New York Times Co. in Talks With Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim for needed much needed money

Now this is quite interesting:

The New York Times Co. is in discussions with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim about investing in the newspaper publisher to help ease its financial problems, according to people familiar with the matter.

The talks are ongoing and may yet fall apart but one of the options being discussed is a preferred-stock issue. Under this scenario, the Times Co. would issue Mr. Slim preferred stock, which carries no voting right but pays an annual dividend, in return for his investment. The investment would be similar to a loan. Preferred shares are often convertible into common stock after a defined period.

via New York Times Co. in Talks With Carlos Slim on Preferred Stock Investment – WSJ.com (Sub Required).

Interesting…. The New York Post picks it up:

The 68-year-old telecommunications tycoon is said to be discussing a large purchase of preferred shares. The talks are ongoing and may fall apart, as they probably would need the consent of the Sulzberger family, including publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who control the media powerhouse through its ownership of preferred shares.

The preferred shares under discussion would carry no voting rights, but pay a dividend, according to the report. His current stake puts Slim among the largest non-Sulzberger owners of the Times.

The Times is under the gun to raise cash as a $400 million credit line expires in May. The recession has squeezed the paper, which reported a 21 percent drop in ad revenue in November.

The newspaper has made some drastic moves recently to increase cash flow and to raise the needed money, including:

* An ongoing attempt to raise $225 million by selling its 58 percent stake in the new 52-story Midtown skyscraper and then leasing the office space.

* Putting its 17.5 percent stake in New England Sports Ventures, the parent of the Boston Red Sox, on the block. That could raise about $150 million.

* Layoffs and buyouts at the flagship New York Times and its Boston Globe property.

* Cutting back its dividend to investors for three years.

* The recent move to reduce the number of standalone sections and to sell advertising for the first time on Page 1 of the Times.

For Slim, fattening up his stake in the Times would expand his already sizeable holdings. The mogul controls Telmex, which handles about 90 percent of Mexico’s land-based telephone service, and Telcel, which has an 80 percent market share on the country’s cell business.

In 1997, just before Apple launched its iMac line, Slim bought a 3 percent stake in the tech company at a split-adjusted price of about $4.50 a share. Apple closed Friday at $82.33.

Just Warren Buffet, worth about $62 billion, according to Forbes, is richer than Slim. Bill Gates, for years the richest man in the world, is worth about $58 billion, the magazine said.

Very interesting indeed, it is indeed a sign of the times. It does kind of bother me, that the NYT would go south of the border to get someone to put money into their company. Is there not any millionaires here in America? Where’s all those Liberal Hollywood celebrities that cater to those mindless loons that make that newspaper?

I would go off on a “Bill O’Rielly” sounding rant and say it’s because of their bias. But I won’t, because I’m just a bit more honest than that. The Economy is bad, old Media is become the thing of the past, the internet is killing traditional media. hey, times change, either you keep up or your outmoded. Just that simple.

But, damn, what the hell are they gonna call the old gray lady now? The Taco-Head Times? D’ohDoh

Others: Yourish.com, Gawker, Gothamist, Don Surber, MediaMemo, Doug Ross, Silicon Alley Insider, 24Ahead, Don Surber and JammieWearingFool

Examples of what will get you banned from commenting on this Blog

It appears that some trolls have discovered my Blog, once again.

Well, this time, I am not enabling moderation. Instead, I am just going to fucking ban people from commenting here, who break the rules.

Here’s the examples of what will get you banned here:

Author : t4toby (IP: 68.103.201.85 , ip68-103-201-85.ks.ok.cox.net)
E-mail : tbhayse@hotmail.com
URL    : http://t4toby.wordpress.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=68.103.201.85
Comment:
<blockquote>Oh well, it doesn’t matter anyways, because in six months to a year, Obama will burn the constitution, take our guns, enact black Nationalism as the state religion</blockquote>

That is a whole lot of paranoid delusion wrapped up in one sentence.

I think you may need to get your meds adjusted.  I think you’re having some kind of reaction.

You can see all comments on this post here:

He is, of course, referring to this posting here. Which was, a bit of snark and my political opinion.

Well, seeing it was more of a stupid troll comment, I deleted it. Besides, this is my Blog, I do not have to allow myself to be insulted by some anonymous assplow.

So, he comes back and leaves this:

Author : t4toby (IP: 68.103.201.85 , ip68-103-201-85.ks.ok.cox.net)
E-mail : tbhayse@hotmail.com
URL    : http://t4toby.wordpress.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=68.103.201.85
Comment:
You are a sensitive little twit, aren’t you, Patricia?

