THE 2011 NFL SEASON

The 2011 NFL season, the 92nd regular season of the National Football League, is scheduled to begin on Thursday, September 8, 2011 with the New Orleans Saints traveling to Lambeau Field, the home of the Super Bowl XLV champion Green Bay Packers; and end with Super Bowl XLVI, the league's championship game, on February 5, 2012 at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.

Just before the CBA expired on March 3, both the players and the league owners agreed to extend the negotiations by one week. However, talks eventually broke down, and on March 11, the union formally decertified, after which a group of ten players filed an antitrust lawsuit against the league. (The players involved are Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts, Tom Brady and Logan Mankins of the New England Patriots, Vincent Jackson of the San Diego Chargers, Ben Leber and Brian Robison of the Minnesota Vikings, Von Miller who was drafted by the Denver Broncos with the second pick overall, Osi Umenyiora of theNew York Giants, Mike Vrabel of the Kansas City Chiefs, Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints as well as several former NFL players including Priest Holmes of the Kansas City Chiefs. In response to the decertification, the league officially locked out the players. On July 5, 2011, a group of retired NFL players led by Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Marcus Allen and Paul Krause filed its own class-action lawsuit against both the NFL and NFLPA, stating that the decertification disqualified the NFLPA from bargaining on the former NFL players' behalf.

On July 6, 2011, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opened an investigation into the league for possible violations of New York State's antitrust law, the Donnelly Act.

This is only the second time in which a labor dispute has affected the preseason. The other was during the 1974 NFL season, in which the College All-Star Game was canceled due to the threat of a work stoppage; an agreement was struck shortly thereafter, and the rest of the preseason, beginning with the Pro Football Hall of Fame Game, was unaffected. The 1982 and 1987 strikes began after the regular season was already underway. The lockout is the longest in the NFL's history; however, because the majority of the lockout has been imposed during the offseason, it has had much less of an effect than shorter strikes in 1982 and 1987, both of which (so far) led to more canceled games.

On April 25, 2011, U.S. District Court judge Susan Richard Nelson invalidated the lockout and ordered the league to resume operations. The league asked Nelson to stay the order while it appeals to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; Nelson refused. The NFLPA has advised players to arrive at their teams' stadiums for work uninvited; most teams allowed players to enter the front office but refused further access. The order to resume operations without any CBA in place has left the league in "chaos" because, without a CBA, there are no rules in place regarding a salary cap or floor, free agency, and similar labor-related issues. In April 29, 2011, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the league a temporary stay of Nelson's ruling; the league reinstated the lockout following Day 2 of the draft. The stay was extended through at least June 3, when a full appeal was heard; the Eighth Circuit vacated Nelson's ruling on July 8, affirming the legitimacy of the lockout.

The NFL owners announced on July 21 that it had approved a new collective bargaining agreement by a 31–0 margin; the players association's executive board approved the new CBA on July 25. Assuming that the ten players drop their lawsuit against the NFL, the league plans to lift the lockout and allow league business to resume.

SOURCES…ESPN…ABC..NFL

NEWS NET

NY NEW YORK

10013

MEDIAVIEWS@GMAIL.COM

The Validity of the US Public Debt

Invoking the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the Debt Ceiling.

"The validity of the US public debt shall not be questioned “

Six months ago President Obama also faced a hostage situation. Republicans threatened to block an extension of middle-class tax cuts unless Mr. Obama gave in and extended tax cuts for the rich too. And the president essentially folded, giving the G.O.P. everything it wanted.

Now, predictably, the hostage-takers are back: blackmail worked well last December, so why not try it again? This time House Republicans say they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling — a step that could inflict major economic damage — unless Mr. Obama agrees to large spending cuts, even as they rule out any tax increase whatsoever. And the question becomes what, if anything, will get the president to say no.

The debt ceiling itself is a strange feature of U.S. law: since Congress must vote to authorize spending and choose tax rates, why have a second vote on whether to allow the borrowing that these spending and taxation policies imply? In practice, however, legislators have historically been willing to raise the debt ceiling as necessary, so this quirk in our system hasn’t mattered very much — until now.

What has changed? The answer is the radicalization of the Republican Party. (Emergence of the Tea Party)

The USAA Bank has stepped in guaranteeing, it would provide the interest-free advances to military members on active duty who already have their military pay directly deposited in a USAA account. The one-time loan would be for eligible members’ Aug. 15 paycheck. It was a program the company created in direct response to concerns about the government’s ability to pay its bills.

The President’s job Republican or Democratic is to lead our nation.

The provision in the 14^th amendment , Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

“While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War,” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the court in 1935, “its language indicates a broader connotation.”

In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.

The words of the provision are in important ways quite vague. “Nobody would argue,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “that Section 4 is clear in its meaning, other than at the time everyone thought that the South, if they ever got back in control, would not pay Civil War debt.”

But Jack M. Balkin, a law professor at Yale, said it was possible to infer a broader principle.

