Penelope
Golden Globes
In this film publicity image released by Sony Pictures Classics, Penelope Cruz is shown in a scene from, “Broken Embraces.” The film was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for best foreign language film, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009. The Golden Globe awards will be held Jan. 17 in Beverly Hills, Calif. (AP Photo/Sony Pictures Classics, file)
MEXICO CITY — One of the most wanted figures in the drug war was killed in a shootout with the Mexican navy Wednesday, an official said.
Arturo Beltran Leyva and three members of his drug cartel died in the gun battle in a gated, upscale apartment complex in Cuernavaca, just south of Mexico City. A fifth suspect committed suicide during the shootout, said the official, who under navy rules could not give his name.
One sailor was injured, he said.
Beltran Levya, known as the “boss of bosses,” was one of four brothers who split from the Sinaloa cartel several years ago and aligned themselves with Los Zetas, a group of former soldiers hired by the Gulf Cartel as hit men.
That split is believed to have fueled much of the bloodshed across Mexico, where more than 14,000 people have been killed in the past three years.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says the Beltran Leyva cartel is a key organization in importing and distributing tons of cocaine in the United States, as well as large quantities of heroin.
The Mexican government lists Arturo Beltran Leyva as one its 24 most-wanted drug lords and had offered a $2.1 million reward for his capture.
The navy official said more than 200 sailors raided the apartment complex as part of a crackdown on the Beltran Leyva cartel in central Mexico. The raid sparked a gunbattle that lasted nearly two hours.
The raid followed another on a party Friday in the nearby town of Tepoztlan, in which sailors detained Ramon Ayala, a Texas-based norteno singer, and 11 alleged Beltran Leyva members.\
‘boss of bosses”
Sunday,Dec. 6
determined…
ALI AKBAR DAREINI | 11/29/09 12:34 PM | 
TEHRAN, Iran — The Iranian government approved a plan Sunday to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion in defiance of U.N. demands it halt the program.
The decision comes only two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran, demanding it immediately stop building a newly revealed enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom and freeze all uranium enrichment activities. The rebuke angered Iran, raising demands from lawmakers Sunday to cut back cooperation with the U.N.
The enrichment announcement is likely to stoke already high tensions between Iran and the West over its controversial nuclear activities. The U.S. and its allies have hinted of new U.N. sanctions if Tehran remains defiant.
A Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months, the state news agency IRNA reported.
The Cabinet ordered the new sites to be on the same scale as Iran’s only other industrial-scale enrichment plant currently in operation, near the town of Natanz in central Iran.
About 8,600 centrifuges have been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 are actively enriching uranium, according to the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges.
In Washington, a senior U.S. officials said that, “if carried out, this would constitute yet another violation of Iran’s continuing obligation of suspension of all enrichment-related activities, including construction of new plants.”
“There remains a fleeting opportunity for Iran to engage with the international community, if only it would make that choice,” said the official official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the Obama administration had not yet released a formal response.
In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment on Tehran’s announcement.
The newly revealed enrichment site, known as Fordo, is a smaller scale site that will house nearly 3,000 centrifuges. Its discovery earlier this year brought accusations that Iran was developing the site secretly, a claim Tehran denies.
In the enrichment process, uranium gas is spun in centrifuges to purify it. Enriched to a low degree, the result is fuel for a nuclear reactor – but highly enriched uranium can be used to build a warhead. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of secretly seeking to develop a bomb, a claim denied by Iran, which says it seeks only to generate electricity.
Iran aims to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. IRNA said the new plants are needed to produce enough fuel for its future reactors.
Ahmadinejad told the Cabinet that Iran will need to install 500,000 centrifuges throughout the planned enrichment facilities to produce between 250 to 300 tons of fuel annually, IRNA reported.
The IAEA censure against Iran on Friday was seen as a show of international unity in pressuring Tehran over its nuclear program – though there does not yet appear to be consensus on imposing sanctions.
The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for defying a U.N. Security Council demand for a suspension of enrichment and for secretly building the Fordo site. It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran’s nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed “serious concern” that Iran’s stonewalling of an IAEA probe means “the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program” cannot be excluded.
