728x90_newspapers_dark_1.gif

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Reid, Angle Trade Barbs in Nevada Senate Race - FOXNews

LAS VEGAS -- In a crackling campaign debate, Republican challenger Sharron Angle attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a career politician Thursday night who lives in a fashionable Washington condominium and has voted to raise taxes 300 times. The four-term veteran called his tea party-backed rival extreme and an ally of special interests.

"My opponent favors big banks, she's against Wall Street reform," Reid said, adding that her views are sympathetic to big health insurance companies.

Angle played the aggressor from the opening moments of the hour-long debate, at one point taunting the Democratic leader to "man up, Harry Reid" as she urged him to concede that Social Security faces financial difficulty.

Across a stage at a local PBS station, there was little or nothing the two agreed on -- not taxes, not health care, immigration, energy policy or federal spending.

Reid took aim at Angle's statement that it's not the job of a senator to create jobs. "What she's talking about is extreme," he said.

"Harry Reid, it's not your job to create jobs," she replied sharply. "It's your job to create policy" that leads to the creation of jobs.

With their debate, Reid and his challenger shared a local stage and a national spotlight, the only joint appearance of a campaign pitting the embodiment of the Democratic establishment against a challenger who was little known outside Nevada before winning the nomination in an upset.

For Angle, a 61-year-old former state lawmaker, the encounter was a chance to counter Reid's months-long attack on her as an extremist who is bent on destroying Social Security and other government programs.

For Reid, 70 and seeking a fifth Senate term, it marked an opportunity to persuade skeptical constituents that he deserves re-election at a time when unemployment in Nevada, at 14.4 percent, is the highest in the country.

The two rivals had a quiet, private word in the moments before the debate began and shook hands and exchanged pleasantries once it had ended. In between, she frequently looked at Reid when it was his turn to speak.

The debate unfolded at a particularly critical moment in their race, with early voting set to begin over the weekend and polls showing an extremely tight contest.

Under the debate ground rules, moderator Mitch Fox posed questions to the candidates by turn, and at one point, asked Angle the same question twice after she sidestepped when asked if health insurance companies should be bound by any coverage mandates.

"The solutions to the health care insurance cost problems are simple and they reside within the free market," she said.

Reid pounced on her reply.

"Insurance companies don't do things out of the goodness of their heart; they do it because of the profit motive," he said. "We need them to be forced into" covering mammograms, colonoscopies and other tests, as well as autism and other conditions.

Angle's reference to Reid's Washington condominium appeared part of a campaign-long effort to make him look like he has lost touch with the state that he has represented in Congress for decades.

She returned to the same theme nearly an hour later, much more pointedly, when she said he had gone into public service with little money and now was among the wealthiest men in the Senate.

"How did you become so wealthy on a government payroll?" she asked accusingly.

As he had at other points, Reid said Angle had her facts wrong. He said he had practiced law before entering politics, had been successful at it and has managed his investments well in the years since.

Both candidates unveiled new television attack ads in the hours leading up to the debate.

Previewing her attack in the debate's opening moments, Angle's commercial Reid, saying he has voted to raise taxes more than 300 times.

Reid's ad called Angle a "wild" legislator who would force pregnant rape victims to give birth and dismantle Social Security.

Former President Bill Clinton campaigned with Reid earlier in the week and urged voters not to take their anger over the economy out on the four-term senator.

But Angle jolted Democrats in the state and in Washington when her campaign announced it had raised $14 million in the three months ending Sept. 30, a staggering sum that reflects her rise to prominence as the Republican challenger to the Senate's top Democrat.

Democrats responded by noting that Angle had not disclosed how much of the money she had remaining in her campaign treasury, suggesting she had already spent most of what she reported raising. But at the same time, Reid rushed out a fundraising appeal that said Angle's surge in donations meant she might be able to swamp him on television in the campaign's final days.

The antagonism between the two sides has also spilled over into the streets.

Police said they had issued summonses to two men after an Angle supporter dressed in a sheep costume taunted one of Reid's backers during Clinton's appearance.


View the original article here

An Apple, Verizon Partnership Threatens Android: 10 Reasons Why - eWeek

Share

By: Don Reisinger
2010-10-14
Article Rating:starstarstarstarstar / 6

There are 5 user comments on this Enterprise Mobility story.



