The Riverman Reports - Inc. Huttz World

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Did LGBT voters decide the President?

If the Straight Vote Was Split, Did LGBT Voters Decide the President?

Via The Advocate
Is it this simple? Exit polls show Mitt Romney and Barack Obama splitting the straight vote, so then gays decided the election — or so the thinking goes.
Exit polls show Obama and Romney each took 49% of the straight vote. Meanwhile gay, lesbian and bisexual voters broke overwhelmingly for the president, 76% to 22%.
Analysts from the Williams Institute tell the New York Times that those stark numbers are proof it was actually the gay vote that should be credited with sending Obama back to the White House. He ignited excitement among LGBT voters by announcing his support for marriage equality in May, when Newsweek crowned him with a rainbow halo on its cover and declared Obama the "First Gay President." He also won the endorsement of this magazine, The Advocate, which weighed into a presidential election for the first time in its 45-year history.
The more prevalent post-election narrative has been that President Obama won because of a decline in the voting power of the white male American. Instead, Obama united a coalition of minority voters that includes African-Americans, Hispanics and women, plus inciting strong turnout from young voters.
But could it be much simpler than all that? Did Obama and Romney split the straight vote while the gay vote went decidedly toward the eventual winner?
The Human Rights Campaign in its own analysis of the election has also claimed the LGBT vote as a deciding factor in who won. It pointed out on Tuesday that President Obama won the national popular vote by 3,305,710 votes. And with exit polls indicating that gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans sent far more votes to Obama than Romney — 4,593,136 in total — it was more than the margin he needed to win.
"Had the LGB population voted the same as the national average, President Obama would have only received 3,082,235 LGB votes," the HRC said in its analysis. "In other words, because the LGB community swung so significantly to President Obama, he received 1,510,901 more LGB votes – an astounding 45.7% of the President’s total popular vote margin."

http://www.gay.net/politics/2012/11/17/if-straight-vote-was-split-did-lgbt-voters-decide-president

Thursday, November 22, 2012

USDA advises farmers to insure themselves against potential litigation threats from Monsanto...

(Reuters / Robert Pratta)

