Jay-Z Plans 9/11 Benefit Gig in NYC

(Hip-hop Man-Whore/kingpin's Madison Square Garden show will raise money for victims' families, set for live TV broadcast)-----------------(yea! like he gives a shit-his profile is dipping thats why he's doing this) Like many born and bred New Yorkers, rap mogul Jay-Z was irrevocably changed by the events of September 11, 2001, and on the tragic day's eighth anniversary, he'll headline a major event to honor the fallen. Set for NYC's Madison Square Garden, the rapper's just-announced 9/11 benefit concert will funnel 100 percent of its proceeds to the New York Police and Fire Widows' and Children's Benefit Fund, a non-profit that's already doled out $114 million to the families of first responders from the NYPD, NYFD, Port Authority Police, and emergency medical services who perished in the terrorist attacks. "This charity and concert encompass the true spirit of New York City," Jay-Z said in a statement. "We are asking everyone to 'answer the call' and support and honor the families of those that lost their lives in the line of duty. There was true camaraderie and resiliency that this city showed the world in 2001, and we continue that today by taking care of our own." The show will also celebrate Jay's long-awaited new album, The Blueprint 3, the third entry in the Blueprint trilogy, which will be released the same day. It's the first album to be released under the Roc Nation imprint, the rapper's massive new collaborative enterprise with concert promoter Live Nation (who are also sponsoring the MSG show). Ticket information will be announced soon, but Citi cardholders will have an exclusive first crack at tickets. For those who get shut out of what will undoubtedly be a sold-out show, Fuse will be broadcasting the concert live and commercial-free, and will be featuring Jay-Z programming throughout the following weekend that will support the Benefit Fund (Why now you ask?.....why not years ago?-----------------answer(his profile is dipping thats why he's doing this)

Disney Buys Marvel-GREEDY FAT EVIL FUCKERS

(What chief Bob Iger does--and doesn't--get for $4 billion)--- LOS ANGELES -- The Walt Disney Company's announcement today that it will buy Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion caught Hollywood off guard. Marvel, home to such comic book heroes as Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man, just recently embarked on a strategy to produce its own movies instead of just licensing their characters to other studios. The result: last year's Iron Man, which earned $585 million at the worldwide box office on an estimated budget of $140 million. Marvel only had to pay Paramount (the studio that distributed Iron Man) an estimated 10% distribution fee and was able to keep the rest of the profits for itself But it was Iron Man's performance that likely inspired Disney ( DIS - news - people ) Chief Executive Robert Iger to go after Marvel in the first place. Until recently Iron Man had been one of Marvel's lesser-known heroes. But thanks to a smart script and a career-reviving performance by Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man is now one of the hottest franchises in Hollywood, right up there with Batman and Spider-Man. The question is: Was Iron Man a sign of things to come at Marvel or a lucky fluke? Iger is betting Disney's $4 billion on the former. He hopes that with the help of Disney's massive marketing and distribution arms Marvel will be able to turn many more of its lesser-known heroes into bona fide franchises complete with multiple films, videogames, dolls and lunch box tie-ins and spinoff television shows. Iger has to hope Marvel can replicate the success of Iron Man because the comic book company's biggest stars, Spider-Man, X-Men and The Incredible Hulk, are tied up at other studios. News Corp.'s ( NWS - news - people ) Fox Studio has the right to produce X-Men and X-Men spin off movies (like this summer's Wolverine, which grossed $363 million at the worldwide box office) in perpetuity. Sony ( SNE - news - people ) is already developing the next three Spider-Man films and has the right to develop many more into the future. Only Paramount stands to lose out from the deal. The studio has the right to distribute five more of Marvel's films. After that it will likely lose out on the distribution fee it currently collects from Marvel turning Iron Man over to Disney. But is that worth $4 billion? Iger isn't getting Marvel cheap. The price tag accounts for a 30% premium on Marvel's stock price. Iger only paid a 4% premium on Pixar shares when it bought the animation company in 2006 for $7.4 billion when prices were much higher than in today's depressed market. And while Iron Man was a hit, other attempts to exploit lesser-known Marvel heroes haven't performed as well. Daredevil, which Fox released in 2003, earned only $180 million at the worldwide box office. An Elektra spinoff, staring Jennifer Garner, did even worse earning just $57 million. Lionsgate's The Punisher earned $54 million at the box office and its follow-up, last year's Punisher: War Zone, didn't even come close to earning back its estimated $35 million budget. The film brought in just $10 million at theaters. In today's conference call, Disney executives played up the opportunities for Disney to exploit Marvel's characters on the company's new boy-focused cable channel, XD. The station currently airs 20 hours per week of shows based on Marvel characters. Disney is also the best company in the world at merchandising its characters using its television channels around the world to promote everyone from Wall-E to Hannah Montana and sell millions of T-shirts, lunch boxes and toys. And the one thing that gives Disney a fighting chance of turning some of those smaller heroes into big screen superstars is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar and Disney. Lasseter has shown an uncanny ability to turn out good, unconventional stories in ways that many studio suits would have rejected. His latest triumph is Up, a cartoon about a crotchety old man who loses his wife and embarks on an adventure with a pudgy boy scout. Analysts predicted the tough-sell premise would hurt at the box office, but the movie has gone on to earn $415 million so far. During today's call Iger said Lasseter had met with Marvel's creative executives and that he expects when