Thursday, November 19, 2009

On Monday Daimler AG announced a deal to buy a 75.1% stake in Brawn GP.

As a result, the team who won both the 2009 Drivers’ and Constructors’ championships this year with Mercedes-engined cars, would be rebranded as Mercedes Grand Prix from 2010 Formula One Season onwards. The team could possibly use its legendary ‘Silver Arrows’ livery again since a crash at Le Mans in 1955, ending Mercedes’ 55 year absence in the sport as a sole team.

Daimler purchase went in partnership with Aabar Investments, who now own 30% of the shares. The rest of the shares will stay for Ross Brawn, who will remain as team principal, and Nick Fry.

The team still will be headquartered in Brackley (United Kingdom) which is close to Mercedes F1 engine plant at Brixworth, led by Norbert Haug, Vice-President of Mercedes-Benz Motorsport.

Mercedes will also continue to supply McLaren with engines until at least 2015, but sell its 40% stake in two years.

Mercedes is now up to decide their drivers for the next season as Rubens Barrichello already signed a contract with Williams and Jenson Button could run for McLaren together with Lewis Hamilton.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

David S. Touretzky, prominent free speech activist and critic of Scientology, discussed his opinions on the recent Internet backlash against the Church of Scientology in an interview with former Scientologist and Wikinews reporter Nicholas Turnbull. The recent conflict on the Internet between critics of Scientology and the Church has been spurred on in declarations by a nebulous Internet entity using the name Anonymous that the Church of Scientology “will be destroyed”. Anonymous has directed recent protests at Scientology centres across the world, which have attracted significant numbers of individuals supporting the cause. In recent e-mail correspondence with Wikinews, a representative of the Church of Scientology declared that the Church considers the activities of Anonymous to be illegal, and that Anonymous “will be handled and stopped”.

Touretzky, a research professor in artificial intelligence and computational neuroscience at Carnegie Mellon University, has been a prominent critic of the Church of Scientology since mid-1995, and has been protesting against Scientology vociferously since then; he has also run websites that publish material that Scientology wishes to keep suppressed from the public eye, such as extracts from Scientology’s formerly-confidential Operating Thetan (OT) materials. Touretzky views the actions of the Church of Scientology as being “a threat to free speech”, and has endured harassment by the Church of Scientology for his activities.

The Church of Scientology continues to suffer damage to its public reputation through increased exposure on the Internet and vocal protests by Scientology critics such as Prof. Touretzky. A recent event that focused intense attention on Scientology’s totalitarian attitude was the leak of an internal Church of Scientology propaganda video to the Internet video sharing site YouTube, in which celebrity Scientologist Tom Cruise spoke heavily in Scientology’s jargon and stated that that “we [Scientology] are the authorities” on resolving the difficulties of humanity. The declaration of war by Anonymous followed shortly after this leak, in the form of a video posted to the Internet.

The ongoing dispute, cast by some as Scientology versus the Internet, brought Scientology terms such as “SP” (Suppressive Person, an enemy of Scientology) and “KSW” (Keeping Scientology Working) into general usage by non-Scientologists from the late 1990s onwards; increased attention has been drawn to Scientology by the release of the Cruise video in addition to media coverage. This focus has caused an even greater propagation of these terms across the outside world, as Touretzky comments in the interview.

Wikinews asked Prof. Touretzky about the impact that the activities of Anonymous will have on Scientology, the public relations effect of the Tom Cruise video, the recent departure of individuals from the Church of Scientology’s executive management, the strategies that Anonymous will employ and Touretzky’s experiences of picketing the Church.

Thursday, March 2, 2006

Buffalo, New York —In an unanimous vote, the City of Buffalo‘s Planning Board voted to table the Elmwood Village hotel Proposal, postponing voting on legislation for up to 30 days.

The Board said its decision was due to the lack of public involvement, saying that there have not been enough meetings.

The Elmwood Village Hotel is a proposed project by Savarino Construction Services Corporation and was designed by Karl Frizlen of The Frizlen Group. The hotel would be placed on Elmwood and Forest Avenues in Buffalo, New York. In order for the hotel to be built, at least five buildings, that include both businesses and residents, must be demolished.

