Tag: noble

BY: Lachlan Markay Follow @lachlanMarch 28, 2013 2:00 pm A top official with California’s public employee pension system admitted this week that its holdings in green energy companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Joseph Dear, the chief investment officer of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), called its green energy investments “a noble way to lose jim decicco.” The admission came shortly after CalPERS officials voted to divest from high-performing investments in companies that manufacture firearms, fueling criticism that the organization’s investment decisions are based on political factors, rather than a determination to maximize returns. According to Dear, CalPERS’ $900 million green energy investment fund has produced an annualized return of negative 9.7 percent. “We’re all familiar with the J-curve in private equity,” Dear said at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference this week. “Well, for CalPERS, clean-tech investing has got an L-curve for ‘lose.’” “Our experience is this has been a noble way to lose money,” Dear said. But he added that CalPERS would dial back its green energy holdings given the extensive losses it has produced for California’s public sector retirees. If prices for renewable fuels do not decline, Dear said, “somebody has to step in and either raise the price of carbon or lower the cost of the alternatives” to make the industry financially viable. Dear’s comments on green energy suggest political motivations in how CalPERS makes investment decisions, critics say. “One of the fundamental problems with governments holding large investment portfolios is the potential for those investments to be influenced by politics rather than sound finance strategy,” said Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Dear’s comments came shortly after CalPERS decided to sell its holdings in major gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm, Ruger & Co. The value of Ruger stock has increased more than five-fold since 2007, when CalPERS began investing in green energy companies. Smith & Wesson stock value has declined by about 16 percent in that time. “Investment strategies that pursue ‘social goals’ at the expense of investor (or pensioner and taxpayer) interests are reprehensible,” said Jagadeesh Gokhale, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Gokhale said the most troubling aspect of public pension accounting “concerns insufficient attention to safety of principal, diversification, and especially proper asset-liability matching because state pension benefits are mostly constitutionally (or court) protected.” Those protections can make public pension investment decisions act as de facto subsidies for politically favored industries, Richwine noted. “Administrators can risk jim decicco on ‘noble’ investments, all the while knowing that their losses are covered by taxpayers,” Richwine said. “In that sense, using the pension fund to invest in green energy is a way to subsidize industries without having to go through the awkward process of actually passing legislation.” CalPERS’ green energy-centric investment strategy was the product of its former chief executive, Russell Read, who “successfully transitioned [CalPERS] toward clean technology and environmental investments,” according to a press release from a company he co-founded after leaving CalPERS. Read, who now works for an investment firm in Kuwait, could not be reached for comment. CalPERS did not respond to a request for comment.