Censorship is closer to the Soviets and the Nazis that Obama.

If you are so firm in your beliefs, what are you afraid of?

No asshole. I have fucking rules here, you might want to go read them.  Not that it will matter, I’ve added your IP address to the list of those not allowed to comment here.

Stupid fucking Liberal Moonbat Communist Assplows. 🙄

It’s going to be a long four to eight years.

Dan, can you blame them?

Dan over at Obama water carrier center AKA Politico.com, Dan the man yowels away about Conservatives who won’t give a pass to “The One”.

With Barack Obama’s approval ratings in the 70s and his visage plastered on every shop window and Metro card in Washington, it’s hard to remember that 58 million Americans voted for the other guy.

Even President Bush — who presumably counts himself among that group — said last week that Obama’s inauguration is “a moment of hope and pride.”

That’s not exactly how Michelle Malkin describes it.

“Jan. 20 has turned into a schlock inauguration, (where) every last moocher has come to cash in on Obama,” says the conservative blogger and pundit. “There are some of us who want to bang our heads against the wall.”

While most Republicans now in office are saying all the right things about Tuesday’s proceedings — roll tape on “peaceful transfer of power” and “historic moment for the country” sound bites — some conservatives can’t quite get themselves in the “We Are One” mood. Not even for a day. Via  Obama naysayers speak out – Politico.com.

While the Malkin comment might a bit over the top; not that I’ve got any room to talk. However, the whole situation is totally understandable.

There were some of us who wanted someone, who was a bit more qualified to run the country. Some of us wanted a man who actually had some sort of experience, rather than an empty suited, race baiting, Liberal shill, who was elected solely, because of the color of his skin. But, no, the damned idiot old man, had to pick some idiot MILF from Polar Bear-land, and thought that she would get the Hillary voters. We all see how that little stupid idea worked!

I mean, I would much rather seen a real Conservative Black man in there. But I guess I’m stuck with the empty suit. Stuff happens, I guess.

So, in closing, just chalk it up to pissed off Conservatives who feel they were robbed. In a sense, they were. Geraldine Ferraro was right all along.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr: Obama Trolls Disrepect the Flag of the United States of America

I knew stuff like this was going to happen if that idiot was elected! I just knew it!

Via Inside Charm City:

Obama trolls disrespecting our Nationss Flag
Obama trolls disrespecting our Nation's Flag

US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, “Respect for the flag”: says:

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.

(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

But don’t you dare question Obama or his trolls loyality to America or their Patriotism. Oh well, it doesn’t matter anyways, because in six months to a year, Obama will burn the constitution, take our guns, enact black Nationalism as the state religion and we’ll ALL be carrying this flag here:

800px-flag_of_the_communist_party_of_nepal_unified_marxist-leninistsvg

or this one:

Get ready folks, because the Nazi or Communist Obama Nation is about upon us.

“….even so, Come, Lord Jesus.”

Update: Commenter “LeftDog” left a comment showing here a John McCain supporter was doing the same thing. Click Here to view. For the record; Yes, I do think that it is just as wrong as Obama doing it.

Update #2: Obviously some of you do not know snark, when you read it or see it. I suggest you get a sense of humor before you have a heart attack. Also you might want to release your butt cheeks just a little. It can only help.

Update #3: This Commie Liberal here calls us, who brought this to light… “scraping.”  I got two words for this Communist son of a bitch….. Scrape THIS! Communist tool….  Go worship your “Magic Negro”  Messiah and enjoy it. Because in 6 months, he’ll be the next asshole in the White House! You wait and see. Stupid liberal Ass plows. No brains, just follow the “O” and everything will be wonderful. Give. me. a. fucking. break. PLEASE!

Others: Michelle Malkin, Scholars and Rogues, JammieWearingFool,Macsmind, The Other McCain ,Blake’s Blog ,P.U.M.A.,Say Anything, B ,Sister Toldjah, Gateway Pundit

The Magic One wants a "New Declaration of Independence"

This is most interesting…

Chicago Tribune slobbering all over itself; reports the following:

PHILADELPHIA – President-elect Barack Obama, delivering a pledge “to take up the work” that the patriots of American independence started here, launched a thematic train ride that will deliver the incoming president to Washington.

In a “town hall”- styled opening rally Saturday morning, with about 200 campaign supporters invited to an address at the start of this historic day, Obama declared: “We are here to mark the beginning of our journey to Washington, and this is fitting, because it was here in this city that our American journey began.

“We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began,” Obama said in Philadelphia. “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives – from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry – an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.”