The Forever Elmwood Corp. is a Buffalo-based non-profit organization founded in 1994. Justin Azzarella, the Executive Director for the organization voiced support for the proposal, stating: “I am here today to lend Forever Elmwood’s support the hotel project. Particularly, Forever Elmwood is encouraged by the fact that this building follows the more stringent Elmwood Village Design Guidelines. We have been speaking with Savarino Construction, and they have promised us [Forever Elmwood] that they will engage the community further, including the surrounding Block Clubs and businesses. For that reason, while Forever Elmwood is in support of this project and the type of project that it is, we are asking also that the project be tabled so that the community can be further engaged. Specifically the surrounding Block clubs which include the Granger, Claremont, Asland and The Lincoln Parkway Block Clubs.”

“Because of the excellent work that Karl does and the game plan that they have, I think its an ideal use of this particular location. I think that this particular type of development needs to be encouraged and promoted as opposed to roadblocked,” said a man who owns five properties near the proposal site.

However, Evelyn Bencinich, a resident of Granger Place and whose house would be located directly behind the hotel said, “My property value will be depreciated or non-existent because no one is going to want to live behind a multi-story hotel. We are facing up to a year of noisy and dangerous demolition and construction. Children, pets and even drunk rebellers could wander on site and get hurt. Traffic tie-ups caused by large machinery and garbage bins is inevitable. Where will pedestrians walk? We could experience increased unsanitary flooding in our yards and basements due to the digging and cementing for the underground parking garage. Rats will be displaced into the immediate neighborhoods and be in great abundance. Once we get past the year of nightmare construction, what if you build it and they don’t come? We could ultimately have a seven million dollar rooming house on our corner.”

Patty Morris, co-owner of Don Apparel with Nancy Pollina at 1119 Elmwood also asked that the project be tabled saying, “this has only been public knowledge for less than two weeks and the public never saw the redesign. How can you vote on anything that no one has seen yet? The Board cut off Morris saying, “so specifically you don’t have any problem with it [the design] you just…” Morris then said, “Oh I am totally against this project, but thats besides the point isn’t it.”

The planning board is also concerned that the current design may still be too big.

At one point Board member Susan Curran Hoyt said, “we know you’ve cut down your number of rooms on this project, but we still see it doesn’t seem to fit the description of a ‘botique’ hotel,” and asked Eva Hassett, Vice President of Savarino Construction, “we wonder if you could reduce the rooms further.”

“One thing I didn’t talk about was the price levels of these rooms and that will be important to know. The room rate will be somewhere between US$120 and $160 a night, which is about the same price of the Hampton Inn down town and the smaller you make the hotel, the more expensive the rooms will get. We believe that we’ve made a good compromise in terms of the size of the hotel and perhaps botique means different things to different people,” said Hassett.

The board was also concerned that there is not enough parking asking, “are there alternative plans for valet parking off-site, in the event that you have a full hotel or a large event going on?”

“We are exploring several possibilities with respect to additional parking for valet and parking near-by,” replied Hassett. “We are also exploring the possibility of using the rear of 1105 Elmwood for additional parking, which would give us an additional ten or eleven spaces.”

The new design has a total of 55 parking spaces for 72 rooms, with 39 of them underground and the rest on ground level.

Hassett also said that a “parking study” will be done on the area.

Concerns that the second floor of the hotel will be too close to the property of 605 Forest were also brought up. The board asked how far the hotel would be from the property and Karl Frizlen replied saying it would “be approximately five feet from the property line,” but he also admitted that, “I do not know exactly how close the house next door” will be from the hotel, but did say “I think the house is about four or five feet away from the property line and we [the hotel] sit right on the property line.”

The board is concerned the setback from the property is not enough saying the space between the building and the hotel is “pretty narrow.”

The City’s Common Council also agreed to table the proposal also citing the need for more public engagement and the need for more organizations to respond including the Buffalo Preservation Board and the Office of Historic Preservation.

During that meeting, Hassett also said the proposal to try and get a variance to obtain the properties of 605 and 607 Forest were “now off the agenda.”

The Common Council is expected to meet and hold a public hearing about the project and the rezoning of the properties to be demolished (1119-1121 Elmwood) on Tuesday March 7, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall. At the moment the properties are not zoned for a hotel.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Attorney John Wolfe, Jr. of Chattanooga, Tennessee won 68,105 votes for 42 percent of the total in Tuesday’s Arkansas Democratic Party presidential primary. He came in first in 36 counties and finished only 16 points behind President Barack Obama, who won the primary with 95,382 votes for 58 percent. The result tops prison inmate Keith Russell Judd’s 41 percent West Virginia primary showing against Obama two weeks ago as the strongest outing for a Democratic challenger thus far. According to The Green Papers, Wolfe qualified for 19 Democratic National Convention delegates, which the party has already announced they will deny.