The rebuke infuriated Iran. On Saturday, one hard-line lawmaker warned that parliament might withdraw the country from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stop all U.N. inspections – a move that would sharply escalate the standoff with the West and cut off the U.N.’s only eyes on Iran’s nuclear program.
But parliament took a lesser step on Sunday: 226 of the 290 lawmakers signed a letter urging the government to prepare a plan to reduce Tehran’s cooperation with the IAEA in response to its resolution.
The U.S. and its allies demand Iran accept a U.N.-brokered offer that would delay its ability to make a nuclear weapon as well as engage in broader talks with the ultimate goal of persuading it to mothball its enrichment program.
Iran has amassed about 1,500 kilograms (3,300 pounds) of low-enriched uranium at Natanz. The U.N. offer aims to convince Iran to hand over more than 1,200 kilograms (2,600 pounds), more than the commonly accepted amount needed to produce weapons-grade material. But Iran has balked at the U.N. terms for the plan.
No winner here.
OSLO — Iranian authorities have confiscated Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi’s medal, the Norwegian government said Thursday, accusing Iran of a shocking first in the history of the prize.
Norwegian authorities were told that Ebadi’s medal was seized “within the last week or so” from a safe-deposit box in Iran along with personal effects including the diploma awarded with the medal, the Foreign Ministry said. Spokeswoman Ragnhild Imerslund said Norwegian authorities have been “in touch” with Ebadi since the incident.
Ebadi, a human rights lawyer, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her efforts in promoting democracy. She has long faced harassment from Iranian authorities for her activities – including a raid on her office last year in which files were confiscated.
The seizure of the medal is an expression of the Iranian government’s increasingly harsh approach to anyone it considers an opponent – particularly since massive street protests that erupted following the disputed June 12 presidential election and shook the government’s legitimacy.
Ebadi was out of the country at the time of the vote and has not returned since, saying she is “in an effective state of exile.”
The opposition claims that hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election was fraudulent. Ebadi urged the international community to reject the outcome and called for a new vote monitored by the United Nations. She has strongly criticized the clerical leadership’s postelection crackdown on dissent. During the past months, hundreds of pro-reform activists have been arrested, and a mass trial has sentenced dozens to prison terms.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere called the move “shocking” and said it was “the first time a Nobel Peace Prize has been confiscated by national authorities.”
The Foreign Ministry summoned Iran’s charge d’affaires in Norway Wednesday to protest the confiscation, Imerslund said.
he Foreign Ministry also “expressed grave concern” about Ebadi’s husband, who it said was arrested in Tehran and “severely beaten” earlier this fall, after which his pension and bank account were frozen.
The lawyer has represented opponents of Iran’s regime before but not in the mass trial that started in August of more than 100 prominent pro-reform figures and activists. They are accused of plotting to overthrow the cleric-led regime during the postelection turmoil.
The Iranian Embassy in Norway refrained from giving a comment.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s permanent secretary Geir Lundestad said the move was “unheard of” and “unacceptable.” He told The Associated Press that the committee was planning to send a letter of protest to Iranian authorities before the end of the week.
Ebadi could not be reached on Thursday for comment.
Ebadi said in an interview published Nov. 17 in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that her apartment, pension and her bank account and those of her relatives had been seized, along with her Nobel and Legion of Honor.
“I live in an effective state of exile,” she was quoted as saying from a hotel in New York, where she had been attending U.N. meetings. “They say I owe them $410,000 in back taxes because of the Nobel; it’s a complete lie, given that the Iranian fiscal law says that prizes are excluded.”
She nevertheless said she plans to return to Iran when she can be more useful in the country than outside it.
“Nothing frightens me any more, even if they threaten to arrest me for fiscal evasion upon my return,” she said.
Didn’t you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?
Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq’s reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.
Likewise, didn’t you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn’t have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against “Republicans”, I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it’s safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.
The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don’t want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn’t the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up…? Well, you get it.
The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don’t need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I’ll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time). Republicans never flinch. Spending on the military, and subsequent sales of those weapons systems around the world, help the U.S. economy, in their mind. Those companies, in turn, contribute to the campaigns of men like George W. Bush. This is especially so now that the Pentagon, in the ultimate sign of their stupidity, abdication of their responsibilities and tacit compliance with GOP fundraising goals, have privatized the U.S. military to the tune of one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.