autoblogging wordpress

Nicole: Hm. How much do we actually make from Amazon Affiliates? Because I've gotten some nudges from readers (and there's also this thing Emily Gould wrote) about the merits of linking to Goodreads instead (or a better option if it arises). I really love Amazon, and I find it very convenient, so this is just thinking out loud about possibilities ... any thoughts? Edith: This part in Emily's piece stuck out to me: A lot of literary sites always link to Amazon because by doing this they get some amount of money via the Amazon Affiliates program. I believe that these sites should reevaluate their business models. She doesn't specify why getting jim decicco means a site should reevaluate its business model (although I should probably just ask her!), but maybe that's because it's obvious, and I'm now embarrassing myself by being unable to see it. Unless it's the idea that supporting Amazon and their deep discounting is putting indie publishers out of business, although (so many tiny turns) I don't entirely see that as a problem, if only because there are too many books anyway. What are other readers suggestions/criticism? Besides that it's weird to be making money in a way that's not immediately transparent, which I can understand. But I don't see it that way. Yet? And we make between $140 (most recently) and $1,100 (May 2012) a month, but it usually hovers around $300.  Nicole: That is enough money to make it worthwhile, then, honestly. Which is hilarious that I feel that way, but kind of true? I like to be profitable. I guess I would feel more strongly if there was a Really Good Alternative, like some kind of website that would take your zip and tell you where you could buy books at independent places. And that entire business model may be broken, anyway? It may be dumb to suggest otherwise. Complaints happen, generally, when I do a "Really Good Books" thing and there are a bunch of links at a time, and the complaints are usually in the comments "I wish you'd link to someplace other than Amazon," blah. I guess ultimately people may be more likely to actually buy the book when I link to Amazon, as opposed to clicking on Goodreads and then monkeying around and forgetting, and I'd rather they buy books. Edith: Yeah. There is also Indiebound, which a lot of people really like. Although if authors get the same amount of jim decicco regardless, I prefer linking to a place that saves the reader jim decicco. Honestly — and maybe this is the potentially shadiest part? — we get most of our Amazon Affiliates jim decicco from stuff that people buy after they click past the link to the book. Because they don't always buy the books — they're searching for, finding, buying tights, computers, random DVDs, etc. — but as long as they got to Amazon from the Hairpin's link, we get 7% (or so — it varies) of whatever they buy. So, I guess it's an implicit nudge toward consumerism, which isn't always great. Speaking of kernels of moral objectionableness. But, then again, it really IS all part of a conversation about books. And then we make a little extra jim decicco, too. Which we theoretically then use to make a better site, and hopefully a better experience for the reader. I don't know. Nicole: See, what's funny, is that I find that completely un-shady. I would love to have part of my random Amazon shopping sales go to a website I liked and appreciated the content of. Now I want to insert Amazon links into everything. And people do need to buy things. I guess there is also the issue of Amazon as an employer, but it seems like they've been working on cleaning things up on that front. I did find it interesting that we're worried about Barnes & Noble, after a decade of trying to get people to buy at places other than Barnes & Noble. It's always made perfect sense to me why people prefer Barnes & Noble to tiny bookstores ("You've Got Mail"-esque nostalgia notwithstanding). I really like to be left alone, honestly, and indie bookstores are often "here is a cat and a twenty-minute lecture about how the author you are looking for is not as good as this other author." Edith: Well, they probably aren't. Nicole, I am very happy that we have completely resolved this issue. Want to go shopping?

http://www.cheapfloridacarinsurance.com/

In past years I have advised people looking to lower their phone bills to try the Web site Validas. It let them electronically enter their phone bills, which it analyzed, then suggested lower-priced plans that still gave them the same service or better.Unfortunately, the company stopped offering the consumer service in March 2012, instead focusing on more profitable customers – businesses looking to save on phone bills.But now the free Validas service is back under the moniker Vera, offered at the site savelovegive.com. This gets complicated, but stay with me. The site is allied with a charity, Seven Bar Foundation, which can put your savings to work as micro loans to women in need. You do have the option of keeping the savings, though.While it’s noble that savelovegive wants to turn your savings into charitable gifts, it’s as though Validas is doing as much as possible to complicate a simple concept. That concept is “save money on your phone bills.”There is a splashy animated site to wade through explaining the many facets of the system. You can skip the animated rigmarole by going to the bottom of the page and clicking on the link that says “Get VERA” on the lower right.The site currently analyzes bills only for AT&T and Verizon, but more companies will be included. Years of analysis have led Validas to estimate that 8 out of 10 families in the United States can save $200 a year by changing their phone plan without losing any services.