Wolfe, who is concerned about the influence of Wall Street in the Obama administration, announced his primary challenge to Obama last year. So far, along with Arkansas, he has qualified for the primary ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, Louisiana and Texas. Before Tuesday, his strongest showing came in Louisiana, where he won 12 percent overall with over 15 percent in some congressional districts, qualifying him for delegates. However, these were stripped after the party claimed Wolfe had not filed the necessary paperwork. He has announced plans to take legal action against the party, and in an interview with Wikinews last week, commented, “the Democratic Party decided to avert, quite flagrantly, the will of the people and assign all the delegates to Mr. Obama, even though their bylaws, the rules themselves say that the results of the primary are binding…They forsook their own law in order to make it look like there was unanimous support for Obama.”

Although President Obama has won enough delegates in this election cycle to secure the Democratic Party nomination, previously unknown challengers such as Wolfe have qualified for delegates. In March, anti-abortion activist Randall Terry and perennial candidate Jim Rogers qualified for delegates in Oklahoma, but later had them stripped by the party for not filing delegate slates and, in Terry’s case, not qualifying as a bona-fide candidate. The same outcome occurred for Judd in West Virginia, and as mentioned above, for Wolfe in Louisiana and Arkansas.

After the Arkansas Democratic Party announced prior to Tuesday’s vote that any delegates Wolfe gains will not be seated, Wolfe told The Daily Caller he would pursue further legal action, proclaiming, “It will be a summer of litigation. … I hate to do it against my own party, but they’re acting as if this guy [Obama] is some kind of emperor.”

The last Democratic Party presidential incumbent, Bill Clinton, faced fewer challenges than Obama during his 1996 primary election, but the party still had to deal with a candidate that won delegates. Challenger Lyndon LaRouche qualified for delegates in Louisiana and Virginia that year, but the party stripped these, claiming LaRouche’s views were “explicitly racist and anti-Semitic.” Like Wolfe, LaRouche proceeded to sue the party, but was unsuccessful.

Regardless of whether the party ultimately awards the delegates, some analysts say the results provide insights into voters’ perception of Obama. Peter Grier of The Christian Science Monitor explained that “white working-class voters”, who make up a majority in Arkansas, “have been disproportionately hurt by the economic downturn, and they’re resistant to what they see as Obama’s liberal health-care reforms and support of gay marriage.” Republican Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma argued “Obama fares poorly in states like … Arkansas because he has nothing in common with them. They are rural, he is urban. They are populist, he is elitist. And in case anyone hadn’t noticed, they are conservative while he is liberal.” Former Democratic Congressman Charlie Stenholm largely agreed, commenting “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”

Others have dismissed the results, arguing it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will not win Arkansas in the general election, and that opposition there may be the result of racism against Obama, the first African American president. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post published an article questioning whether racism played a role and concluded that though it likely did, “simply labeling [the people of] Arkansas who backed Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe over the incumbent as ‘racists’ is a major oversimplification.” University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato warned Democrats against overlooking the results, saying “Obama will never carry white working class. But he can’t afford to lose it by massive margins, either.”

The Associated Press asked a few Arkansas voters how they cast their ballot and why. One voter, described as a 57-year-old resident of Lonoke, Arkansas, said she voted for John Wolfe because she “wasn’t satisfied with Obama” and had a particular concern about Social Security. An 85-year-old retiree from Little Rock, Arkansas said he also voted for Wolfe, but called it “a wasted vote…I guess you just do it in opposition.”

As for the Obama supporters, one Little Rock voter said he cast his ballot for Obama, even though “I am not entirely happy with what he is doing.” Another, identified as a 51-year-old attorney from Lonoke, said she voted for Obama and fully supports him because “he stands up for what he believes in and he has not wavered.” One 73-year-old retired aircraft mechanic said he voted for Obama because “they don’t have but two names on the ballot: President Obama and that other guy [John Wolfe], [and] I don’t know anything about the other guy.”

In other races on Tuesday, “uncommitted” won a similar margin as Wolfe against Obama in the Kentucky Democratic primary. On the Republican side, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney easily won both the Arkansas and Kentucky primaries with 68.3 percent and 66.8 percent, respectively.

The next primary will be held May 29 in Texas. Wolfe will be on the ballot alongside Obama, historian Darcy Richardson, and activist Bob Ely.