Scare Amplifies Fears That Clinton’s Work Has Taken Heavy Toll

Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski

Hillary Rodham Clinton with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi in Cairo in July.

WASHINGTON — When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fractured her right elbow after slipping in a State Department garage in June 2009, she returned to work in just a few days. Her arm in a sling, she juggled speeches and a trip to India and Thailand with physical therapy, rebuilding a joint held together with wire and pins.

It was vivid evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s indomitable stamina and work ethic — as a first lady, senator, presidential candidate and, for the past four years, the most widely traveled secretary of state in American history.

But after a fall at home in December that caused a concussion, and a subsequent diagnosis of a blood clot in her head, it has taken much longer for Mrs. Clinton to bounce back. She was released from a hospital in New York on Wednesday, accompanied by her daughter, Chelsea, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. On Thursday, she told colleagues that she hoped to be in the office next week.

Her health scare, though, has reinforced the concerns of friends and colleagues that the years of punishing work and travel have taken a heavy toll. Even among her peers at the highest levels of government, Mrs. Clinton, 65, is renowned for her grueling schedule. Over the past four years, she was on the road for 401 days and spent the equivalent of 87 full days on a plane, according to the State Department’s Web site.

In one 48-hour marathon in 2009 that her aides still talk about, she traveled from talks with Palestinian leaders in Abu Dhabi to a midnight meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, then boarded a plane for Morocco, staying up all night to work on other issues, before going straight to a meeting of Arab leaders the next morning.

“So many people who know her have urged me to tell her not to work so hard,” said Melanne S. Verveer, who was Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff when she was first lady and is now the State Department’s ambassador at large for women’s issues. “Well, that’s not easy to do when you’re Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t spare herself.”

It is not just a matter of duty, Ms. Verveer and others said. Mrs. Clinton genuinely relishes the work, pursuing a brand of personal diplomacy that, she argues, requires her to travel to more places than her predecessors.

While there is no medical evidence that Mrs. Clinton’s clot was caused by her herculean work habits, her cascade of recent health problems, beginning with a stomach virus, has prompted those who know her best to say that she desperately needs a long rest. Her first order of business after leaving the State Department in the coming weeks, they say, should be to take care of herself.

Some even wonder whether this setback will — or should — temper the feverish speculation that she will make another run for the White House in 2016.

“I am amazed at the number of women who come up to me and tell me she must run for president,” said Ellen Chesler, a New York author and a friend of Mrs. Clinton’s. “But perhaps this episode will alter things a bit.”

Given Mrs. Clinton’s enduring status as a role model, Ms. Chesler said women would be watching which path she decides to take, as they plan their own transitions out of the working world.

“Do remember that women of our generation are really the first to have worked through the life cycle in large numbers,” she added. “Many seem to be approaching retirement with dread.”

For now, aides say, Mrs. Clinton’s focus is on wrapping up her work at the State Department. She would like to take part in a town hall-style meeting, thank her staff and sit for some interviews. But first she has to get clearance from her doctors, who are watching her to make sure that the blood thinners they have prescribed for her clot are working.

Speaking to a meeting of a foreign policy advisory board from her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton said she was crossing her fingers and encouraging her doctors to let her return next week. “I’m trying to be a compliant patient,” she said, according to a person who was in the room. “But that does require a certain level of patience, which I’ve had to cultivate over the last three and a half weeks.”

While convalescing, Mrs. Clinton has spoken with President Obama and has held a 30-minute call with Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, whom Mr. Obama nominated as her successor.

Read More..

After Fiscal Deal, Tax Code May Be Most Progressive Since 1979

WASHINGTON — With 2013 bringing tax increases on the incomes of a small sliver of the richest Americans, the country’s top earners now face a heavier tax burden than at any time since Jimmy Carter was president.

The last-minute deal struck by the departing 112th Congress raised taxes on a handful of the highest-earning Americans, with about 99.3 percent of households experiencing no change in their income taxes. But the Tax Policy Center estimates that the average family in the top 1 percent will pay a federal tax rate of more than 36 percent this year, up from 28 percent in 2008. That is the highest rate since 1979, at least.

By some measures, the tax code might now be the most progressive in a generation, tax economists said, while noting that every American is paying a lower burden currently than they did then. In fact, the total federal tax rate is still vastly lower for the very rich than it was at any point in the 1940s through 1970s. It has risen from historical lows, but is still closer to those lows than where it was in the postwar decades.