Think about that. Recruitment is down. This Pentagon has a shortage of willing and competent soldiers who can run our military machinery. So what do they do? Do they improve recruitment, training and pay for soldiers? No. They privatize as much of these duties as they can (with no bid contracts for staggering sums of money) and create new businesses that, in turn, will contribute to those that helped them
The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care. Keep everything the way it is, out of fear. Fear that it could get worse. That’s the Republican way. These guys have this country coming and going.
Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.
–Alec Baldwin
ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
As desperate Democratic lawmakers cast about for ways to create jobs from Capitol Hill, a 1970s-era jobs program is getting a fresh look.
Known as CETA — the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act — the program provided direct government funding to hire temporary workers. At its peak in 1978, it had created 725,000 public service jobs and shaved roughly one point off the unemployment figure.
A one-point drop in the unemployment rate — not to mention the ancillary benefit of hundreds of thousands of people having money to spend on other goods and services — would give politicians something concrete to point to before the mid-term elections.
“That’s certainly one of the options being discussed, the CETA program back in the 70s,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told HuffPost in a recent interview, when asked if leadership was considering direct government hiring as a partial answer to the deepening unemployment.
But skepticism abounds, both among Democrats and economists. There are much more efficient ways to create jobs — or prevent them from being lost — such as direct aid to states that would otherwise layoff teachers, cops, firefighters and bureaucrats. That doesn’t require creating a new bureaucracy, it’s just a matter of cutting the check.
“Most economists are not sure that [CETA] works as well as some other things that they think would be better, like infrastructure investment and assistance to the states, which helps them retain jobs,” said Hoyer. “In other words, if you’re creating jobs while the states are jettisoning jobs because they are under such financial stress, obviously you have a net zero [effect]. So you want to keep the state jobs and invest in creating jobs in the private sector.”
Aid to strapped states is one of the top priorities for Democrats, but conservative members of the party, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, as well as potentially allied Republicans such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, have fought to limit such assistance. Roughly $40 billion in aid to states was cut from the first stimulus package in response to conservative concerns about overspending. As a result, thousands of teachers and cops have lost their jobs.
With deficit hawks standing in the way of fully assisting distressed states, the CETA program becomes more politically attractive to Democrats. It carries with it the hope of bipartisan support, since there’s something in it for the business community.
The version of CETA being discussed by Democrats would be some type of public-private partnership through which the government would pay part of an employee’s salary, while he or she would train under and work for a private firm. The hope would be that the firm ends up hiring the employee with its own money when the government subsidy dries up, but in either case, the worker gets training that assists in the job hunt.
Business groups might have to lobby the GOP to get them to yes, however.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave CETA the instant thumbs down. “American families are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ but out-of-touch Washington Democrats are more intent on growing government,” Steel wrote in an e-mail. “After squandering one trillion dollars on a ’stimulus’ that just isn’t working, they want to double-down: Borrowing more money from China and the Middle East to spend pleasing their special interest allies, and passing the tab to our kids and grandkids. Enough is enough.”
Nonprofit organizations with liberal ambitions could also benefit from the subsidized labor, and more government workers would be needed to prevent waste and fraud.
Indeed, abuse of the program would likely be one of the biggest problems it would face.
“The more money you put on the table, the more incentive you’re giving people to defraud it,” said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy and Research. Baker favors subsidizing businesses that cut down on worker hours. Such an innovative proposal would free up demand for more labor while mitigating the pain of a full layoff.
CETA, said Baker, would be better than nothing. “It’s certainly better than having people be unemployed,” he said. But he added that it could come at a big political price when reporters inevitably find some chump claiming to be employing his brother while splitting the government paycheck.
Requiring businesses to pick up a portion of the tab would cut down on fraud, Baker suggested.
A bigger problem comes in when you consider that employers, even in a down economy, are hiring some four million new workers every month due to turnover and attrition. It would be difficult for the law to prevent companies from taking a subsidy for hiring they had planned to do anyway.
“You’re going to hire someone anyhow,” said Baker, “so why not have the government pick up the tab?”