An Apple, Verizon Partnership Threatens Android: 10 Reasons Why
( Page 1 of 2 ) Apple and Verizon have finally partnered up. The hardware maker will be offering its tablet to Verizon Wireless customers starting in a couple weeks. When that happens, the debate over when Apple would finally start its growth strategy in the United States will be over. And then, the debate will turn to how the company will use its Verizon partnership to its advantage. 

Unfortunately for Google, Apple will use its new Verizon partnership to start chipping away at the search giant?s lead in the mobile market. Apple is simply too big and too powerful not to do that. And it undoubtedly has its sights set on Android OS as it attempts to control the mobile market. 

Here?s why Google should be so concerned about an Apple, Verizon partnership. 

1. Android OS is the central Verizon player 

Verizon has made it clear over the past couple years that it?s riding the Android train as far as it will take it. Since AT&T had Apple and the iPhone, Verizon needed something of its own. And it found that with Google and Android. But now that the company is warming to Apple, its desire to work so closely with Android OS might wane. 

2. The focus will be off 

It?s hard to see why Verizon?s focus won?t shift as the company continues to add Apple products to its lineup. After all, Apple commands the kind of respect that few other firms in the industry do. And it will probably help Verizon increase its revenue by a wide margin. It would only make sense for the company to shift its focus from Android OS to Apple. 

3. Steve Jobs plays a role 

Steve Jobs will undoubtedly play a role in the issues Android will now face. For a long time Jobs has been making Verizon salivate over its products. Finally, it has allowed it to get a taste. Verizon won?t pass that up. And Steve Jobs definitely won?t let the moment pass without getting as much as possible for it. That means Android OS will probably get caught in the cross hairs. 

4. If the iPad sells well, Verizon will be off and running 

Quite a bit is riding on the sale of the iPad at Verizon. If the device performs well, Verizon will be far more likely to give in to Apple?s demands and focus its efforts there. If the device doesn?t sell all that well, Android might get a reprieve. But unfortunately for Google, the chances of the iPad not selling well seem slim, which can only mean bad things for the company?s mobile operating system. 



Your Zip Code:
Need help with something enterprise mobility related? Check out these VARs within 100 miles of your area:SolutionWorx, Inc.
Mike Mazan
Chantilly, VA View Website

NCI Systems, Inc.
Michael Holmes
Clifton, VA View Website

Gaeltek, LLC
Andrew Harper
Manassas Park, VA View Website

Turnkey Network Solutions, Inc.
Peter Phelan
Manassas, VA View Website

Macro Systems, LLC
Howard Cunningham
Fairfax, VA View Website

Network Depot
Rich Forsen
Reston, VA View Website

Rhythmic Technologies, Inc.
Cris Daniluk
Herndon, VA View Website

Threshold Technologies, Inc.
Larry Stromberg
Reston, VA View Website

Flat Rate Computer Solutions
Maurice Jacobs
Reston, VA View Website

BrandClik
Joshua Konowe
reston, VA View Website

Iron Horse
Tony Stirk
Springfield, VA View Website

Guaranteed inbound, pre-qualified leads generated interactivelyOutbound marketing campaigns provided for you by IT Locator and Ziff Davis Enterprise at your local levelAutomatic search engine optimization of your web site

View the original article here

Family's Effort to Clear Name Frames Debate on Executions - New York Times

Members of Mr. Willingham’s family, working with lawyers who oppose the death penalty, had asked for the rare and controversial hearing, held here on Thursday, to investigate whether Mr. Willingham was wrongfully convicted. They argue that the proceeding, known as a court of inquiry, could restore Mr. Willingham’s reputation, a right guaranteed under Texas law, even to the dead.

But they also say that the hearing is more than symbolic — it could cast in a new light the Lone Star State’s record on executions. And more broadly, they argue, it is a cautionary tale about the power of flawed science to sway a courtroom, and a glaring injustice that could affect debates over the fairness of the death penalty.

That debate has been framed, in part, by a 2006 opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, in which he said that the dissent in a case had not cited “a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit.”

Many who oppose the death penalty have taken Justice Scalia’s statement as a challenge, and argue that the Willingham case is their proof.