they get together once the deal closes at the end of the year, "sparks will fly." For $4 billion, they'd better. But is that worth $4 billion? Iger isn't getting Marvel cheap. The price tag accounts for a 30% premium on Marvel's stock price. Iger only paid a 4% premium on Pixar shares when it bought the animation company in 2006 for $7.4 billion when prices were much higher than in today's depressed market. And while Iron Man was a hit, other attempts to exploit lesser-known Marvel heroes haven't performed as well. Daredevil, which Fox released in 2003, earned only $180 million at the worldwide box office. An Elektra spinoff, staring Jennifer Garner, did even worse earning just $57 million. Lionsgate's The Punisher earned $54 million at the box office and its follow-up, last year's Punisher: War Zone, didn't even come close to earning back its estimated $35 million budget. The film brought in just $10 million at theaters. In today's conference call, Disney executives played up the opportunities for Disney to exploit Marvel's characters on the company's new boy-focused cable channel, XD. The station currently airs 20 hours per week of shows based on Marvel characters. Disney is also the best company in the world at merchandising its characters using its television channels around the world to promote everyone from Wall-E to Hannah Montana and sell millions of T-shirts, lunch boxes and toys. And the one thing that gives Disney a fighting chance of turning some of those smaller heroes into big screen superstars is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar and Disney. Lasseter has shown an uncanny ability to turn out good, unconventional stories in ways that many studio suits would have rejected. His latest triumph is Up, a cartoon about a crotchety old man who loses his wife and embarks on an adventure with a pudgy boy scout. Analysts predicted the tough-sell premise would hurt at the box office, but the movie has gone on to earn $415 million so far. During today's call Iger said Lasseter had met with Marvel's creative executives and that he expects when they get together once the deal closes at the end of the year, "sparks will fly." For $4 billion, they'd better. But is that worth $4 billion? Iger isn't getting Marvel cheap. The price tag accounts for a 30% premium on Marvel's stock price. Iger only paid a 4% premium on Pixar shares when it bought the animation company in 2006 for $7.4 billion when prices were much higher than in today's depressed market. And while Iron Man was a hit, other attempts to exploit lesser-known Marvel heroes haven't performed as well. Daredevil, which Fox released in 2003, earned only $180 million at the worldwide box office. An Elektra spinoff, staring Jennifer Garner, did even worse earning just $57 million. Lionsgate's The Punisher earned $54 million at the box office and its follow-up, last year's Punisher: War Zone, didn't even come close to earning back its estimated $35 million budget. The film brought in just $10 million at theaters. In today's conference call, Disney executives played up the opportunities for Disney to exploit Marvel's characters on the company's new boy-focused cable channel, XD. The station currently airs 20 hours per week of shows based on Marvel characters. Disney is also the best company in the world at merchandising its characters using its television channels around the world to promote everyone from Wall-E to Hannah Montana and sell millions of T-shirts, lunch boxes and toys. And the one thing that gives Disney a fighting chance of turning some of those smaller heroes into big screen superstars is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar and Disney. Lasseter has shown an uncanny ability to turn out good, unconventional stories in ways that many studio suits would have rejected. His latest triumph is Up, a cartoon about a crotchety old man who loses his wife and embarks on an adventure with a pudgy boy scout. Analysts predicted the tough-sell premise would hurt at the box office, but the movie has gone on to earn $415 million so far. During today's call Iger said Lasseter had met with Marvel's creative executives and that he expects when they get together once the deal closes at the end of the year, "sparks will fly." For $4 billion, they'd better. But is that worth $4 billion? Iger isn't getting Marvel cheap. The price tag accounts for a 30% premium on Marvel's stock price. Iger only paid a 4% premium on Pixar shares when it bought the animation company in 2006 for $7.4 billion when prices were much higher than in today's depressed market. And while Iron Man was a hit, other attempts to exploit lesser-known Marvel heroes haven't performed as well. Daredevil, which Fox released in 2003, earned only $180 million at the worldwide box office. An Elektra spinoff, staring Jennifer Garner, did even worse earning just $57 million. Lionsgate's The Punisher earned $54 million at the box office and its follow-up, last year's Punisher: War Zone, didn't even come close to earning back its estimated $35 million budget. The film brought in just $10 million at theaters. In today's conference call, Disney executives played up the opportunities for Disney to exploit Marvel's characters on the company's new boy-focused cable channel, XD. The station currently airs 20 hours per week of shows based on Marvel characters. Disney is also the best company in the world at merchandising its characters using its television channels around the world to promote everyone from Wall-E to Hannah Montana and sell millions of T-shirts, lunch boxes and toys. And the one thing that gives Disney a fighting chance of turning some of those smaller heroes into big screen superstars is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at Pixar and Disney. Lasseter has shown an uncanny ability to turn out good, unconventional stories in ways that many studio suits would have rejected. His latest triumph is Up, a cartoon about a crotchety old man who loses his wife and embarks on an adventure with a pudgy boy scout. Analysts predicted the tough-sell premise would hurt at the box office, but the movie has gone on to earn $415 million so far. During today's call Iger said Lasseter had met with Marvel's creative executives and that he expects when they get together once the deal closes at the end of the year, "sparks will fly." For $4 billion, they'd better.

