New directory and calendar developed with leader in open publishing boost conservancy’s fundraising revenue

Raleigh, N.C., June, 2010 —The nonprofit Bald Head Island Conservancy on one of North Carolina’s fragile barrier islands faced a gaping budget deficit last year that threatened its mission of protecting and preserving an ecosystem of maritime forest, sand dunes and sea turtles. Gift shop sales plummeted amid the weak economy, long-time sponsors cut contributions and demand for an island directory — one of the conservancy’s most important fundraisers — dwindled.

Suzanne Dorsey, the conservancy’s executive director, set out to find a better fundraising solution to avoid a repeat of the financial hardships.

She turned to Lulu, the leader in enabling a new publishing model called open publishing. Working with the company, Dorsey developed a directory with more information and better color at lower cost. She created a separate calendar with additional opportunities for advertisers and more appeal for buyers.

The result: Fundraising revenue is expected to rise 67% this year.

“We credit the upgraded directory with providing the conservancy with a lifeline in a challenging economy,” Dorsey said. “We are grateful to Lulu for saving a revenue source that had been decreasing and probably would have completely collapsed.”

“We hear stories like this all the time, and we never tire of them,” said Bob Young, Lulu’s Founder and Chief Executive. “We started Lulu to help authors, educators, publishers, businesses and nonprofits earn more from their remarkable works. It’s rewarding to know that our products contribute to the mission of organizations like the conservancy that help make the world a better place.”

Lulu offers an array of products including photo books, mini books and calendars with customizable date cells that provide a range of unique fundraising possibilities. To learn more or get started, visit www.lulu.com/publish.

###

About Lulu: Lulu (www.lulu.com) is the leader in open publishing, empowering creators of all kinds — individuals, publishers, educators and enterprises — to publish and sell while enabling buyers to discover new knowledge. Powered by an Internet retail site, global distribution system and social content discovery engine, Lulu helps creators make and monetize content in a variety of formats, including physical books and eBooks. It connects them to buyers on Lulu.com and in third-party channels, including Amazon.com and Apple’s iBookstore.

About Bald Head Island Conservancy: The Bald Head Island Conservancy is a non-profit organization founded in 1983 whose mission is to protect, preserve and promote the natural environment of the Smith Island complex near the Cape Fear River in southeastern North Carolina.

Tweet this!

The web site, kruseauctionripoff.com, quickly became a gathering point for victims of Dean Kruse’s questionable business tactics, logging over 1,500 visitors in its first month.

“I knew that I wasn’t the only person who was having a problem getting my money from Kruse,” Ross said. “So I figured that there’s power in numbers. Maybe together, we can get some justice. If not, we’ll at least be able to warn others so they don’t get burned like we did.”

The website is now full of stories similar to Ross’ about people not being paid by Dean Kruse and Kruse Auctions International. Kruse has even had his business license revoked in Arizona, and his rating with the Better Business Bureau is an “F”, due to numerous unresolved consumer complaints.

“The deck is really stacked against the seller when there is a problem with payment in dealing with car auction companies, so we set up a site to let people who have been ripped off tell their stories,” said Ross. The site has been so successful that Ross has decided to expand it to cover other auto auction companies.

Fort Worth business consultant and car collector Ron Sturgeon actively monitors the site. “A few years ago Barrett-Jackson reneged on an agreement with me when I sold several cars at one of their auctions, so I am glad have a place where I can keep up-to-date on the business practices of car auction companies,” said Sturgeon.

When he consigned the cars, a Barrett Jackson representative promised Sturgeon that he could sell the cars without setting reserve prices because he would be allowed to bid on his own cars on auction day. Had he bought them back, there would be an agreed fee; however, on auction day Sturgeon was not allowed to bid on his cars. “Several of the cars ending up selling for much less than reserves that I would have set,” says the Fort Worth, Texas-based entrepreneur.

Members of the media or law enforcement wishing to contact Rodney Ross about his dealings with Kruse Auctions may do so at 817.320.7628 or by e-mail at rodneyross@sbcglobal.net. Others owed money from the auction of a classic or exotic car by Kruse Auctions International or other auction companies are encouraged to share their stories on the website.

Website: http://kruseauctionripoff.com/

Tweet this!

by Dan Miller, Macworld.com

Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad today. Positioned between a smartphone and a laptop, the tablet does many of the same things as the iPhone, but on a bigger, more easily viewed screen.

Steve Jobs shows off Apple’s iPad on Wednesday.