One benefit of the program is that the costs are predictable. Even if some of the money is ripped off, the government can limit its spending by subsidizing only a certain number of jobs. A million full-time salaries at $10 an hour, for instance, would cost $20 billion per year, plus supervisory costs. And even the money that’s obtained fraudulently is entering the economy. Unemployment benefits, after all, go to people who aren’t working (by definition) and have a stimulative economic effect regardless.
Walter Shapiro, who worked in the Jimmy Carter administration — the last to push such a public-works program — said that the earlier iteration of the program underperformed because it wasn’t bold enough.
“[T]he problem with CETA was not that it embodied Big Government, but that it was not big enough. CETA left behind no lasting monuments like LaGuardia Airport and the Hoover Dam, no evocative art like the WPA murals in post offices and libraries. The administration of CETA was lax, but almost all of its scandals were small-bore local corruption,” he writes for Politics Daily.
“Today, even more than in the 1970s, there is a moral argument for public service employment. While Barack Obama’s stimulus package was advertised as shovel-ready, a public jobs program would be people-ready. The societal waste and the wrecked lives from double-digit unemployment will leave scars that may take decades to heal. But what liberals should have learned long ago from CETA is that effective management matters — and that an ill-designed program can turn a laudable idea into a laughing stock.”
The moral argument for some sort of relief is being made with increasing fervor by progressive organizations. Last week, major liberal groups put out an “urgent call to action to stem the U.S. job crisis.”
The statement was signed by the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and the National Council of La Raza, among other groups.
Meanwhile, Republicans have put forth few ideas to create jobs beyond cutting taxes, so joining Democrats in backing CETA would at least give them something to tout.
article from Huffington Post
SAN FRANCISCO — While U.S. newspapers are losing subscribers at a staggering rate, a few dailies stand out because their circulation is rising. But they aren’t necessarily selling more copies.
Here’s why: Since April 1, new auditing rules have made it easier for newspapers to count a reader as a paying customer.
These looser standards are especially helpful to a newspaper if it sells an “electronic edition.” That can include a subscriber-only Web site, such as what The Wall Street Journal has, or it can be a digital replica of a newspaper’s printed product. Several dozen publications, including USA Today, sell access to these daily “e-editions” that show how the news was laid out in print.
Under the new auditing standards, if a newspaper sells a “bundled” subscription to both the print and electronic editions, the publication is often allowed to count that subscriber twice.
If not for these rules, the industry’s numbers would look even worse. Average weekday circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers fell 10.6 percent during the six months ending in September. That was the steepest decline ever recorded by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the organization that verifies how many people are paying to read publications.
It’s not clear what the numbers would have been under the old auditing standards. But the effects of the new rules were widespread. There were 59 newspapers that listed at least 5,000 electronic editions in their weekday circulations, according to an Associated Press review of the figures filed with the ABC for the April-September period. In all but a few instances, the number of electronic subscribers was substantially higher than a year ago.
The decline in newspaper circulation has several causes. Many publications have intentionally reduced the range of their deliveries, cutting out exurbs or distant parts of their states where they sold relatively few copies. Higher prices for home delivery and newsstand copies also have driven some readers away. Publishers are betting they can keep their most loyal readers and are charging them more to help offset their crumbling ad sales – the main source of newspaper revenue.
Nevertheless, many newspapers are still offering discounts to bolster their circulation so they don’t risk losing even more advertising revenue. The size of the audience is one factor marketers consider when they buy ads.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal was among the newspapers whose weekday circulation rose from the same time last year. Nevada’s largest newspaper saw its average weekday circulation rise 6.6 percent, or nearly 11,000 subscribers, to 175,841. It was a remarkable improvement, given that weekday sales of its print edition fell by 12,000 copies and Las Vegas ranks among the cities hardest hit by the Great Recession.
How did it happen? The Review-Journal’s circulation this year included 23,132 electronic editions compared with just 511 at the same time last year.
The big difference didn’t occur because that many more people suddenly decided to buy the Review-Journal’s digital replica of its print edition.
The change happened because the price the newspaper was charging for the online replica – it costs print customers an extra 50 cents per week – hadn’t been high enough to qualify as paid circulation until the ABC’s April change. That let newspapers define their paying readers as anyone who spends at least a penny for a copy. Previously, a newspaper copy had to sell for at least 25 percent of the basic price to qualify as paid circulation.