Justice Dept. to Recharge Enforcement of Civil Rights

WASHINGTON — Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census. As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination. To bolster a unit that has been battered by heavy turnover and a scandal over politically tinged hiring under the Bush administration, the Obama White House has also proposed a hiring spree that would swell the ranks of several hundred civil rights lawyers with more than 50 additional lawyers, a significant increase for a relatively small but powerful division of the government. The division is “getting back to doing what it has traditionally done,” Mr. Holder said in an interview. “But it’s really only a start. I think the wounds that were inflicted on this division were deep, and it will take some time for them to fully heal.” Few agencies are more engaged in the nation’s social and cultural debates than the Civil Rights Division, which was founded in 1957 to enforce anti-discrimination laws. The division has been at the center of a number of controversies over the decades, serving as a proxy for disputes between liberals and conservatives in matters like school busing and affirmative action. When the Nixon administration took office, it sought to delay school desegregation plans reached under former President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Reagan administration dropped the division’s policy of opposing tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory private schools. And former President Bill Clinton withdrew his first nominee to lead the division, Lani Guinier, after her writings about racial quotas were criticized. But such dust-ups were minor when compared with sweeping changes at the division under the Bush administration, longtime career civil rights lawyers say. Now the changes that Mr. Holder is pushing through have led some conservatives, still stinging from accusations that the Bush appointees “politicized” the unit, to start throwing the same charge back at President Obama’s team. The agency’s critics cite the downsizing of a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, an investigation into whether an Arizona sheriff’s enforcement of immigration laws has discriminated against Hispanics, and the recent blocking of a new rule requiring Georgia voters to prove their citizenship. (Under the Bush administration, the division had signed off on a similar law requiring Georgia voters to furnish photographic identification, rejecting criticism that legitimate minority voters are disproportionately more likely not to have driver’s licenses or passports.) Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of “nakedly political” maneuvers. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, rejected such criticism, saying those cases were decided “based on the facts and the law.” Under the Bush administration, the agency shifted away from its traditional core focus on accusations of racial discrimination, channeling resources into areas like religious discrimination and human trafficking. Department officials are working to avoid unleashing potential controversies as they rebuild the division’s more traditional efforts on behalf of minorities. They are not planning to dismantle the new initiatives, rather to hire enough additional lawyers to do everything. The administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes an increase of about $22 million for the division, an 18 percent increase from the 2009 budget. Other changes are already apparent. The division has filed about 10 “friend of the court” briefs in private discrimination-related lawsuits since Mr. Obama’s inauguration, a practice that had dwindled in the previous administration. In July, moreover, the division’s acting head, Loretta King, sent a memorandum to every federal agency urging more aggressive enforcement of regulations that forbid recipients of taxpayer money from policies that have a disparate impact on minorities. The division has also lifted Bush-era rules that some career staff members saw as micromanagement or impediments, like restrictions on internal communications and a ban on front-line career lawyers’ making recommendations on whether to approve proposed changes to election laws. Other changes from the Bush years may be harder to roll back. The division’s downgrading of the New Black Panther Party charges, which were filed in the final days of the Bush administration, has had rippling consequences. It apparently prompted Senate Republicans to put a hold on President Obama’s nominee to lead the division as assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez. The delay in Mr. Perez’s arrival, in turn, is stalling plans to review section managers installed by the Bush team, including several regarded with suspicion by civil rights advocacy groups. Under federal law, top-level career officials may not be transferred to other positions for the first 120 days after a new agency head is confirmed. Bush-era changes to the division’s permanent rank may also have lingering effects. From 2003 to 2007, Bush political appointees blocked liberals from career jobs and promotions, which they steered to fellow conservatives, whom one such official privately described as “real Americans,” a department inspector general report found. The practice, which no previous administration had done, violated civil service laws, it said. As morale plunged among veterans, turnover accelerated. The Obama transition team’s confidential report on the division, obtained by The New York Times, says 236 civil rights lawyers left from 2003 to 2007. (The division has about 350 lawyers.) Many of their replacements had scant civil rights experience and were graduates of lower-ranked law schools. The transition report says the era of hiring such “inexperienced or poorly qualified” lawyers — who are now themselves protected by civil service laws — has left lasting damage. “While some of the political hires have performed competently and a number of others have left, the net effect of the politicized hiring