phones.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Hill: Thomas harassment charge true
WASHINGTON - Anita Hill, whose sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas nearly derailed his Supreme Court nomination 16 years ago, said Tuesday she stood by her account of his behavior, disputing Thomas' assertion in a new book that the charges were politically motivated.
"I stand by my testimony" at a 1991 Senate Judiciary hearing on the nomination, Hill wrote in an Op Ed piece in The New York Times. "I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me."
In his book, "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas says Hill, his former employee at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was a mediocre employee who was used by political opponents to make claims she had been sexually harassed.
Powerful interest groups were out to stop him at all costs and chose "the age-old blunt instrument of accusing a black man of sexual misconduct," he writes. He described Hill as touchy and apt to overreact and said she complained to him only about his refusal to promote her.
Hill, who is also black, disputed Thomas' assertions.
"I was truthful. What I described happened actually did happen, and what I've learned is that it's happened to many women in the workplace," Hill said in an interview Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
She said she believes the workplace environment is better now for women, but added that Thomas' approach "is really so typical of people accused of wrongdoing. They trash their accusers."
In the 1991 hearings, Thomas adamantly denied Hill's accusations that he made inappropriate sexual remarks, including references to pornographic movies. Thomas says he did talk about X-rated movies while at Yale Law School, adding that so did many other young people in the 1970s.
Hill is now a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University.
"I stand by my testimony" at a 1991 Senate Judiciary hearing on the nomination, Hill wrote in an Op Ed piece in The New York Times. "I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me."
In his book, "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas says Hill, his former employee at the Education Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was a mediocre employee who was used by political opponents to make claims she had been sexually harassed.
Powerful interest groups were out to stop him at all costs and chose "the age-old blunt instrument of accusing a black man of sexual misconduct," he writes. He described Hill as touchy and apt to overreact and said she complained to him only about his refusal to promote her.
Hill, who is also black, disputed Thomas' assertions.
"I was truthful. What I described happened actually did happen, and what I've learned is that it's happened to many women in the workplace," Hill said in an interview Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
She said she believes the workplace environment is better now for women, but added that Thomas' approach "is really so typical of people accused of wrongdoing. They trash their accusers."
In the 1991 hearings, Thomas adamantly denied Hill's accusations that he made inappropriate sexual remarks, including references to pornographic movies. Thomas says he did talk about X-rated movies while at Yale Law School, adding that so did many other young people in the 1970s.
Hill is now a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Obama raises $19 million in quarter
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama raised more than $19 million for the presidential primary elections from July through September, bringing his total for the year to nearly $80 million, his campaign said Monday.
The summer total includes donations from 93,000 new contributors, aides said. Obama also raised money for the general election, making his overall contributions more than $20 million for the quarter.
The third-quarter contributions were less than Obama raised in each of the first two quarters. But the total still kept him at the top of the fundraising pack — at least temporarily. His closest fundraising rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, had not released her totals Monday.
Overall, the Obama campaign has received contributions from 352,000 donors so far this year. Contributors are limited to a maximum of $2,300 each.
The campaign did not say how much money it had in the bank, an important figure as the presidential contest heads into one of the heaviest spending periods of the season. Obama has been spending heavily, especially in Iowa, where the first presidential caucus is scheduled for January.
Obama, like other major candidates, has also been raising money for the general election, but the bulk of his contributions are for the primaries. Since the beginning of the year, he has received nearly $75 million for the primaries and about $4 million for the general election.
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama raised more than $19 million for the presidential primary elections from July through September, bringing his total for the year to nearly $80 million, his campaign said Monday.
The summer total includes donations from 93,000 new contributors, aides said. Obama also raised money for the general election, making his overall contributions more than $20 million for the quarter.
The third-quarter contributions were less than Obama raised in each of the first two quarters. But the total still kept him at the top of the fundraising pack — at least temporarily. His closest fundraising rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, had not released her totals Monday.
Overall, the Obama campaign has received contributions from 352,000 donors so far this year. Contributors are limited to a maximum of $2,300 each.
The campaign did not say how much money it had in the bank, an important figure as the presidential contest heads into one of the heaviest spending periods of the season. Obama has been spending heavily, especially in Iowa, where the first presidential caucus is scheduled for January.
Obama, like other major candidates, has also been raising money for the general election, but the bulk of his contributions are for the primaries. Since the beginning of the year, he has received nearly $75 million for the primaries and about $4 million for the general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