The ABC said it changed the rules to reduce its auditing costs and “provide greater pricing and marketing flexibility” for publishers.
Steve Coffeen, the Review-Journal’s circulation director, said it makes sense to count the bundled subscriptions twice, as well as other people buying the electronic edition at a sharp discount, because it provides a complete picture of the newspaper’s paying audience. Advertisers generally prize readers who pay for a publication, reasoning they are more likely to peruse it.
“It’s important to show advertisers we are fighting the good fight and using other platforms to reach readers,” Coffeen said.
That rationale makes sense to Randy Novak, director of newspaper strategy for NSA Media, one of the nation’s largest buyers of newspaper ads. He doesn’t see much difference between readers who are getting the newspaper at a deep discount or the standard price. He wants to reach people who care enough about the newspaper to be willing to pay for it at all.
However, another big buyer of newspaper ads says the new ABC rules made the reported circulation numbers less credible.
“You really have to do your homework now and ask newspapers about how much double counting is going on,” said Allison Howald, U.S. director of print investment at PHD Media.
A surge in digital sales propelled the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania to a 16.5 percent increase in weekday circulation – the highest among dailies selling at least 50,000 copies. The Daily Record listed 10,073 electronic editions in its latest circulation of 55,370. At the same time last year it counted just 42 electronic editions in its circulation of 47,549.
In most cases, the electronic edition is a replica of the printed product, right down to the ads. The technology even makes it possible to simulate the act of turning the pages of a paper edition. Most electronic editions are sold at a small fraction of the price for the printed edition, partly because publishers don’t have to pay for newsprint or fuel to deliver the copy.
Web subscriptions were pivotal in The Wall Street Journal’s growth over the past decade. The digital sales are the main reason that the Journal surpassed USA Today as the top-selling U.S. newspaper in the April-September period. USA Today, owned by Gannett Co., still holds the edge in print circulation.
The Journal charges its print subscribers an additional 40 cents per week for unrestricted access to its Web site. Journal spokesman Robert Christie wouldn’t comment on whether the new rules for counting subscribers contributed to a 14 percent increase in the newspaper’s 407,002 digital subscribers. Including the print side, the Journal’s total circulation edged up by just 0.6 percent to 2.02 million.
“We followed the ABC’s rules and methodology,” Christie said.
Some newspapers that posted circulation gains say they are picking up readers who feel abandoned by bigger publications. Cutbacks at newspapers in Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Nashville, Tenn., contributed to most of the 2 percent increase at the 70,000-circulation Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee, said Publisher Tom Griscom. “We are keeping an eye on print and not letting it drift away,” Griscom said.
A reduced emphasis on print at The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, which now deliver to homes only three days a week, also helped Michigan’s Oakland Press increase its weekday circulation 7 percent to 68,067. But electronic sales were the main factor. The newspaper listed 6,500 more electronic editions in its latest circulation numbers than it did a year ago, offsetting a slight decline in print.
(not me)
Nothing like a good stroke to keep a blogger down & out… But, I’ll be back soon. Meanwhile, craziness ensues.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/is-this-as-good-as-it-get_b_343144.html
My comment: Pres. O has faced more problems & criticism than expected. Now will be his time to overcome and show the critics to be wrong and foolish. That’s my view; just you wait.
I had a stroke, blood clot on 9/26; …getting better all the time. Now back home! Will blog again soon; read the old stuff! Love ya, readers!
Every day is better. Amazing what attitude can do!
What are you doing? Not so much. Just getting a new hundred mil.
Breaking News: Twitter to Raise $100 Million From Insight, T. Rowe Price, Other Investors
By Deal Journal
The WSJ’s Michael Corkery and Jessica E. Vascellaro report:
Twitter, the messaging web site that has become an Internet sensation, is nearing a deal to close as much as $100 million of new funding from as many as seven investors, according to people familiar with the deal.
The investor group includes mutual fund giant T. Rowe Price and private-equity firm Insight Venture Partners, which are new investors to Twitter. The $100 million investment is about twice as much as Twitter was reportedly expected to haul in this latest round of fund-raising.
Other investors in this round include venture-capital firms Spark Capital and Institutional Venture Partners, which have previously invested in Twitter.