To those favoring the death penalty, Mr. Willingham is guilty, and the efforts to posthumously exonerate him are an abolitionist farce.

Critics of the hearing have said the proceeding is illegal, and have tried to derail it. The district attorney of Navarro County, R. Lowell Thompson, whose office originally convicted Mr. Willingham, filed a motion last week demanding that Judge Charlie Baird recuse himself, arguing a judge cannot appoint himself to lead a court of inquiry, and must instead refer the matter to a higher court for an appointment. At the beginning of the hearing on Thursday, Judge Baird ruled that he would allow the hearing to go forward.

At the end of the day, however, as testimony was closing down, the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued a stay at Mr. Thompson’s request, ordering Judge Baird not to hold further proceedings or to issue rulings until next Friday, and asked the Willingham team to explain why the case should be allowed to go forward.

The focus of lawyers for Mr. Willingham’s family was on evidence presented by fire marshals at Mr. Willingham’s original trial — evidence that nine experts have said included “many critical errors,” as one report put it. Several of the experts were working at the request of the Innocence Project, an organization that seeks the acquittal of wrongfully convicted people.

The expert who wrote that critical report, Gerald Hurst, argued that evidence suggested the fire was accidental, not arson. His report was sent to Gov. Rick Perry shortly before the execution, but Mr. Perry declined to halt or delay the procedure.

The evidence presented at trial that Mr. Willingham committed arson “amounts to junk science,” Gerald H. Goldstein, a San Antonio lawyer arguing on behalf of the Willingham family, said in the courtroom.

Judge Baird asked Dr. Hurst at the hearing whether his review of the case could rule out arson “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”

Dr. Hurst demurred. “I never had a case where I could exclude arson,” he said. “It’s not possible to do that.”

The judge then asked if “there’s nothing in the evidence you’ve seen here that suggests arson.”

“That’s correct,” Dr. Hurst said.

John Lentini, a fire expert who has studied flawed arson investigations, hammered at the evidence and analysis from fire marshals at the Willingham trial.

Under questioning by Barry Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project, Mr. Lentini ridiculed critical testimony at the trial that 20 factors, including burn patterns on the floor and cracks in the windows, proved that Mr. Willingham spread accelerants to fuel the fire.

No such chemicals were found in the house, Mr. Lentini said. Much of the analysis of Manuel Vasquez, the state fire marshal in the Willingham trial, “didn’t even meet the standards of 1991,” a time that Mr. Lentini characterized as having “a wretched state of the art.”

The current fire marshal, Paul Maldonado, stands by the work of the original marshals in the Willingham case, which Mr. Lentini said he found mystifying.

Mr. Lentini said that the flaws in the science required the state to go back and take a new look at other arson convictions. “I can understand why the fire marshal doesn’t want to go back and review hundreds of cases,” he said. “But that’s probably his duty.”

Governor Perry has fought the review of the case, and declined to participate in the hearing. Katherine Cesinger, his spokeswoman, said, “Nothing the Austin court does can change the fact that Todd Willingham was convicted in a trial court with the appropriate jurisdiction, and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for murdering his three young daughters.”

The case, she noted, had worked its way through the appeals process and even reached the Supreme Court over the course of more than a decade. The governor has described Mr. Willingham as “an absolute monster who killed his own kids.”

Closing the hearing, former Gov. Mark White said that “the frailty of the system has been demonstrated clearly and overwhelmingly by the testimony brought forth in this court today.”

In an interview, Mr. Scheck said, “What we’ve proven is there was no crime” in the Willingham case.

“I would expect that at the end of the day, what we’ll get is an opinion that an innocent man was executed in Texas,” he added.

Even if that should happen, its impact will be minimal, said Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a group that supports the death penalty.

“It’ll be trumpeted on the Death Penalty Information Center site,” he said, referring to a group that opposes capital punishment. “Nobody on the other side of the aisle is going to give it any credence.”

To one person attending the hearing, however, it was anything but meaningless. Eugenia Willingham, Mr. Willingham’s stepmother, said during a break in the proceedings that it was an important day.

“This is what he wanted us to do,” she said of her stepson. “He wanted us to stand up for him.”


View the original article here