“We made the system more progressive by raising rates at the top and leaving them for everyone else,” said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a research group based in Washington. “The offsetting issue is that the rich have gotten a lot richer.”

Indeed, over the last three decades the bulk of pretax income gains have gone to the wealthy — and the higher up on the income scale, the bigger the gains, with billionaires outpacing millionaires who outpaced the merely rich. Economists doubted that the tax increases would do much to reverse that trend.

With the recovery failing to improve incomes for millions of average Americans and the country running trillion-dollar deficits, President Obama made “tax fairness” a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. In the heated negotiations with House Speaker John A. Boehner, that translated into the White House’s insistence on tax increases for the top 2 percent of households and a continuation of tax breaks and cuts for a vast number of taxpayers.

Republicans resisted increasing tax rates and aimed for lower revenue targets, arguing that spending was the budget’s primary problem and that no American should see his or her taxes go up too much in such a sluggish economy. But ultimately they relented, and Congress cut a last-minute deal.

“A central promise of my campaign for president was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle-class Americans,” Mr. Obama said after Congress reached an agreement.

That deal includes a host of tax increases on the rich. It raises the tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals, and $450,000 for couples. The rate on dividends and capital gains for those same taxpayers was bumped up 5 percentage points, to 20 percent. Congress also reinstated limits on the amount households with more than $300,000 in income can deduct. On top of that, two new surcharges — a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent tax on regular income — hit those same wealthy households.

As a result of the taxes added in both the deal and the 2010 health care law, which came into effect this year, taxpayers with $1 million in income and up will pay on average $168,000 more in taxes. Millionaires’ share of the overall federal tax burden will climb to 23 percent from 20 percent.

The result is a tax code that squeezes hundreds of billions of dollars more from the very well off — about $600 billion more over 10 years — while leaving the tax burden on everyone else mostly as it was. And the changes come after 30 years of both Republican and Democratic administrations doing the converse: zeroing out federal income taxes for many poor working families while also reducing the tax burden for households on the higher end of the income scale.

“Back at the end of the Carter and beginning of the Reagan administrations, we had a pretty severe income-tax burden for people at a low level of income. It was actually kind of appalling,” said Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center research group in Washington. “Policy makers in both parties realized that was bad policy and started whittling away at it” by expanding credits and tinkering with tax rates.

After those changes and the new law, comparing average tax rates for poor households and wealthy households, 2013 might be the most progressive tax code since 1979. But economists cautioned that measuring progressivity is tricky. “It’s not like there is some scientific measure of progressivity all economists agreed upon,” said Leonard E. Burman, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University. “People look at different numerical measures and they’ve changed in different ways at different income levels.”

Mr. Viard said that over time the code had become markedly more progressive for the poor compared with the middle class. But it arguably did not become much more progressive for the rich compared with the middle class, or the very rich compared with the rich, in part because of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

An anesthesiologist who earns a $500,000 salary subject to payroll and income taxes might pay a higher tax rate than a hedge fund manager making $1 billion subject mostly to capital-gains taxes, for instance.

Economists are also divided on the ultimate effect of those tax increases on the wealthy to income growth and income inequality in the United States. The recession hit the incomes of the rich hard, but they have snapped back much more strongly than those for middle or low-income workers.

“I’d still rather be really rich, even if I’m getting taxed much more than a low-income person” would be, Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center added.

Read More..

House approves $9.7 billion in Sandy disaster aid

WASHINGTON — Responding to the political storm over delays in disaster aid to the Northeast, the House on Friday approved a $9.7-billion flood insurance bill, the first segment of a possible $60-billion Superstorm Sandy recovery package.

The measure’s approval comes after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Pete King of New York, among others, publicly slammed House Speaker John Boehner, a fellow Republican, for putting off a vote on a relief measure in the closing days of the 112^thCongress.

The 354-67 vote sent the bill to the Senate, where it could be approved by the end of the day. 

But Democrats were still fuming that it has taken 68 days for the House to act – and that a  broader relief bill still must be approved.

"Talk about fiddling while New York City burns,’’ said Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), calling the delay an "embarrassment’’ to the House. 

"How dare you come to this floor and make people think everything is OK,’’ Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) told Republicans.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), among the Northeast lawmakers who complained earlier this week about congressional inaction on a relief bill, called the vote a "key step in getting critical federal assistance to the residents, businesses and communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy.

“This week’s events make it clear that the need for help is real and that any additional delays in providing federal aid will be met with fierce resistance from myself, members of the delegation, and Gov. Christie,’’ he added.