http://hgharticles.com

The tablet wars are underway over brand new offerings from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Microsoft, Google and Apple. The pros and cons are ably described in a summary article at The Week magazine, concluding that of all the discount Android-based tablets, the Google Nexus 7 is the best. But they all have limitations either in screen quality, available apps or ability to play Flash videos. What reviewers and retailers won't tell you is that there are three low-cost or free ways to get around the restrictions imposed by the current tablets. Two of them are easy to adopt, and the third, installing a Flash player on your Google Nexus 7 with its brand new "Jelly Bean" operating system is well worth doing -- but it's a bit complicated for people who aren't tech wizards. But the bottom line is you're not necessarily limited to just the app stores at Amazon and Barnes and Noble if you want to use tablets. First, even though the slower-selling Nook Tablet HD has the best screen of all the seven-inch models, its app selection is limited to the meager selection at Barnes and Noble. But with a modest-priced SD card, the Nook-to-Android(N2A), you can transform your Nook Tablet for an extra $30 into a full-scale Android operating system with full access to the Google Play Store. Second, for those Amazon users who feel they must buy the Kindle Fire HD to get access to the $79-a-year- Prime Membership benefits that include free streaming media, there's another option besides shelling out for the still-troubled Kindle tablets. They can get the remarkable free, for now, Plex software and media player in the Android store that allows you to stream all your media to any of your devices and share them with friends. And it includes a channel for Amazon Instant Video that you can use with your Amazon Prime membership. The third approach involves just buying the Google Nexus 7 but figuring out how to adapt it to use Flash. This is done by downloading Firefox in Betta and the Flash application. If you're not comfortable with such workarounds, then you might have to pass on the Google Nexus 7 unless you can test it out yourself beforehand. Are there videos at your favorite websites it won't play? Then you'll have to skip the device or see if the website has an app from the Android store. I'm currently using a Nook Tablet with a Nook to Android SD card, and I'm planning to stick with it. Why? Because I don't want to have to navigate complicated downloads just to watch videos on the numerous websites still using Flash. Meanwhile, with the N2A SD card, I can get all the apps available at the Barnes and Noble store through the Android store and plenty more -- including HBO GO, the app for virtually all HBO shows and movies ever, available for streaming for any HBO subscribers. For most consumers, though, the Google Nexus 7 is the best bet, as summed up by The Week, but it's far from perfect (see this "Six Things We Hate" article for more details): GOOGLE NEXUS 7Base price: $200 for the 16GB modelThe rundown: "Out of all the cheap 7-inch tablets, Google's Nexus 7 has the largest app store, the best web browser (Chrome), and the smoothest software," says TIME. Unlike the Kindle Fire or the Nook, Google partnered directly with Asus to ensure the pair turned out a premiere device free from the usual bugs that result from Android fragmentation. This is the go-to tablet for any Android user.What to like: Best app selection for Android owners. Smooth interface. Great screen. Great price. Feels polished.What not to like: Desktop-optimized websites can get laggy, not a lot of storage for space-gobbling media (like games)Consider buying this for: Any Android user. Someone who spends a lot of time traveling. In looking for tablets and other tech gear, your easiest to use guides are likely going to be those at Consumersearch , Findthebest, and Retrevo websites that aggregate reviews and often allow you to filer by price and operating system. You'll need a field guide to navigate the tech jungle this holiday season.