Demonstrating the iPad at an event in San Francisco, Jobs showed how it could be used for e-mail and Web browsing, viewing photos, managing calendars and contacts, listening to music, viewing video, and more.

The iPad is a half-inch thick, weighs 1.5 pounds, and has a 9.7-inch LCD screen. It’s run by a custom-made 1GHz CPU, and comes with 16, 32, or 64GB of flash storage. For connectivity, it has 802.11n, WiFi, and Bluetooth 2.1. Jobs claimed it will get up to 10 hours of battery life.

In addition to the built-in Apple apps, the iPad will also run third-party software. Senior Vice President Scott Forstall said that the tablet will run most existing iPhone apps unmodified, right out of the box. Those apps can run at their existing size in a black box or can be doubled to run in full-screen mode.

Apple is also making a software development kit available to developers, to help create apps specifically for the new device. To demonstrate what vendors could do with those tools, Forstall introduced representatives from Gameloft, Electronic Arts, the New York Times, and MLB.com to show off iPad apps they’d already built.

Jobs also introduced a new app, called iBooks, to manage e-books on the iPad. While crediting Amazon for its pioneering efforts with the Kindle, he announced that Apple was opening its own e-book store for the iPad. He said that Penguin, Harper-Collins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, and other publishers were already signed up to supply titles. Those titles will use the ePub format—an open e-book standard.

Original article link

by Philip Michaels, Macworld.com

As part of its new iPad tablet unveiled Wednesday, Apple has come out with an e-book reading app. Dubbed iBooks, the app lets you read e-books on the iPad’s 9.7-inch LCD screen.

“Amazon’s done a great job of pioneering this functionality with the Kindle, so we’re going to stand on its shoulders,” Apple CEO Steve Jobs said at Wednesday’s product launch.

iBooks lets users buy and download electronic books directly from the iPad. Users will buy books through Apple’s new iBook Store, which will be fully integrated into the app. From the iBooks demo on Wednesday, it appears book prices will be between $8 and $15.

Jobs said that five of the largest publishers—Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Hachette Book Group—will have content on the store.

iBooks will use the EPUB standard, the most popular open book format in the world.

“We think iPad will be a terrific e-book reader for popular books and textbooks,” Jobs said.

Original article link

Apple introduces iWork for iPad

by Roman Loyola, Macworld.com

Apple today at its iPad introduction announced a new version of iWork designed specifically for the iPad. The iWork for iPad application suite broadens the potential target audience for the iPad.

iWork is Apple productivity software suite, which includes Keynote (for presentations), Numbers (spreadsheets), and Pages (word processing). The new iWork for iPad suite takes advantage of the iPad’s multitouch input.

At today’s event, Apple’s Phil Schiller demonstrated each app on the iPad. All of the iWork apps launch to a library of documents that allow you to tap on the document you want to open. An on-screen keyboard appears when you need to type text.

Keynote runs only in landscape mode, since slides are designed horizontally. Pages has a new tool called Page Navigator, where you hold your finger on the right of the iPad’s screen and it brings up a loupe that lets you skim through your pages. All three iWork apps come with templates to help you create documents quickly.

The iWork for iPad apps are $10 each and will be available at the iTunes App Store.

Original article link

Tweet this!

The programs, ‘Broadband Technology Opportunities Program’ and ‘Broadband Initiatives Program’, created as a result of the funding allocation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), are awarding funds based on their first application period. While the large telecommunications providers chose not to participate in the first application period, it is possible that a second round could be of interest. Nevertheless, the programs have received a large number of applications for funding grants from public and private parties interested in completing broadband service projects. All funds from these programs, approximately $7.2 billion, must be awarded by Sept. 20, 2010.

Fitch’s ‘Biannual Telecommunications Regulatory Register’ addresses the topic of the National Broadband Plan, the status of the $7.2 billion recovery act broadband program and an update on net neutrality. The report aims to give the reader an ability to evaluate the potential effects of regulatory developments on industry participants. In addition, the report provides a review of important regulatory developments in the U.S. telecommunications industry over the past six months. The full report is available on Fitch’s web site at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.

Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY’S PUBLIC WEBSITE ‘WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM’. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH’S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE ‘CODE OF CONDUCT’ SECTION OF THIS SITE.

Tweet this!

RYE BROOK, N.Y.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Twenty-three percent of consumers plan to shop online for Valentine’s Day gifts, with 9 percent indicating they will spend more money online compared to last year. This represents an increase in online shoppers over the 2009 Valentine’s Day holiday. Further, the majority of consumers will shop for gifts other than the traditional flowers and chocolates.