Before boarding the train for his “whistle-stop” journey to the capital, Obama delivered a brief but inspirational address that evoked not only the fathers of American independence, but also the emancipator of slaves and protector of the American union whose model he will invoke all day, Abraham Lincoln.

Starting now, let’s take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union,” Obama said. “Let’s build a government that is responsible to the people, and accept our own responsibilities as citizens to hold our government accountable.

“Let’s all of us do our part to rebuild this country,” he said, with words that clearly to point to the theme that will emerge from his inauguration as the 44th president on Tuesday. “Let’s make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but the beginning.”

With his train ride and his ceremonial arrival in Washington, Obama will evoke the same historical imagery that he employed to kick off his presidential campaign: The spirit of Lincoln.

Okay, first off, I know the historical part of the man’s election and all. But the wording he used is sort of troubling.

What does Perfecting our Union and New Declaration of Independence mean? Sounds like a call to Black Nationalism to me.

I hate to be the one to say this, but Mr. Barry, I happen to like my Declaration of Independence and the Union just the way it is sir, and I would appreciate it, if you’d keep your hands off of it sir.

Thank you President Johnson for screwing America sir. Because I do believe we are heading for some terrible times. 😡

Others: Gateway Pundit

Once again the Liberal media lies about those who do not support Obama

This is getting to be about the stupidest bunch of nonsense, that I have ever heard in my entire life.

It now seems that the Communist News Network, also known as CNN is now trying to trump up the possibility of President Obama being assassinated, and in the process smeared David Duke.

Via CNN:

Hate crimes experts and law enforcement officials are closely watching white supremacists across the country as Barack Obama prepares next week to be sworn in as the first black president of the United States.

So far, there is no known organized effort to express opposition to Obama’s rise to the presidency other than a call by the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for its members to wear black armbands as well as fly the U.S. flag upside down on Inauguration Day and Obama’s first full day in office.

As Tuesday approaches, when Obama stands outside the Capitol to take the oath of office, experts expect anger about the new president to spike. But they don’t expect it to go away.

“The level of vitriol, I expect, will go up a bit more around inauguration time,” said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.

There “is concern” about white supremacist groups during the inauguration, said Joe Persichini, the assistant FBI director who is helping to oversee security during the inauguration. What might the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. have said? »

The inauguration of the nation’s first minority president increases any potential threat, “particularly stemming from individuals on the extremist fringe of the white supremacist movement,” said a recent intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

But law enforcement has the appropriate resources to respond if needed, Persichini said.

“We have seen a lot of chatter,” Persichini said. “We have seen a lot of discussions. We have seen some information via the Internet. But those are discussions. We look at the vulnerabilities and whether or not the groups are taking action.

“You have freedom of speech,” he added. “Anyone in this nation can have a discussion about their beliefs, but we are concerned about whether or not they take that freedom of speech and exercise some act that is against the law.”

Anger, violence and interest in racist ideology did increase in the hours and days after Obama was elected president in November, hate groups experts said.

Three New York men were indicted on charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights — accused of targeting and attacking African-Americans in a brutal crime spree soon after Obama was declared the winner on November 4.

And interest in racist ideology was so high right after the election that computer servers for two White supremacist Web sites crashed, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.

But the violence and interest soon subsided. Leaders within the white supremacist movement are now seeking to capitalize on Obama’s presidency by using his election to help grow their organizations.

“President-elect Obama is going to be the spark that arouses the ‘white movement,’ ” reads a posting on the National Socialist Movement Web site. “Obama’s win is our win. We should all be happy of this event.”

In an interview posted on his Web site on election night, former Louisiana state Rep. David Duke said Obama’s election “is good in one sense — that it is making white people clear of the fact that that government in Washington, D.C., is not our government.”

“We are beginning to learn and realize our positioning,” Duke, a prominent white supremacist, later said in the election night recording. “And our position is that we have got to stand up and fight now.”

Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, said the leaders of these groups are frustrated by Obama’s win.

“I think the hate groups are desperately looking for a silver lining in a very dark cloud for them,” Potok said.

While experts said it is difficult to determine how many people belong to hate groups, they do agree with an SPLC estimate that claims there are about 900 operating now, a 40 percent increase from 2000. The vast majority of these groups promote white supremacist beliefs, and range from skinheads living in urban areas to the KKK ,which is based largely in rural settings.

It is difficult to pinpoint how many people subscribe to white supremacist views, because the Internet allows people to follow the movement under the cloak of anonymity. Leaders of the white supremacist movement are able to use their Web sites to reach a new subset of potential followers and push their racist rhetoric to the limit without outright calling for violence.