“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”

Mr. Obama’s statement largely dismissing the possibility of invoking the provision may have had a strategic element to it. A deficit reduction deal would seem to be more likely, after all, if both sides thought there was no alternative but economic chaos.

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.” Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

The debt ceiling has been raised ten times in the last ten years why is this President being treated differently ? Is the question.

Sources … NY Times, NPR.

NEWS NET

NY NEW YORK

10013

MEDIAVIEWS@GMAIL.COM

RUPERT MURDOCH'S PHONE HACKING SCANDAL

With all considered, one could easily draw conclusions as to why so many seem to relish in Murdoch’s ruin. For years, Murdoch and his conglomerate have been loathed for its alleged right-wing bias and agenda-driven reporting. Now, with an open investigation implicating Murdoch’s British tabloid of corruption and phone hacking, many are hoping it will lead to the dismantling of his entire news empire.

Though Murdoch obviously is guilty of both harmful and innocuous yellow journalism, is all the media hate fairly warranted?

Yes, several Murdoch employees have been found guilty of unethical behavior, but is it really fair to socially indict Murdoch, without any concrete evidence that he is personally responsible for the immoral actions of his employees?

In May 2007, Murdoch made a $5 billion offer to purchase Dow Jones, owner of the Wall Street Journal. At the time, the Bancroft family, which controlled 64% of the shares, firmly declined the offer, opposing Murdoch's much-used strategy of slashing employee numbers and "gutting" existing systems. Later, the Bancroft family confirmed a willingness to consider a sale – besides Murdoch, the Associated Press reported that supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and Internet entrepreneur Brad Greenspan were among the interested parties. On 1 August 2007, the BBC's "News and World Report" and NPR's Marketplace radio programs reported that Murdoch had acquired Dow Jones; this news was received with mixed reactions.

The News International phone hacking scandal is an ongoing controversy involving the News of the World, a now-defunct British tabloid newspaper published by News International — a subsidiary of News Corporation — and the allegations that individuals working for the newspaper engaged in phone hacking. There are related allegations that the newspaper had obtained information in further illicit ways including making payments to police officers; that it exercised improper influence on politicians and the police; and that other British newspapers were involved in similar activities.

While it originally appeared that the News of the World had only hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians and members of the British Royal Family, revelations in July 2011 that victims included murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, relatives of deceased British soldiers, and victims of the 7/7 London bombings generated widespread public outrage and revulsion. Advertiser boycottscontributed to the closure of the News of the World, which published its final edition on 10 July 2011 after 168 years of publication.

On 6 July 2011, British prime minister David Cameron declared that a public inquiry would convene to investigate the affair, once police inquiries had been completed. On 13 July, Cameron named Lord Justice Leveson as chairman of the inquiry, with a remit to look into the specific claims about phone hacking and police bribery by the News of the World, while a separate inquiry would consider the culture and ethics of the British media. He also said the Press Complaints Commission would be replaced "entirely".

The affair has resulted in several high-profile resignations and arrests. Staff who quit News Corporation in the wake of the scandal have included Les Hinton, a subsidiary chief executive, News International's legal manager Tom Crone, and its chief executive Rebekah Brooks. The Metropolitan Police Service's commissioner and Britain's most senior police officer, Sir Paul Stephenson, also resigned his post. Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, the paper's former executive editor Neil Wallis, and Brooks were all arrested. Rupert Murdoch and his son James were summonsed to give evidence in Parliament.

The scandal eventually garnered attention in the United States, where News Corporation is headquartered and operates a multitude of media outlets. On 14 July the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched its own investigation into News Corporation, focusing on claims that its newspapers had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and accessed voicemails of victims of the 9/11 attacks. On 15 July, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had also opened an investigation into the company.

The Roger Clemens Trial .. Is it a waste of Tax Payers dollars.

The Roger Clemens Trial .. Is it a waste of Tax Payers dollars.

Your government failed you today.

There's no other way to put it. For almost three years, federal investigators have been building a perjury case against Roger Clemens, the seven-time Cy Young award winner who told a Congressional committee, under oath in a nationally televised 2008 hearing, that he never used performance-enhancing drugs. They gathered DNA evidence that allegedly tied Clemens to syringes saved by his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who claims he injected Clemens with steroids. The government was set to call Andy Pettitte, Clemens' former teammate and best friend. In a sworn affidavit, Pettitte said that Clemens told him that he had used human growth hormone. Why would Pettitte ever tell a damning lie, under oath, about his buddy Clemens? Pettitte's testimony would be devastating.

But we won't hear it — at least for another few months. After a week's worth of jury selection in the case of U.S. v Roger Clemens, and one full day of testimony, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton declared a mistrial because of a prosecutorial goof. In front of the jury, the government played video from the 2008 hearing in which Rep. Elijah Cummings quotes from an affidavit provided by Laura Pettitte, Andy's wife, which backed up her husband's account of Clemens' drug use. The problem: Walton had ruled that Laura Pettitte's hearsay statements were inadmissible at trial.