The larger aid package, due to come before the House on Jan. 15, would fund such things as repairing roads, the electric grid, transportation system and Liberty Island, where the Statue of Liberty has been closed since the storm hit, and shoring up defenses against future storms.

That measure, expected to cost $51 billion, could still run into resistance from conservative lawmakers, some of whom have sought to offset the new spending with budget cuts elsewhere.

The conservative Club for Growth urged a no vote on the flood insurance measure, saying, "Congress should not allow the federal government to be involved in the flood insurance industry in the first place, let alone expand the national flood insurance program's authority."

The measure approved Friday  would increase the borrowing authority for the national flood insurance program to cover insurance claims for flood damage.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has warned that without congressional action, funds available to pay claims would be exhausted next week.   

Sandy, which was a hurricane before the center of the storm made landfall  Oct. 29 in New Jersey, caused more than 125 deaths in the United States.

Richard.simon@latimes.com

Read More..

Why Some Facebook Users Constantly Update Status

Scientists have found what compels people to constantly update their Facebook status. College students who posted more status updates than they normally did felt less lonely over the course of a week, even if no one “Liked” or commented on their posts, researchers found.

“We got the idea to conduct this study during a coffee-break sharing random stories about what friends had posted on Facebook,” psychology researcher Fenne große Deters, of the Universitat Berlin, told LiveScience in an email. “Wondering why posting status updates is so popular, we thought that it would be thrilling to study this new form of communication empirically.”

Deters and her colleague recruited about 100 undergraduates (all Facebook users) at the University of Arizona. All participants filled out initial surveys to measure their levels of loneliness, happiness and depression, and they gave the researchers access to their Facebook profiles by friending a dummy user created for the experiment.

The students were sent an analysis of their average weekly status updates (online wall-memos) and some of the participants were then told to post more statuses than usual over the next seven days. During that week, all completed a short online questionnaire at the end of each day about their mood and level of social connection.

Compared with the group of students who didn’t adjust their social media habits, those who went on a status-writing blitz felt less lonely over the week, the team found. Their happiness and depression levels went unchanged, “suggesting that the effect is specific to experienced loneliness,” the researchers wrote. And a drop in loneliness was linked to an increase in feeling more socially connected, which the researchers believe is the cause behind the positive effects of status updating. [6 Personal Secrets Your Facebook Profile Isn't Keeping]

Interestingly, the team found that loneliness levels did not depend on whether the students’ status updates garnered any comments or “Likes” from Facebook friends. One might assume that a lack of response could be considered a form of rejection, but the act of writing a status update itself might help people feel more connected, the researchers said. When crafting a clever status, Facebook users have a target audience in mind. Simply thinking about their friends (or at least their Facebook friends) can have a “social snacking” effect.

“Similar to a snack temporarily reducing hunger until the next meal, social snacking may help tolerate the lack of ‘real’ social interaction for a certain amount of time,” the researchers wrote in a paper published last month in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Now with over a billion users, Facebook has become the focus of an increasing number of studies trying to uncover the real-life social side effects that can accompany using the social media site.

For example, research presented last year at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) showed how the site offers a dangerous medium for social comparison. People in that study with lots of Facebook friends had lower self-esteem, feeling worse about their place in life and their achievements if they’d just viewed their friends’ status updates, compared with people who hadn’t recently surfed the site. But for people with just a few Facebook friends, viewing status updates wasn’t a problem.

Another study, detailed in the Sept. 13 issue of the journal Nature, found such Facebook friends can influence real-life actions of one another. In that study, one “get out the vote” message sent to 61 million Facebook users on Election Day 2010 led to 340,000 people casting ballots when they otherwise would not have.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We’re also on Facebook & Google+.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Why Some Facebook Users Constantly Update Status
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/why-some-facebook-users-constantly-update-status/
Link To Post : Why Some Facebook Users Constantly Update Status
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..

Adele’s “21″ scores again, beating Swift for 2012′s top album

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – British singer Adele‘s Grammy-winning “21″ scored a rare feat in 2012 as it topped U.S. album sales for a second straight year, beating out U.S. country-pop star Taylor Swift‘s “Red, Nielsen Soundscan said on Thursday.

It was the first time a single album had been a top-seller for two years in a row since Nielsen began tracking album sales in 1991, the organization said.

But U.S. album sales overall fell 4 percent in 2012 to 315.96 million albums, after 2011 saw a rare 3 percent bump in sales.

Adele’s “21″ sold 4.41 million units in the United States in 2012 to top Swift’s “Red,” which sold 3.11 million copies. In 2011, “21″ sold 5.82 million units.