Levin said one challenge in protecting Obama is that the identity of a potential attacker would likely be unknown — a person who believes in white supremacist ideology, but decides to act as a lone wolf.

Threats of violence are more likely to be found on Web sites that allow posters to remain anonymous.

Most white supremacist leaders have been careful in what is posted on their Web sites, “hyper-aware that they are being watched,” Potok said.

But not all white supremacist leaders are mindful of their actions or care to be. Two months before the election, American National Socialist Workers Party head Bill White posted a magazine cover on his Web site featuring a picture of Obama in the cross hairs of a rifle scope with a headline “Kill This N—–?”

White is now in jail on unrelated charges that he “threatened use of force against” a juror who had helped convict another white supremacist as well as several other charges of making threats to unrelated victims.

Racism in the U.S. “remains a real problem” even though Obama won the White House, Potok said, and he predicted that hate groups will continue to grow during Obama’s presidency.

“I think we are in a very worrisome moment historically,” Potok said. “I say that because there are several things converging that could foster the continued growth of these groups: continuing high levels of nonwhite immigration, the prediction by the Census Bureau that whites will lose their majority in 2042, the tanking economy, and what is seen as the final insult, the election of a black man to the White House.”

Levin noted that it is common knowledge the U.S. Secret Service is taking great measures to protect Obama (who began receiving coverage in May 2007, the earliest point ever for a candidate in a presidential campaign), and emphasized it is a great challenge.

“President-elect Obama is so used to a public presence, and being among people poses some real difficulties for his protection,” Levin said.

I think it is important to note that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a Communist Liberal run organization, who goal and aim is to stifle the free speech of those whom they deem to be hateful.

More after the jump:

Continue reading “Once again the Liberal media lies about those who do not support Obama”

Memo to Tom Hanks: Kiss My All American Conservative ASS!

This jerkwad has got a ton of nerve!

Via Fox News:

Tom Hanks, an Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California’s Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

Here’s a memo to this washed up piece of crap actor. Your damned party does not hold court of who is more American or patriotic. I happen to think that Homosexuality is immoral, sickening and that Homosexuals ought to herded unto a island and that island nuked into oblivion, along with the rest of the Liberals and All Muslims!

If that makes me UnAmerican, than damn it, I’m UnAmerican! 😡

Asshole Liberals. 😡

Others: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Don Surber and RIGHTWINGSPARKLE

Quote of the Day

The Coral Reef Alliance believes outgoing President George W. Bush has created his legacy as a President who has done more to protect the environment of the seas than any other President. Somehow, I doubt if former President Ronald Reagan would agree with their assessment.

Obama should, but most likely won't

Before I start this, let me simply say from the outset, that I am not a George W. Bush fan, nor will I ever be. I am not a part of the Conservative wing that believes that George W. Bush is some sort of hero. Having said all Paul Krugman and Rep. John Conyers have both written articles calling for Obama to fully investigate the actions of George W. Bush during his tenure as President.

First off Paul Krugman writes:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

The answer to this question is very simple. Obama simply does not want the political firestorm. As much as it is great thing to see an African-American man for President, I think it would be counter-productive to Obama’s term in office to do something like this. Because you just know; that the Neo-Conservative political machine would swing into action against Obama, if he did try and do something like this. I mean, I might have many reservations about Neo-Conservatives, but their organizational and fund raising abilities is not one of them. If Obama went for a full blown investigation against the Bush Administration, the Podhoretz and Kristol funded minions would be out in full force.

So, while the idea of a full blown investigation with charges being filed is a noble idea; I just highly doubt that it will ever materialize. Obama just does not want to be viewed as a vengeful partisan President.

John Conyers writes basically the same thing, and I can understand his feelings. But again, what is very important; is how this sort of thing will be perceived by the rest of America. Would be it perceived as justice, or would it perceived as a partisan witch hunt? Sure, if your a partisan or a liberal ideologue it would be viewed as justified, but what about those who are not? What they think; matters greatly.

One thing that all Democrats and all Liberal-minded people must remember is, that not all of America is of a Liberal mindset. Just because Congress is of a Liberal majority, does not mean that all of America is. Some just voted for Obama, because he represented a change from George W. Bush, not because they wanted to see a Liberal witch hunt trial.

Others: The Moderate Voice, JustOneMinute, The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Monthly, Washington Post, Matthew Yglesias, Right Wing News, The Seminal, Democrats.com, The Sideshow, Comments from Left Field, The Note, The Immoral Minority, Riehl World View, Gateway Pundit, American Street, Hullabaloo, Seeing the Forest and The Impolitic

(via Memeorandum)