The United State Department of Agriculture has finalized a report to address concerns from farmers who fear they’ll be next on an ever-expanding list of defendants sued by biotech giants Monsanto, but those worries aren’t about to end.
The Monsanto Company dominates more than just grow fields across the US, as evident in their stellar track record of taking small-time farmers to court and winning cases, an occurrence that Think Progress acknowledges happens roughly a dozen times a year. Time and time again, Monsanto’s patented, lab-made genetically engineered seeds are sold to one farmer, only for Mother Nature to move the crop onto neighboring fields with the help of a bit of wind. Just as often, of course, Monsanto’s team of high-paid litigators take the little guys to court, only to triumph thanks to a legal counsel that collects around $10 million a year just to take other farmers to court.
With Monsanto-led lawsuits all too common, the USDA was tasked with putting together a panel — the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, or AC21 — to analyze, among other items, “What types of compensation mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate to address economic losses1 by farmers in which the value of their crops is reduced by unintended presence of genetically engineered(GE) material(s)?”
The AC21 panel released their findings in a report [PDF] entitled ‘Enhancing Coexistence’ that was sent to the secretary of agriculture this week. In it, however, they have little to say to the farmers who are likely to be brought before a judge while Monsanto and other biotech kings come out on top.
According to the AC21 group, the best maneuver for any Monsanto foe to take right now is to simply buy insurance, suggesting that the top guns will be given the go-ahead to continue with their contested habit of near endless litigation, a practice that has a tendency to leave the little guys bankrupt and out of business — only to be bought up by the billion-dollar Monsanto corporation after their bills can’t be paid.
“In discussions on potential compensation mechanisms,” the panel writes, “the AC21 considered three types of potential mechanisms: (1) a compensation fund, which might be funded by technology providers, by farmers, or by the entire food and feed production chain; (2) a crop insurance-type mechanism, which would likely involve both public financing and farmer choice to purchase the insurance; and (3) a risk retention group, which would essentially be a self-insurance tool that could be purchased by those farmers at risk of economic losses (analogous to extant insurance mechanisms for industries like the trucking industry, private campgrounds, etc.).”
“The AC21 discussed potential impacts on trade relations upon adoption of any of the three potential compensation mechanisms. The entire gamut of potential views was expressed: some members felt that establishing a compensation mechanism would send a signal to purchasers of US organic and non-GE products that there are problems in how the US produces those products, some expressed the opinion that effects would be neutral, and some felt that it would be reassuring to our trading partners in GE-sensitive markets that steps are being taken to ensure containment. All members felt, however, that if a compensation mechanism were to be instituted, that attention needed to be given to potential impacts on trade.”
In their recommendations, the panel suggests, “If the Secretary, in considering the loss data, determines that the situation warrants development of a compensation mechanism to help address such losses, the Secretary should implement such a mechanism based on a crop insurance model.”
Additionally, no real recommendations seem to be presented to farmers regularly targeted by biotech companies in court other than to invest in some solid insurance. In a statement issued Wednesday from The National Organic Coalition (NOC), the group condemns the USDA and its AC21 panel for allegedly putting little work into alleviating a big problem destroying America’s agriculturists.
“Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay for crop insurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” the group writes. “NOC strongly asserts that this proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination, while making the victim of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.
“This is a completely wrong approach to tackling the GE contamination problem,” says Liana Hoodes, NOC’s executive director. “At the bare minimum, USDA must stop approving additional GE crops, and prevent GE contamination by mandating pollution prevention measures, as well as make transgenic polluters, including GE technology owners, pay for their contamination.”
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety and a NOC member, adds that the AC21’s findings are an “ill-conceived solution of penalizing the victim is fundamentally unjust and fails to address the root cause of the problem – transgenic contamination.”
“The AC21 report takes responsibility for GE contamination prevention out of the hands of USDA and the biotech industry where it belongs and puts it squarely on the backs of organic and non-GE farmers,” Kimbrell says.
According to the lone AC21 panel member that dissented from the rest, the report as a whole does little to alleviate anything for the time being.
“Any farmer/seed grower contaminated will not want to disclose the contamination because they are illegally in possession of a patented material and could be subject to legal action for theft of intellectual property. The committee refused to ever recognize this fact,” writes Isaura Andaluz.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Apple compensates Swiss Rail $25.7m over illegal use...

While Apple has not listened to my complaints about its iPhone in app donation policy, Google and Microsoft are all ears. I received a Windows 7 phone from Microsoft and Nexus S Android phone from Google. Now I have a Smartphone for each hand and will be exploring best practices in nonprofits, social media, and mobile during the next year. www.bethkanter.org/mobile-nonprofit/ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Apple I at the Smithsonian Museum (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

SAN JOSE, CA - JULY 30: Apple Inc. general counsel Bruce Sewell prepares to enter the Robert F. Peckham Federal Courthouse on July 30, 2012 in San Jose, California. The trial in the Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. patent battle begins today at a San Jose federal courthouse to determine if Samsung illegally copied technolgy used in Apple's popular iPhone and iPads. Apple is seeking $2.5 billion in damages. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Image representing Apple as depicted in CrunchBase

Image via CrunchBase

Apple has dished out $NZD25.7m to compensate Swiss national rail operator SBB for using its famous clock without permission (Getty

US tech giant Apple has dished out 20 million Swiss francs (NZD$25.7 million) to compensate Swiss national rail operator SBB for using its famous clock without permission, a Swiss daily reported.
The company agreed in October to pay the lump sum so it could continue using SBB's Swiss-designed station clock face on its iPads and iPhones, the Tages-Anzeiger daily reported on its website, quoting several unnamed sources.
The rail operator's spokeswoman Patricia Claivaz told AFP in September SBB was preparing to meet with Apple to discuss why the company had begun using the famous clock on one of its new applications for iOS 6 without authorisation.
She said at the time that SBB was more interested in bringing clarity to where and how Apple could use the logo than in raking in cash.
"We're rather proud that a brand as important as Apple is using our design," she said in September.
The clock was designed in 1944 by Swiss engineer Hans Hilfiker and remains the property of SBB. It is still used in SBB's stations.