“It’s a sort of a once-in-a-lifetime album,” Keith Caulfield, associate director of charts at Billboard, told Reuters of “21.” “Only a few of these albums come along in history.”

The heartbreak record, with hits like “Rolling in the Deep” and “Someone Like You,” earned Adele six Grammy Awards in early 2012, boosting the profile of the 24-year-old singer and songwriter, who records on indie label XL Recordings.

The album sold at a furious pace, reaching the 10 million albums-sold plateau in the span of two years, Caulfield noted. The last album to achieve that feat was boy band ‘N Sync’s “No Strings Attached,” which was released in 2000.

“It’s really the right combination of artistry and hit singles,” Caulfield said of “21′s” success.

“She really crossed over from pop to Latin to adult contemporary to dance,” he added. “Young and old consumers bought it, and because of its mixture of fans, she was able to sell it as well as she did.”

Adele’s success came despite the drop in 2012 U.S. album sales.

“Last year (2011) was a fluke,” Caulfield said. “A year gain in album sales is a mega achievement. … It’s the way the market works now, people buy songs and not albums.”

Indeed, digital song sales rose 5 percent in 2012 to a record high 1.336 billion downloads.

The year’s best-selling albums in the United States had a particularly British flavor as Swift was the lone American in the top five. Swift records for the independently owned Nashville-based Big Machine, distributed by Universal Music Group.

British boy band One Direction’s “Up All Night,” released in 2011 on Sony Music Entertainment’s SYCO/Columbia label, placed third with 1.62 million units sold, while their 2012 follow-up, “Take Me Home,” took the fifth spot with 1.34 million units sold.

Britain’s folk revivalists Mumford & Sons, on indie record label Glassnote, placed fourth with their album “Babel” selling 1.46 million units.

(Reporting by Eric Kelsey; Editing by Jill Serjeant and Peter Cooney)

Celebrity News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Adele’s “21″ scores again, beating Swift for 2012′s top album
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/adeles-21-scores-again-beating-swift-for-2012s-top-album/
Link To Post : Adele’s “21″ scores again, beating Swift for 2012′s top album
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..

Scant Proof Is Found to Back Up Claims by Energy Drinks

Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.

Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.

The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.

“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.

Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.

Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.

As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.

Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.

“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”

A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.

In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.

Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.

Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.

On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.

But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.

Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.

Read More..

DealBook: More European Bank Loan Sales Expected

11:45 a.m. | Updated

LONDON – At the start of 2013, European banks are cleaning out their closets.

The Continent’s largest financial institutions, including HSBC and Deutsche Bank, are expected to sell a combined 60 billion euros, or $78 billion, of so-called noncore loans this year, a 33 percent rise compared with 2012, according to estimates from the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers released on Friday.

The renewed effort to offload unwanted assets comes as European banks are eager to reduce costs and shrink their balance sheets to comply with tougher capital requirements demanded by regulators. Europe’s persistent financial problems also have altered the industry’s economics, leaving many banks with bloated balance sheets and reduced profitability.

A string of recent scandals, including multibillion-dollar fines for the British bank Barclays and its Swiss counterpart UBS related to the manipulation of benchmark interest rates, have placed increased pressure of firms to pull back from underperforming and risky business units.

Many of Europe’s largest banks also have announced wholesale jobs cuts, particularly in their investment banking divisions, while the number of people working in financial services in London, Europe’s financial capital, has fallen to its lowest level since the mid-1990s, according to the British research organization Center for Economics and Business Research.

The fire sale has already included the Royal Bank of Scotland‘s sale of property loans to the private equity firm Blackstone Group and its aviation leasing business to the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, the Japanese bank, for $7.3 billion. HSBC also is considering the sale of United States real estate and personal loans worth a combined $6 billion after it already offloaded a number of operations in emerging markets like Pakistan and Colombia to local competitors.

“Banks have been doing the right thing by selling off loan portfolios,” said Richard Thompson, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers in London. “Some of stronger firms also may now be looking to pick up assets on the cheap.”

PricewaterhouseCoopers said that it expected that European banks would focus on corporate and real estate loan disposals, particularly in countries like Spain where prices in the local housing market fell 15 percent annually in the third quarter of last year, according to the latest available government figures.

The creation in Spain of a so-called bad bank that will oversee the sale of up to 60 billion euros of unwanted assets like delinquent mortgages and unsold real estate on behalf of local banks is also expected to draw interest from potential buyers.