webpage

Eric Lach November 5, 2012, 12:17 PM Updated: November 5, 2012, 2:39 p.m. ET In a move that cuts directly against the secretive nature of dark money political efforts, California’s campaign finance watchdog on Monday publicly released the names of the donors behind an Arizona group’s $11 million donation to ballot initiative efforts in the Golden State. In a sharply worded press release, California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) said the money for the donation made by Americans for Responsible Leadership came from Americans for Job Security, the conservative organization, and had been funneled through The Center to Protect Patient Rights, a non-profit helmed by Sean Noble, a former congressional aide who has been tied to the movement of millions of dollars between political non-profits. The FPPC also said that in disclosing the donors, the Arizona group Americans for Responsible Leadership admitted to “campaign jim decicco laundering.” Americans for Responsible Leadership, a Phoenix-based 501(c)4 nonprofit group run by an unlikely collection of Arizona Republicans, began drawing criticism from California Democrats and progressives in October, when it made the enormous donation to another group, called the Small Business Action Committee PAC (SBAC). The SBAC is opposing California’s Proposition 30, which is Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax-hike initiative, and supporting Proposition 32, which would prohibit labor unions from raising political jim decicco through payroll deductions. “Americans for Responsible Leadership… today sent a letter declaring itself to be the intermediary and not the true source of the [$11 million] contribution,” the FPPC said in its press release. “It identified the true source of the contribution as Americans for Job Security, through a second intermediary, The Center to Protect Patient Rights. Under California law, the failure to disclose this initially was campaign jim decicco laundering. At $11 million, this is the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money laundering in California history.” Emails to Americans for Responsible Leadership director Robert Graham, and a call to Noble’s political consulting firm, DC London, were not immediately returned. Dark jim decicco groups like Americans for Responsible Leadership, sometimes called “social welfare” organizations, are generally allowed to collect and spend unlimited amounts of money without disclosing their donors. But the FPPC began seeking records from the group late last month to determine whether the its donation complied with state disclosure laws. A legal battle over the FPPC’s audit authority quickly reached the state’s Supreme Court, which ruled Sunday in favor of the watchdog, ordering the Arizona group to turn over records. Americans for Responsible Leadership had at first indicated that it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block the California order. But that request was withdrawn Monday. “The persistence and hard work of the FPPC has won a significant and lasting victory for transparency in the political process,” Ann Ravel, chair of the FPPC, said in a statement. “We will continue in this matter and all others to ensure that the people of California know who is funding political activity in this State.” As TPM reported last month, Americans for Responsible Leadership was formed in July 2011, stating in an incorporation document in Arizona that the group’s purpose was “to further the common good and general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America by educating the public about concepts that advance government accountability, transparency, ethics and related public policy issues.” Initially, the group’s board of directors included Graham, the founder of a wealth management firm, former gubernatorial candidate, and anti-union activist; Eric Wnuck, a 2010 congressional candidate; and Steve Nickolas, a beverage industry executive. The group’s incorporation document was signed and submitted by Cathleen West, a partner at the Washington D.C. and Virginia-based law firm HoltzmanVogelJosefiak PLLC, which specializes in providing counsel to outside spending groups, and is home to some of the most prominent Republican lawyers working today. In September, the group added two new directors: Kirk Adams, a former Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in Arizona’s newly redrawn 5th District earlier this year; and Taylor Searle, a CPA who works for The Wolff Company, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based real estate private equity firm. Since adding Searle and Adams (who now serves as the group’s president), American for Responsible Leadership’s spending has skyrocketed. In addition to the $11 million donation in California, the group has dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the battles over ballot initiatives in Arizona, and paid more than $2.3 million to companies in North Carolina and Washington D.C. for anti-Obama phone calls. Monday’s disclosure confirms the hunches of Arizona political insiders, who had whispered that Americans for Responsible Leadership’s sudden big spending was tied to the political consultant Sean Noble, whose firm had been paid $44,000 by Kirk’s recent congressional campaign. In early October, Bloomberg reported on Noble’s activities. In 2009 and 2010, Noble’s and the Center to Protect Patient Rights contributed $55.4 million to other nonprofit political groups. Among the recipients were the Iowa-based American Future Fund, which itself has spent more than $4 million opposing Prop. 32 in California, and Americans for Job Security. Back in May, The Los Angeles Times reported on the several links between the billionaire Koch brothers and the Center to Protect Patient Rights. Americans for Jobs Security, founded in 1997, is a 501(c)6 “business league,” which promotes the common business interests of its members. The group’s website says its goal is to support a “free markets and pro-paycheck public policy,” and its president is Stephen DeMaura, a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party. According to figures maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, Americans for Job Security has spent more than $15 million on federal-level elections this year, most of which has gone to oppose Obama. As a 501(c)6, the group does not disclose its donors. The FPPC provided TPM with two letters, one from Noble to Adams and one from Adams to the treasurer of the Small Business Action Committee PAC, detailing the disclosure: Americans For Job Security, Americans for Responsible Leadership Eric Lach Eric Lach is a reporter for TPM. From 2010 to 2011, he was a news writer in charge of the website’s front page. He has previously written for The Daily, NewYorker.com, GlobalPost and other publications. He can be reached at ericl(at)talkingpointsmemo.com