The investors are valuing Twitter, which has yet to generate revenue or finalize its plans for making money, at about $1 billion. A person familiar with the deal said investors are applying a similar value to Twitter as that applied to Facebook, which at one point was valued at $15 Billion. By some estimates, Twitter is expected to have 25 million users by the end of 2009. Facebook has 300 million users.
Twitter could not immediately be reached for comment.
The Twitter valuation is quite a lift from the company’s last round of investing earlier this year, in which investors valued the company at around $255 million, according to people familiar with the matter.
The company still isn’t generating any real revenue, though executives say they are discussing various options, including advertising and premium services targeted at businesses.
The deal is expected to close today. It is Twitter’s third and largest round of fund-raising.
Selected comments from WSJ readers: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/09/24/breaking-news-twitter-to-raise-100-million-from-insight-t-rowe-price-other-investors/tab/comments/
Leaves me wondering two things: what’s the use of proceeds for $100M and what’s the exit strategy for these investors.
In terms of dollar value per tweet, how much is it?
here we go pop ups on twitter
100 million for a company that has no significant revenue or a proposed revenue model. It reminds me of 1999 where an idea that involved the internet could result in funding. In addition, what will the funds be used for?
Twitter is big and has gained a lot of mind share but it could evaporate just as quickly. The service is easily replicated (low barriers to entry and exit) and has little or no switching cost. There will be competitors in the future and then the typical consolidation. Not worth my 100mil.
Makes you wonder if the latest round of investors can see this company justifying such a valuation on cash flow fundamentals and the potential to generate oodles of free cash in the future, or whether they’re just investing in the Greater Fool theory and hoping they’ll exit to someone who’ll come up with an even more stupid valuation.
Don’t forget that that buyers of Web 2.0 companies have tended to write off much of what they paid only a couple of years later, which isn’t a problem because they are rarely if ever held accountable for destroying shareholder value on acquisitions that – to any sane outsider – are obviously and massively overpriced.
The real point is this…inflated valuations mean founders get rich, VCs get rich, advisers get rich and lots of other companies go up in value, meaning their founders, VCs and adviers will also get rich. The value that gets destroyed belongs to some nebulous “shareholders”, ie fund managers investing someone else’s money (and probably with little or no accountability). So while the initial wealth creation is very direct and tangible for those concerned, the subsequent wealth destruction is much more distributed and less tangible.
Really….this is the emperor’s new clothes…what’s so great about Twitter? I’m not a fan of myspace or facebook…but I can do everything there I can do on Twitter and a lot more. Good luck making your money back folks.
T Rowe Price again…? Must be buying in w/ their huge exit from Slide, that other breakout SF startup which they valued 550M at one time. Good job fellas… keep the money trucks heading west.
25 million users are worth 1bn?!? what a joke!
With some of the additions to video capable phones and add on services like Vidly.com, the ability to get a clip to followers is impressively quick. It continues to expand the “citizen journalism” trend. Not everyone has the time to post to a blog or manage a complex myspace or facebook page, but sending 140 or less plus photos or video to Twitter takes less than a minute and can be done on the run from the a cellphone.
Vidly example: http://is.gd/3Dx44As for marketing … I’ve venture to guess that commercial users will see their cost rise as they grow their base of followers?
Here is a tool to calculate a website value(Calculated twitter value too):
http://www.how-much-is-my-website-worth.info/Tweet this: “Twitter could not immediately be reached for comment.”
My comment: Hmmm… seems like the smart money is on Med Research Rising, not on Twittering Tweet. But, the ponies are still in the paddock, so who really knows?
What surprises me is how easy money is to come by now, almost but not quite a year from the time we all were ‘on the brink, staring over the cliff’. Remember when the banks were all broke and you couldn’t get a used car loan? And now people are lining up to give money to another ‘dot.something’ experiment with absolutely no revenue. Maybe it’s one of those hidden underground streams?
Funny, I just finished reading “The Devil’s Candy”, the well-told story of the making of the movie that was loosely based on Tom Wolfe’s book, “The Bonfire of the Vanities”. Who cares, that was almost 20 years ago, right?
Ah, heck, I just went over my tweet limit by 689 characters!