European banks are keen to sell, but bankers and lawyers say financial institutions continue to demand high prices for assets despite the glut of loan portfolios up for sale. So far, analysts add that differences over price have kept potential buyers, including private equity firms that specialize in distressed assets, from picking up more underperforming loan assets because the firms believe they remain overvalued.

Last year, the average discount on loans for a range of unwanted European bank assets was 20 percent to 50 percent, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. That percentage is expected to rise this year, though analysts say the banks’ access to cheap short-term financing from the European Central Bank has given them some breathing room to demand higher prices for their unwanted assets.

“In 2012, we saw a large number of different banks bringing their portfolios to market,” Mr. Thompson said. “The issue of price will clearly remain a key challenge in future for sellers.”

European banks still have a lot of work to do.

PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that firms still have more than 2.5 trillion euros of noncore loans that they are looking to sell. As the 60 billion euro estimate for loan portfolio sales in 2013 represents just 2.4 percent of that total, Europe’s banks are likely to remain eager sellers for many years to come.

Read More..

Bieber urges crackdown on paparazzi after photographer's death

Justin Bieber and his collection of exotic cars have been tantalizing targets for celebrity photographers ever since the young singer got his driver's license.

A video captured the paparazzi chasing Bieber through Westside traffic in November. When Bieber's white Ferrari stops at an intersection, the video shows the singer turning to one of the photographers and asking: "How do your parents feel about what you do?"

A few months earlier, he was at the wheel of his Fisker sports car when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled him over for driving at high speeds while trying to outrun a paparazzo.

This pursuit for the perfect shot took a fatal turn Tuesday when a photographer was hit by an SUV on Sepulveda Boulevard after taking photos of Bieber's Ferrari. And the singer now finds himself at the center of the familiar debate about free speech and the aggressive tactics of the paparazzi.

Since Princess Diana's fatal accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, California politicians have tried crafting laws that curb paparazzi behavior. But some of those laws are rarely used, and attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of others.

On Wednesday, Bieber went on the offensive, calling on lawmakers to crack down.

"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves," he said in a statement.

It remained unclear if any legislators would take up his call. But Bieber did get some support from another paparazzi target, singer Miley Cyrus.

She wrote on Twitter that she hoped the accident "brings on some changes in '13 Paparazzi are dangerous!"

Last year, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out charges related to a first-of-its-kind anti-paparazzi law in a case involving Bieber being chased on the 101 Freeway by photographer Paul Raef. Passed in 2010, the law created punishments for paparazzi who drove dangerously to obtain images.

But the judge said the law violated 1st Amendment protections by overreaching and potentially affecting such people as wedding photographers or photographers speeding to a location where a celebrity was present.

The L.A. city attorney's office is now appealing that decision.

Raef's attorney, Dmitry Gorin, said new anti-paparazzi laws are unnecessary.

"There are plenty of other laws on the books to deal with these issues. There is always a rush to create a new paparazzi law every time something happens," he said. "Any new law on the paparazzi is going to run smack into the 1st Amendment. Truth is, most conduct is covered by existing laws. A lot of this is done for publicity."

Coroner's officials have not identified the photographer because they have not reached the next of kin. However, his girlfriend, Frances Merto, and another photographer identified him as Chris Guerra.

The incident took place on Sepulveda Boulevard near Getty Center Drive shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday. A friend of Bieber was driving the sports car when it was pulled over on the 405 Freeway by the California Highway Patrol. The photographer arrived near the scene on Sepulveda, left his car and crossed the street to take photos. Sources familiar with the investigation said the CHP told him to leave the area. As he was returning to his vehicle, he was hit by the SUV.

Law enforcement sources said Wednesday that it was unlikely charges would be filed against the driver of the SUV that hit the photographer.

Veteran paparazzo Frank Griffin took issue with the criticism being directed at the photographer as well as other paparazzi.

"What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances and the war photographer who steps on a land mine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road?" said Griffin, who co-owns the photo agency Griffin-Bauer.

"The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Both young men have left behind mothers and fathers grieving and there's no greater sadness in this world than parents who have to bury their children."

Others, however, said the death focuses attention on the safety issues involving paparazzi

"The paparazzi are increasingly reckless and dangerous. The greater the demand, the greater the incentive to do whatever it takes to get the image," said Blair Berk, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented numerous celebrities. "The issue here isn't vanity and nuisance, it's safety."

richard.winton@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

Read More..

The Most and Least Influential Social Media Celebs

While he isn’t currently available for promotional work, businesses would have the most success on social media with President Barack Obama endorsing their goods and services, new research shows.