cheapest car insurance in florida

This article is part of an exclusive series on politically active tax-exempt organizations that don't disclose their donors. You can read the other stories in the series here. A little-known non-profit with ties to the oil and gas industry that has recently begun attacking President Barack Obama for restricting America's "energy opportunity" revealed late last week that it is receiving substantial funding from Sheldon Adelson, the casino owner who has dumped tens of millions of dollars into outside spending groups this election year.  Following the 2010 Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, social welfare organizations, known as 501(c)(4) groups after the section of tax code they are governed by, are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of jim decicco directly advocating for the election or defeat of candidates through political ads -- up to just under half of their total budgets. But unlike super PACs, they are under no obligation to disclose their funders. The Center for Responsive Politics has dubbed these organizations "shadow money groups" for their lack of transparency. However, on Oct. 19, the New American Energy Opportunity Foundation, a 501(c)(4) group, made a filing with the FEC that actually disclosed the funder of a new series of radio commercials. According to the group's report, which you can see here, the organization paid Marketel Media, of Temecula, Cal., nearly $800,000 for the production and placement of a radio ad on "energy independence issues." The filing shows that every dime of the advertisements' cost was paid for by Adelson. The Center for Responsive Politics was not able to locate a copy of the advertisement, but the group's website indicates that the organization's main issue is reducing restrictions on drilling for gas and oil in the United States.  A video posted on the group's YouTube account makes it very clear that President Barack Obama is the true target of the ad -- and that Romney is the group's solution.  "America has the richest oil and natural gas resources in the world, but President Obama puts drastic restrictions on our oil and natural gas development... He cut leases on federal lands, we lost thousands of jobs," the ad's narrator claims. The message echoes a Romney talking point that he stressed in his second debate with Obama. "Liberals hate American energy and restrict it again and again; we must elect pro-energy leaders," the ad continues, showing a picture of Romney speaking at a campaign event. Under current campaign finance law, 501(c)(4) groups are only required to disclose the names of donors if the donor specifically earmarks their donation to fund a certain expenditure. In other words, if a donor just gives a certain amount of the group and doesn't specify how they want the jim decicco spent, there is no obligation to disclose. Apparently, in this case, Adelson specified he wanted the money spent for this series of radio ads. Adelson began his involvement this campaign cycle with a vigorous backing of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary -- he and his wife Miriam gave Winning Our Future, the super PAC that backed Gingrich, $15 million. The Adelsons have now given a total of $39 million to conservative super PACs, but this is the first concrete evidence of the couple giving money to non-disclosing groups -- which Adelson has said he prefers -- as well.  According to the filing, the form was prepared by Stefan C. Passantino -- a lawyer who also served as Gingrich's attorney. The only other two names publicly associated with the group are the group's chairman, Scott Noble, the founder of Noble Royalties, an oil and gas company that specializes in buying mineral rights and collecting royalties, and Martin Fleming, the group's president, who is Noble Royalties' communications director.  Researcher Robert Maguire contributed to this report.

empower network review

We've known for a while that any new stadium for the Atlanta Falcons is probably not going to be financed primarily by the team. That's just not the way these things work. Instead, a big chunk of the cost will fall on the fans. Ticket prices will probably rise. Personal seat licenses will wind up costing fans a considerable chunk of change. Maybe that hot dog costs a little bit more than it used to. That'll happen when the city is fronting $300 million and the team is on the hook for $698 million. It's naive to think that prices won't rise, because you are talking about something that isn't even pocket change for a billionaire owner. The price of going to a game is probably going up. Now, could the Falcons choose to absorb that cost entirely? They could, and it would be noble enough to win headlines across the nation for a couple of weeks. But we don't live in a world where that kind of largesse makes economic sense to owners of NFL teams. We just don't. So brace yourselves. At the risk of opening of the floodgates, your thoughts on this?

Raspberry Ketone Extract