process and the brain drain is an attorney work force largely ill-equipped to handle the complex, big-impact litigation that should comprise a significant part” of the division’s docket, the transition report said. At the end of the Bush administration, the attorney general at the time, Michael B. Mukasey, began to make changes intended to reduce political influence over entry-level career lawyer hiring. The Civil Rights Division is now seeking to expand those changes. It is developing a new hiring policy under which panels of career employees — not political appointees — would decide both whom to hire and to promote for positions from interns to veteran lawyers. The policy could be completed as early as this month. “We wanted to create a very transparent policy that will stand the test of time and ensure that we hire the best and brightest,” said Mark Kappelhoff, a longtime civil rights lawyer who is the division’s acting principal deputy assistant attorney general. Some conservatives are skeptical that such a policy will keep politics out of hiring, however. Robert Driscoll, a division political appointee from 2001 to 2003, said career civil rights lawyers are “overwhelmingly left-leaning” and will favor liberals. “If you are the Obama administration and you allow the career staff to do all the hiring, you will get the same people you would probably get if you did it yourself,” he said. “In some ways, it’s a masterstroke by them.” Mr. Holder has elsewhere called for social changes with civil rights overtones, like the passage of a federal hate-crimes law, the elimination of the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and greater financing for indigent defense. By contrast, he described his Civil Rights Division efforts as more restoration than change. The recent moves, he argued, are a return to its basic approach under presidents of both parties — despite some policy shifts between Republican and Democratic administrations — before the “sea change” and “aberration” of the Bush years. “Of course there are going to be critics,” Mr. Holder said. But, he argued, “any objective observer” would see the recent approach as consistent with “the historical mission of the division, not straying into some kind of liberal orthodoxy. It really is just a function of enforcing the statutes.”

White House to shift efforts on civil rights

WASHINGTON - Seven months after taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census. As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination. To bolster a unit that has been battered by heavy turnover and a scandal over politically tinged hiring under the Bush administration, the Obama White House has also proposed a hiring spree that would swell the ranks of several hundred civil rights lawyers with more than 50 additional lawyers, a significant increase for a relatively small but powerful division of the government. The division is “getting back to doing what it has traditionally done,” Mr. Holder said in an interview. “But it’s really only a start. I think the wounds that were inflicted on this division were deep, and it will take some time for them to fully heal.” At the center of key debates Few agencies are more engaged in the nation’s social and cultural debates than the Civil Rights Division, which was founded in 1957 to enforce anti-discrimination laws. The division has been at the center of a number of controversies over the decades, serving as a proxy for disputes between liberals and conservatives in matters like school busing and affirmative action. When the Nixon administration took office, it sought to delay school desegregation plans reached under former President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Reagan administration dropped the division’s policy of opposing tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory private schools. And former President Bill Clinton withdrew his first nominee to lead the division, Lani Guinier, after her writings about racial quotas were criticized. But such dust-ups were minor when compared with sweeping changes at the division under the Bush administration, longtime career civil rights lawyers say. Now the changes that Mr. Holder is pushing through have led some conservatives, still stinging from accusations that the Bush appointees “politicized” the unit, to start throwing the same charge back at President Obama’s team. The agency’s critics cite the downsizing of a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, an investigation into whether an Arizona sheriff’s enforcement of immigration laws has discriminated against Hispanics, and the recent blocking of a new rule requiring Georgia voters to prove their citizenship. (Under the Bush administration, the division had signed off on a similar law requiring Georgia voters to furnish photographic identification, rejecting criticism that legitimate minority voters are disproportionately more likely not to have driver’s licenses or passports.) Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of “nakedly political” maneuvers. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, rejected such criticism, saying those cases were decided “based on the facts and the law.” Under the Bush administration, the agency shifted away from its traditional core focus on accusations of racial discrimination, channeling resources into areas like religious discrimination and human trafficking. Trying to avoid controversies Department officials are working to avoid unleashing potential controversies as they rebuild the division’s more traditional efforts on behalf of minorities. They are not planning to dismantle the new initiatives, rather to hire enough additional lawyers to do everything. The administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes an increase of about $22 million for the division, an 18 percent increase from the 2009 budget. Other changes are already apparent. The division has filed about 10 “friend of the court” briefs in private discrimination-related lawsuits since Mr. Obama’s inauguration, a practice that had