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

President Obama re-elected to another four year term...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama supporters cheered the results

US Presidential Election 2012

President Barack Obama has been re-elected to a second term, defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

With results in from most states, America's first black president has secured the 270 votes in the electoral college needed to win the race.
Mr Obama prevailed despite lingering dissatisfaction with the economy and a well-funded challenge by Mr Romney.
Mr Obama's margin of victory is not yet certain because two states have yet to report results.
Mr Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has called the president to concede the race.
With Florida still too close to call, Mr Obama has won 303 electoral votes to Mr Romney's 203.

“Start Quote

There will be many problems ahead in a second term, but for the president's supporters, this is a moment of joy and relief.”

End Quote

Read more from Mark

In Boston, where his campaign was headquartered, Mr Romney congratulated the president in an emotional concession speech.

He said he and Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan had "left everything on the field" and had given their all in the campaign.
"This election is over, but I believe that our principles endure," he said. "I so wish that I had been able to fulfil your hopes to lead the country in a different direction."
The state of Alaska, where polls have yet to close, is expected to vote for the Republican.
Under the US constitution, each state is given a number of electoral votes in rough proportion to its population. The candidate who wins 270 electoral votes - by prevailing in the mostly winner-takes-all state contests - becomes president.
The popular vote, which is symbolically and politically important but not decisive in the race, remains too close to call.
On Tuesday, the president held the White House by assembling solid Democratic states and a number of important swing states such as Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia and Wisconsin. His narrow victory in Ohio, a critical Mid-Western swing state, sealed the victory.

303

Barack Obama

-33 electoral votes needed for Democrat win

203

Mitt Romney

67 electoral votes needed for Republican win

California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
District of Colombria 3
Delaware 3
Hawaii 4
Iowa 6
Illinois 20
Massachusetts 11
Maryland 10
Maine 4
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Nebraska 0
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
Nevada 6
New York 29
Ohio 18
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
Virginia 13
Vermont 3
Washington 12
Wisconsin 10

Alabama 9
Arkansas 6
Arizona 11
Georgia 16
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 0
Missouri 10
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Nebraska 5
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3

270 to win

Results in full

Billions spent

Mr Romney won North Carolina and Indiana, both of which Mr Obama won in 2008, as well as the solid Republican states.

But he was unable to win in Ohio or other states needed to breach the 270 threshold.
Also on Tuesday's ballot were 11 state governorships, a third of the seats in the 100-member US Senate and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
Republicans are projected to keep control of the House, while Democrats are tipped to remain in control in the Senate.
Mr Obama's re-election victory came despite lingering high employment - 7.9% on election day - and tepid economic growth.
But voters gave him credit for his 2009 rescue of the US car industry, among other policy accomplishments, and rewarded him for ordering the commando mission that killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan last year.
He and Mr Romney, as well as their respective allies, have spent more than $2bn (£1.25bn) - largely on adverts in swing states

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Pieces of Silver: Why they hate Nate - he predicts Obama could breeze in this week...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New York Times election oracle, Nate Silver, who in his fivethirtyeight blog correctly predicted 49 of 50 states in the last election, predicts that Obama could breeze to victory with a 75 percent chance of winning. Despite his relatively simple method of averaging polls to predict winners, he’s become a punching bag for pundits and politicians who label him a fradulent snakeoil salesman.
Why does Silver, who is really just an apartisan puzzle-solver, inspire so much loathing? Because his results reveal a psychologically disturbing fact: we live in an uncontrollable, unpredictable world. Obama is a moderately popular incumbent running against a relatively uncharismatic one who’s not that well liked even among conservatives. A rainy election day and upswing in the economy could do more to affect the small slice of undecided voters in swing states than all the newspaper endorsements and billion-dollar campaigns put together.
“Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they’re jokes,” said MSNBC’s hotheaded morning political pundit, Joe Scarborough, in a pointed rant against the humble New York Times statistician.
Buzzfeed thinks that Silver’s critics target him because he favors Obama. Washington Post Blogger, Ezra Klein, takes a more therapeutic interpretation, pointing to a caustic op-ed in Politico to argue that Silver threatens the very existence of pundits, since the success of his models make their opinions an antiquated information source