A furious Walton stopped the proceedings, kicked the jury out of the room, and then scolded the prosecutors, Steven Durham and Daniel Butler. “I don't see how I un-ring the bell,” Walton said.“I think that a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible evidence."

He called the jury back, and declared a mistrial. Walton apologized to the jury. "We've expended a lot of your taxpayers' money to reach this point," Walton said, according to @NYDNSportsIteam, the sports investigative unit for the New York Daily News. A hearing to determine whether the government can retry the case was set for Sept. 2. If the judge rules that double jeopardy applies, Clemens will walk, thanks to a glitch.

And a retrial will just fatten an expensive bill. The public appetite for the government steroid investigations of athletes like Barry Bonds, Lane Armstrong, and Clemens is waning. Most fans have moved on. And now that the government has gone broke, every taxpayer expenditure is scrutinized. Every penny counts. The apathy has turned to anger.

After this government mishap, that anger may turn into righteous rage. President Obama and the Republican leadership are fighting over ways to keep the country solvent. The timing of this screwup is terrible. It's the courtroom equivalent of Bill Buckner and Fred "Bonehead" Merkle, combined.

2005: Jose Canseco releases a best-selling book saying that Astros pitcher Roger Clemens once joked about taking a "B-12" shot, which was baseball code for steroids at the time. But Canseco says he has no evidence Clemens ever actually used the performance-enhancing substance.

Dec. 13, 2007: A 409-page report by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell accuses Clemens and Astros pitcher Andy Pettitte, along with 75 other current or former baseball players, of taking performance-enhancing drugs. The Mitchell Report, as it became ominously known, said Clemens and Pettitte were injected with the drugs by former trainer Brian McNamee.

Dec. 15, 2007: Pettitte admits publicly that he used human growth hormone for two days in 2002 to speed up the healing of his injured elbow, but denies ever using steroids.

Dec. 18, 2007: Clemens denies ever using steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substance, calling those substances "a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take."

Jan. 6, 2008: Clemens sues McNamee for defamation. Meanwhile, the CBS TV program 60 Minutes airs an interview with Clemens in which he says McNamee injected him with vitamin B-12 and the painkiller lidocaine but never with testosterone, human growth hormone or anabolic steroids.

Jan. 15, 2008: Before a standing-room-only crowd during a congressional House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Mitchell strongly endorses the veracity of McNamee's allegations that Clemens had used banned substances.

Feb. 5, 2008: During a closed-door, under-oath interrogation before congressional investigators, Clemens says he never took steroids or human growth hormone.

Feb. 6, 2008: McNamee's lawyers reveal they gave federal prosecutors physical evidence — including syringes, empty bottles and gauze — that they say proves Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. Clemens' lawyers dismiss McNamee as "a troubled man who is obsessed with doing everything possible to destroy Roger Clemens."

Feb. 8, 2008: McNamee tells congressional investigators he also injected Clemens' wife, Debbie, with human growth hormone at her husband's direction for a 2003 Sports Illustrated photo shoot. Clemens' attorney dismisses the allegation as a "colossal lie."

Feb. 11, 2008: A congressman reveals Pettitte will not testify before Congress because he gave an affidavit supporting McNamee's claims.

Feb. 13, 2008: Clemens testifies before the congressional committee, denying he ever used illicit drugs during his career. McNamee, at the other end of the witness table, tells the panel the evidence against Clemens is "100 percent authentic." Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Pettitte's testimony that Clemens had acknowledged using HGH convinced him that Clemens was lying. Clemens countered that Pettitte was not remembering things correctly. "I think Andy has misheard. I think he misremembers," Clemens said.

Late February 2008: Congress asks the U.S. Justice Department to launch an investigation into whether Clemens lied under oath during his testimony.

January 2009: A federal grand jury is convened to determine whether Clemens should be indicted on charges of lying under oath to Congress.

Feb. 3, 2009: Tests link Clemens' DNA to blood in syringes that McNamee says he used to inject the pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs, according to a Washington Post report.

Feb. 12, 2009: A Houston federal judge dismisses most of Clemens' defamation lawsuit against McNamee, finding McNamee had immunity from being sued for comments he made about Clemens to Mitchell's investigators.

March 2009: Federal investigators find performance-enhancing substances on the drug paraphernalia that McNamee said he used to inject Clemens.

Aug. 12, 2010: A federal appeals court refuses to reinstate Clemens' defamation lawsuit against McNamee.

Aug. 19, 2010: A federal grand jury hands down a six-count indictment against Clemens, charging he obstructed a congressional inquiry with false statements, including denials that he had ever used steroids or human growth hormone. The indictment says that he lied and committed perjury.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7160799.html#ixzz1SZbSp6nd

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/14/the-roger-clemens-mistrial-isnt-the-government-broke-enough/#ixzz1SZcQPJWN