dwindled in the previous administration. In July, moreover, the division’s acting head, Loretta King, sent a memorandum to every federal agency urging more aggressive enforcement of regulations that forbid recipients of taxpayer money from policies that have a disparate impact on minorities The division has also lifted Bush-era rules that some career staff members saw as micromanagement or impediments, like restrictions on internal communications and a ban on front-line career lawyers’ making recommendations on whether to approve proposed changes to election laws. Other changes from the Bush years may be harder to roll back. The division’s downgrading of the New Black Panther Party charges, which were filed in the final days of the Bush administration, has had rippling consequences. It apparently prompted Senate Republicans to put a hold on President Obama’s nominee to lead the division as assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez. The delay in Mr. Perez’s arrival, in turn, is stalling plans to review section managers installed by the Bush team, including several regarded with suspicion by civil rights advocacy groups. Under federal law, top-level career officials may not be transferred to other positions for the first 120 days after a new agency head is confirmed Bush-era changes to the division’s permanent rank may also have lingering effects. From 2003 to 2007, Bush political appointees blocked liberals from career jobs and promotions, which they steered to fellow conservatives, whom one such official privately described as “real Americans,” a department inspector general report found. The practice, which no previous administration had done, violated civil service laws, it said. ‘Ill-equipped’ for workload As morale plunged among veterans, turnover accelerated. The Obama transition team’s confidential report on the division, obtained by The New York Times, says 236 civil rights lawyers left from 2003 to 2007. (The division has about 350 lawyers.) Many of their replacements had scant civil rights experience and were graduates of lower-ranked law schools. The transition report says the era of hiring such “inexperienced or poorly qualified” lawyers — who are now themselves protected by civil service laws — has left lasting damage. “While some of the political hires have performed competently and a number of others have left, the net effect of the politicized hiring process and the brain drain is an attorney work force largely ill-equipped to handle the complex, big-impact litigation that should comprise a significant part” of the division’s docket, the transition report said. At the end of the Bush administration, the attorney general at the time, Michael B. Mukasey, began to make changes intended to reduce political influence over entry-level career lawyer hiring. The Civil Rights Division is now seeking to expand those changes. It is developing a new hiring policy under which panels of career employees — not political appointees — would decide both whom to hire and to promote for positions from interns to veteran lawyers. The policy could be completed as early as this month. “We wanted to create a very transparent policy that will stand the test of time and ensure that we hire the best and brightest,” said Mark Kappelhoff, a longtime civil rights lawyer who is the division’s acting principal deputy assistant attorney general. Some conservatives are skeptical that such a policy will keep politics out of hiring, however. Robert Driscoll, a division political appointee from 2001 to 2003, said career civil rights lawyers are “overwhelmingly left-leaning” and will favor liberals. “If you are the Obama administration and you allow the career staff to do all the hiring, you will get the same people you would probably get if you did it yourself,” he said. “In some ways, it’s a masterstroke by them.” ‘Enforcing the statutes’ Mr. Holder has elsewhere called for social changes with civil rights overtones, like the passage of a federal hate-crimes law, the elimination of the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and greater financing for indigent defense. By contrast, he described his Civil Rights Division efforts as more restoration than change. The recent moves, he argued, are a return to its basic approach under presidents of both parties — despite some policy shifts between Republican and Democratic administrations — before the “sea change” and “aberration” of the Bush years. “Of course there are going to be critics,” Mr. Holder said. But, he argued, “any objective observer” would see the recent approach as consistent with “the historical mission of the division, not straying into some kind of liberal orthodoxy. It really is just a function of enforcing the statutes.”

New bull, new bubble, new meltdown?

You can feel it in the air; Americans want a new bull and a new bubble to spice up the economy, and the government is cooperating. As usual, we'll pay for it later. [Related content: stocks, investments, investing strategy, economy, investments_] By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch Something's in the air. You can feel it. A new bull. Hype? Maybe, but also a roaring new bull -- and eventually another meltdown. Television is a metaphor for our cycles, so see how America's becoming a huge ratings competition: "America's Got Talent." Complete with kooky judges like "The Hoff" (ex-"Baywatch" lifeguard David Hasselhoff), Ozzy's wife, and Piers Morgan (no relation to JP). And you've got to love those wacky contestants going mano-a-mano for Nielsen ratings against those noisy "disrupters" being sent to health-care town hall meetings by the GOP crew. A sure sign America's employment picture is improving and the economy is in recovery. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Regis Philbin, the original moderator, came back for 11 fabulous nights in August. Why? A cover-up? Maybe it was tied to all the TARP money paybacks and hot earnings that let the "too-greedy-to-fail" banks make more Wall Street insiders millionaires. Wall Street loves Regis upstaging Goldman's giveaway of bonus billions from taxpayers. Cash for Clunkers. The Chicago school of behavioral purists might say this program is a perfect example of economist Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" in action. It's also great television, rivaling Nascar, Chopper Mania, Monster Trucks and the local demolition derby. Yes, folks, America loves talent, wants to be a millionaire, loves to destroy stuff, and then to rebuild. Cars, jobs, careers, retirement portfolios, the economy, the stock market. You can see this metaphor in other great television programs: "Big Brother," "Hell's Kitchen," "Lie to Me," "Criminal Minds," "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?" The point is, TV's a great barometer for the American soul, and it's screaming "bull!" Tempers are flaring over how best to reform U.S. health care. But a deeper conflict over the role of government in American society is what is really fueling this debate, says Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal. You can feel it in the air; Americans want a new bull and a new bubble to spice up the economy, and the government is cooperating. As usual, we'll pay for it later. [Related content: stocks, investments, investing strategy, economy, investments_] By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch Something's in the air. You can feel it. A new bull. Hype? Maybe, but also a roaring new bull -- and eventually another meltdown. Television is a metaphor for our cycles, so see how America's becoming a huge ratings competition: "America's Got Talent." Complete with kooky judges like "The Hoff" (ex-"Baywatch" lifeguard David Hasselhoff), Ozzy's wife, and Piers Morgan (no relation to JP). And you've got to love those wacky contestants going mano-a-mano for Nielsen ratings against those noisy "disrupters" being sent to health-care town hall meetings by the GOP crew. A sure sign America's employment picture is improving and the economy is in recovery. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Regis Philbin, the original moderator, came back for 11 fabulous nights in August. Why? A cover-up? Maybe it was tied to all the TARP money paybacks and hot earnings that let the "too-greedy-to-fail" banks make more Wall Street insiders millionaires. Wall Street loves Regis upstaging Goldman's giveaway of bonus billions from taxpayers. Cash for Clunkers. The Chicago school of behavioral purists might say this program is a perfect example of economist Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" in action. It's also great television, rivaling Nascar, Chopper Mania, Monster Trucks and the local demolition derby. Yes, folks, America loves talent, wants to be a millionaire, loves to destroy stuff, and then to rebuild. Cars, jobs, careers, retirement portfolios, the economy, the stock market. You can see this metaphor in other great television programs: "Big Brother," "Hell's Kitchen," "Lie to Me," "Criminal Minds," "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?" The point is, TV's a great barometer for the American soul, and it's screaming "bull!" Tempers are flaring over how best to reform U.S. health care. But a deeper conflict over the role of government in American society is what is really fueling this debate, says Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal. You can feel it in the air; Americans want a new bull and a new bubble to spice up the economy, and the government is cooperating. As usual, we'll pay for it later. [Related content: stocks, investments, investing strategy, economy, investments_] By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch Something's in the air. You can feel it. A new bull. Hype? Maybe, but also a roaring new bull -- and eventually another meltdown. Television is a metaphor for our cycles, so see how America's becoming a huge ratings competition: "America's Got Talent." Complete with kooky judges like "The Hoff" (ex-"Baywatch" lifeguard David Hasselhoff), Ozzy's wife, and Piers Morgan (no relation to JP). And you've got to love those wacky contestants going mano-a-mano for Nielsen ratings against those noisy "disrupters" being sent to health-care town hall meetings by the GOP crew. A sure sign America's employment picture is improving and the economy is in recovery. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Regis Philbin, the original moderator, came back for 11 fabulous nights in August. Why? A cover-up? Maybe it was tied to all the TARP money paybacks and hot earnings that let the "too-greedy-to-fail" banks make more Wall Street insiders millionaires. Wall Street loves Regis upstaging Goldman's giveaway of bonus billions from taxpayers. Cash for Clunkers. The Chicago school of behavioral purists might say this program is a perfect example of economist Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" in action. It's also great television, rivaling Nascar, Chopper Mania, Monster Trucks and the local demolition derby. Yes, folks, America loves talent, wants to be a millionaire, loves to destroy stuff, and then to rebuild. Cars, jobs, careers, retirement portfolios, the economy, the stock market. You can see this metaphor in other great television programs: "Big Brother," "Hell's Kitchen," "Lie to Me," "Criminal Minds," "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?" The point is, TV's a great barometer for the American soul, and it's screaming "bull!" Tempers are flaring over how best to reform U.S. health care. But a deeper conflict over the role of government in American society is what is really fueling this debate, says Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal. You can feel it in the air; Americans want a new bull and a new bubble to spice up the economy, and the government is cooperating. As usual, we'll pay for it later. [Related content: stocks, investments, investing strategy, economy, investments_] By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch Something's in the air. You can feel it. A new bull. Hype? Maybe, but also a roaring new bull -- and eventually another