A study by social marketing platform SocialToaster revealed that Obama is considered the most influential celebrity on social media. Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Ashton Kutcher and Anderson Cooper followed the president on the rankings of social influencers.

On the flip side, the research found that former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was the least influential celebrity on social media, finishing just below Madonna, Kanye West and Sean Hannity.

While celebrities might be influential on social media in some aspects, it’s those closest to us who make the largest impact when it comes to the important issues. Nearly all of the social media users surveyed agreed that a social media post from a close friend or family member was most likely to influence them on important subjects, with politicians and athletes the least likely to influence them.

“While it was no surprise that in this election year Barack Obama would be ranked the most influential person in social media, it was surprising to us that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga would beat Madonna and Kanye West,” said Brian Razzaque, CEO of SocialToaster. “We were also surprised to see that friends had more pull than family when it came to influencing the sharing of social media content.”

Regardless of whom it comes from, there are some posts that will quickly result in an unfollowing, the study discovered. Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed said a racist post would cause them to immediately unfollow someone on social media. Other types of posts that result in a loss of followers include sexism, pornography, repetitive, overly personal posts and those that use poor grammar.

The researcher was based on surveys of 3,000 SocialToaster Super Fans, which consist of social media experts and professionals, many of whom work with some of the nation’s leading brands. The experts range from those who work in the entertainment industry who represent numerous television shows and movies to those who work in professional sports, including the Baltimore Ravens and the Detroit Pistons.

This story was provided by BusinessNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Chad Brooks on Twitter @cbrooks76 or BusinessNewsDaily @BNDarticles. We’re also on Facebook & Google+.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: The Most and Least Influential Social Media Celebs
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/the-most-and-least-influential-social-media-celebs/
Link To Post : The Most and Least Influential Social Media Celebs
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..

“Hunger Games” and “Hobbit” most-anticipated films of 2013: poll

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – This year will look a lot like 2012 at the box office, with “The Hunger Games” and Hobbits at the top of cinemagoers must-see lists, according to a survey by ticket-seller Fandango released on Thursday.

The second installment in “The Hunger Games” trilogy, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” which is set for a November release, topped the list as 2013′s most-anticipated blockbuster.

The first film in the life-or-death thriller series starring Jennifer Lawrence, raked in some $ 687 million at the worldwide box office in 2012.

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” director Peter Jackson‘s second installment in the “The Hobbit” series of elves and dwarves, ranked second on the survey that polled more than 2,000 moviegoers during the final week of 2012. It is scheduled to hit the big screen in December.

“People love the mega-franchises and that is what gets them most excited,” Dave Karger, Fandango chief correspondent, told Reuters. “The first ‘Hunger Games‘ whetted peoples’ appetites for more. The same can be said for ‘The Hobbit‘ and ‘Iron Man.’”

The superhero thriller “Iron Man 3″ starring Robert Downey Jr. ranked third on the list and is set for a May 3 release.

“Star Trek into Darkness” – the follow-up to 2009′s “Star Trek” science-fiction adventure – and “The Great Gatsby” starring Leonardo DiCaprio rounded out the top five. Both films are set to open in May.

‘JAZZED’ ABOUT FRANCHISES

The heavy dose of franchise films on the list indicates how familiarity can build buzz among moviegoers, Karger said.

“In the case of ‘The Hunger Games,’ many people who loved the movie have read the other books so they’re excited to see it brought to life,” he said. “The same with ‘The Hobbit‘ too.

“Some people say, ‘Where is the originality?’ but the fact of the matter is that these franchises are what people get most jazzed about.”

The survey also asked film fans to vote on the sexiest man and woman on the big screen in 2013, as well as best villain, breakout stars and best apocalyptic films.

Mila Kunis, who stars in upcoming film “Oz: The Great and Powerful,” was voted sexiest actress, while Channing Tatum was voted sexiest man for Paramount’s “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.” Both films are set for March releases.

Ben Kingsley (“Iron Man 3″) was voted most-anticipated villain, and June’s zombie thriller “World War Z” starring Brad Pitt was voted most-anticipated apocalyptic film.

British actress Alice Eve was voted biggest breakout actress for “Star Trek” while fellow Brit Henry Cavill got the nod as biggest breakout actor for playing Superman opposite Russell Crowe and Amy Adams in “Man of Steel,” which will be released in June.

Full results can be viewed at Fandango.com.

(Reporting by Eric Kelsey, editing by Jill Serjeant and Sandra Maler)

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..