meltdown. Television is a metaphor for our cycles, so see how America's becoming a huge ratings competition: "America's Got Talent." Complete with kooky judges like "The Hoff" (ex-"Baywatch" lifeguard David Hasselhoff), Ozzy's wife, and Piers Morgan (no relation to JP). And you've got to love those wacky contestants going mano-a-mano for Nielsen ratings against those noisy "disrupters" being sent to health-care town hall meetings by the GOP crew. A sure sign America's employment picture is improving and the economy is in recovery. "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Regis Philbin, the original moderator, came back for 11 fabulous nights in August. Why? A cover-up? Maybe it was tied to all the TARP money paybacks and hot earnings that let the "too-greedy-to-fail" banks make more Wall Street insiders millionaires. Wall Street loves Regis upstaging Goldman's giveaway of bonus billions from taxpayers. Cash for Clunkers. The Chicago school of behavioral purists might say this program is a perfect example of economist Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" in action. It's also great television, rivaling Nascar, Chopper Mania, Monster Trucks and the local demolition derby. Yes, folks, America loves talent, wants to be a millionaire, loves to destroy stuff, and then to rebuild. Cars, jobs, careers, retirement portfolios, the economy, the stock market. You can see this metaphor in other great television programs: "Big Brother," "Hell's Kitchen," "Lie to Me," "Criminal Minds," "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?" The point is, TV's a great barometer for the American soul, and it's screaming "bull!" Tempers are flaring over how best to reform U.S. health care. But a deeper conflict over the role of government in American society is what is really fueling this debate, says Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal. Yes, Americans want another bull, another bubble, even another meltdown. Guess what? It's already here, folks. The next big market-economic-business cycle has arrived ahead of schedule. This is what makes us America. We love challenges, risk-takers and winners. The nobody who suddenly becomes a big somebody is the biggest of all TV metaphors for who we are. America's got talent. Where else can you see The Hoff screaming "You got talent!" to Grandma Lee, a craggy 75-year old comedian? Or Piers rooting for a bunch of half-time acrobats back-flipping off trampolines? Or Sharon Osbourne cheering for Kevin Skinner, an unemployed chicken catcher who looked like a hobo but wowed us with a voice like Randy Travis. New, bigger bubble -- and a meltdown ahead Yes, folks, a new bubble cycle is already in motion. You can feel the energy building, the kind that fueled the meltdowns of 1998, 2000 and 2007. We never resolved the problems fueling the dot-com insanity. We made matters worse feeding the subprime credit-derivatives disaster with cheap money, Reaganomics ideology and two costly wars. Lessons were never learned, and nothing was resolved. Today matters continue deteriorating. Behind the hoopla, the Wall Street conspiracy has dumped $23.7 trillion in new bailout debt on taxpayers. The bill will come due. But for now, we're getting their wish: A new bubble is accelerating, thanks to America's "too-greedy-to-fail" Wall Street banks. Folks, you can bet on it, sure as Regis is hosting "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" The bull, a bubble and another meltdown are virtually certain and accelerating faster than earlier cycles, coming by 2012. How to profit? Ride it up for a couple years, then pray you'll have enough brain left to bail out in time before the crash (most don't) because at that point the euphoria is blinding, like a cocaine addiction. Want more proof of inevitability? Here are some visionaries who aren't working for Wall Street's hype machine: Michael Lewis, a former Wall Street trader and the author of "Panic: The Story of Modern Financial Insanity," recently told Newsweek: "There's a false sense that it's over, that the crisis is passed." The bailouts have merely postponed the inevitable. "We are in for another day of reckoning down the road." The next one will be bigger, "badder," a real demolition derby. Several months ago, in a Vanity Fair article, "Wall Street Lays Another Egg," Harvard financial historian Niall Ferguson sounded more like a shrink: "Markets are mirrors of the human psyche." Like individuals "they can become depressed . . . even suffer complete breakdowns." The five stages of a bubble popping In the 400-year history of stock markets "there has been a long succession of financial bubbles," Ferguson says. "Time and again, asset prices have soared to unsustainable heights only to crash downward again." It's an all-too-familiar cycle, in fact, so familiar is this pattern -- as described by the economic historian Charles Kindleberger -- that it is possible to distill it into five stages: Displacement: "Some change in economic circumstances creates new and profitable opportunities." Last year's historic bailout, election, new ideology. Euphoria or overtrading: "A feedback process sets in whereby expectation of rising profits leads to rapid growth in asset prices." Goldman is proof. Mania and bubble: Prospects of "easy capital gains attract first-time investors and swindlers eager to mulct them of their money." More bubbles: 2010-2011. Distress: "Insiders discern that profits cannot possibly justify the now exorbitant price of the assets and begin to take profits." Wall Street replays 2007-2008. Revulsion or discredit: "Asset prices fall, the outsiders stampede for the exits, causing the bubble to burst." Yes, 2008's brutal meltdown repeats in 2012. The culprit? The Fed, Ferguson says: "Without easy credit creation a true bubble cannot occur. That is why so many bubbles have their origins in the sins of omission and commission of central banks." So the next bubble (and meltdown) is virtually certain, thanks to Washington's $23.7 trillion explosion in debt. Revolution coming with next meltdown Americans are not going to put up with the "Wall Street Conspiracy" ripping off investors and taxpayers much longer. Wall Street got rich sticking us with mountains of debt for generations to come. Expect a major house-cleaning, a second American Revolution. We predicted the "Great Depression 2" around 2012. (Read "6 keys to investing for doomsday.")Well, we doubt taxpayers will passively sit one more time, like in the 1930s, in 2000, and the past few years. Next time voters will take a page from the history books about past revolutions in the American Colonies, France and Russia. A perfect storm will erupt in a massive global credit meltdown, bringing down Wall Street and the clandestine $670 trillion shadow central banking system. And the collateral damage will be massive and widespread, in areas such as these: Lobbyists' power becomes lethal to our values. Special interests running and destroying American democracy will self-destruct. Derivatives: Cap 'n trade will crash worse than subprime. The "Goldman Conspiracy" is spending millions lobbying for trillion-dollar derivatives. "Too-greedy-to-fail" big banks will trigger harsh backlash. Banks pay huge bonuses yet modify only 9% of 4 million stressed home loans. America's wealth gap will trigger grass-roots rebellion. Wall Street's greed is so pervasive, gluttonous and obvious, the rest will rebel. The Goldman Conspiracy will be a target for retribution. Goldman's hubris is most egregious and flagrant. Its arrogance will backfire. A wave of creative destruction will revive commercial banking. Investment bankers will kill commercial banking, and Glass-Steagall will return. Secrecy protecting Wall Street's unethical behavior will end. Wall Street's control over Washington's lawmaking will come to an end. The Fed's shadow banking will collapse under excess debt. Central bank balance sheets will be overdrawn, feeding the new bubble with cheap money. A "Black Swan" of huge unintended consequences. The next bubble will be highly unpredictable, with huge collateral damage on Wall Street. Make the most of this new bull. Then get out -- before you're the collateral damage.

Disabled sailor sets yacht record

A disabled yachtswoman has been hailed as "truly inspirational" as she became the first female quadriplegic to sail solo around Britain. Skip related content As the sun set, Hilary Lister, 37, sailed into Dover harbour, Kent, and into the record books to cheers from waiting crowds. Her 15-mile, five hour sail from Ramsgate marked the final leg of a marathon journey for the Oxford-educated former scientist. Her sail was brought forward one day at the 11th hour after weather reports predicted adverse conditions for the scheduled voyage on Tuesday morning. Speaking in her boat at the quayside, Mrs Lister said: "I'm hugely proud of the team, the whole team, who worked so hard for four months without a day off. It's a privilege to be back in Dover. The killer was when the wind died just east of the entrance to the harbour but unbelievably it picked up just as I sailed in." She added: "We're going to have a meal for the whole crew tonight but we've got an early start in the morning." Mrs Lister described the highlight of her challenge as being able to see the marine wildlife at close quarters sailing alongside her. She said: "Just seeing whales 35ft long fully breached out of the water was incredible. Two of them jumped like dolphins, it was amazing." One of the low points, she added, was having to spend £9,000 to buy a reconditioned engine for her ridged inflatable safety boat. She also praised members of the Lions clubs around Britain who had supported her throughout her challenge. Just before a celebratory bottle of Champagne was opened to cheers and applause, she said: "I'm so relieved to be home but looking forward to the next challenge. One thing I've learnt is that you can't predict the future, we couldn't even predict tomorrow's weather so I'm not ruling anything out or anything in." Her spokesman, Paul Taroni, praised her determination and courage. He said: "This is an amazing triumph over adversity. Everything that went against her and all the things that went wrong, Hilary overcame to do something truly inspirational. We are all so proud of her."

Macaulay Culkin is the father of Michael Jackson's youngest son

(THIS IS FROM YAHOO NEWS)-- The 'Home Alone' star - who became friends with Michael in 1990, when he was just 10 years old - reportedly donated sperm to create Prince Michael II, known as Blanket. The sperm was then inserted into an unknown surrogate mother, and Blanket was born in 2002, when Macaulay was 22 years old. An insider told Britain's Sun newspaper: "It is well known Jackson and Macaulay shared a unique bond. "Now rumours are spreading like wildfire that Macaulay, who Jackson nicknamed Mack, is actually Blanket's biological dad." Michael and Macaulay were close friends for years. The child star frequently visited the singer's Neverland ranch - where he raised eyebrows by sleeping in Michael's bed - and took the witness stand to defend him during his 2005 trial for child molestation. Michael is said to have idolised Macaulay, and thought using his sperm to create a child would be the "next best thing" to being Macaulay's father. The source added: "This isn't just chitter-chatter, even Culkin suspects he's Blanket's father. So many names have been mentioned as prospective dads, and this is probably the wackiest yet. "But Jackson and Culkin were best friends. He was one of the few people Jackson really trusted and Mack never let him down. Really, Jackson idolised him - that's why he asked Mack to donate sperm. "Deep down, I think he always wished Mack was his son. Creating Blanket was the next best thing." Friends claim Michael - who died in June - was not the biological father of his other children Prince Michael I, 12, and Paris, 11. 'Oliver' star Mark Lester and Dr Arnold Klein have both claimed they are the father of the children after donating sperm to Michael in the 1990s. Macaulay has not commented on the paternity rumours