This is according to the eBillme Online Spending Index, a quarterly survey conducted by Javelin Strategy and Research. The Index polls 1,200 consumers to measure projected online spending for the quarter and the influencing factors. According to the Q1 Index, consumers plan to spend an average of $236 online, which is in line with spending levels from Q1 2009.

This quarter, consumers were also asked if they have decided what purchases they will make for Valentine’s Day. Overall, 47 percent of respondents do not know what to purchase for their loved ones.

“Valentine’s Day is an opportunity for retailers to build on holiday sales,” says Samer Forzley, Vice President of Marketing for eBillme. “The number of consumers planning to shop online for Valentine’s gifts and spend more than last year is encouraging news for the eCommerce industry. It’s interesting to see that consumers are looking towards more non-traditional gifts this year but are still in the dark about they will be purchasing. For e-tailers, this means there is still time to market and capture these undecided sales.”

The Online Spending Index is released quarterly by eBillme, the most secure payment option online that enables consumers to pay with cash using online banking and walk-in locations. eBillme offers consumers buyer protection features including satisfaction guarantee, best price, in-transit protection, and fraud protection, in addition to cash-back rewards through the eBillme Rewards program.

For more information or to receive the full findings from this quarter’s Index, please contact Samer Forzley at sforzley@eBillme.com.

About the Index

The Index is based on data collected from an online consumer survey deployed quarterly starting in August 2008, with a sample size of 1,209 respondents. The survey targeted U.S. adults (age 18 +) and was based on representative proportions of gender, ethnicity, and income as compared to the overall U.S. online population. Overall margin of sampling error is ±2.8 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.

The next Index will be released in April 2010. Data from the Index will be posted on the eBillme Web site at http://blog.eBillme.com.

About eBillme

eBillme™ is the most secure way to pay online and the only online payment solution that extends the convenience of online banking to the merchant’s checkout process. The service enhances security for online shoppers, and enables merchants to increase sales while reducing transaction costs. No financial data is exposed and the payment transaction is securely transferred from the customer’s bank to the retailer’s bank. Consumers can shop online, by catalog or through call centers, and pay for their purchases at their bank, credit union, or bill pay portal using the security and convenience of online banking or by paying the bill at over 75,000 walk-in locations. For more information, please visit www.eBillme.com or eBillme’s Online Debt-Free Shopping Mall at http://Shop.eBillme.com.

Tweet this!

Saab Sale Cannot Be Concluded
Brand to be Wound Down

Detroit.  General Motors announced today that the intended sale of Saab Automobile AB would not be concluded. After the withdrawal of Koenigsegg Group AB last month, GM had been in discussions with Spyker Cars about its interest in acquiring Saab. During the due diligence, certain issues arose that both parties believe could not be resolved.  As a result, GM will start an orderly wind-down of Saab operations.

“Despite the best efforts of all involved, it has become very clear that the due diligence required to complete this complex transaction could not be executed in a reasonable time. In order to maintain operations, Saab needed a quick resolution,” said GM Europe President Nick Reilly.  “We regret that we were not able to complete this transaction with Spyker Cars. We will work closely with the Saab organization to wind down the business in an orderly and responsible manner. This is not a bankruptcy or forced liquidation process. Consequently, we expect Saab to satisfy debts including supplier payments, and to wind down production and the distribution channel in an orderly manner while looking after our customers.”

Saab will continue to honor warranties, while providing service and spare parts to current Saab owners around the world.

As part of its efforts to become a leaner organization, GM began seeking a buyer for Saab’s operations in January.  Last week, Saab Automobile AB announced that it had closed on the sale of certain Saab 9-3, current 9-5 and powertrain technology and tooling to Beijing Automotive Industry Holdings Co. Ltd. (BAIC).  GM expects today’s announcement to have no impact on the earlier sale.

As the company continues to reinvent itself, GM has been faced with some very difficult but necessary business decisions. The focus will remain on the four core brands – Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC – and several regional brands, including Opel / Vauxhall in Europe.  This will enable the company to devote more engineering and marketing resources to each brand and model.

General Motors Company, one of the world’s largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 209,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Wuling and Jiefang. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.

Tweet this!

President Barack Obama

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York

THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day.  The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing.  The vote in the House was 420 to 1.  For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.  And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.  America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq.  The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It’s enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  (Applause.)  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.  Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.  After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.  I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we’ve made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we’ve stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation’s army has gone on its largest offensive in years.  In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain.  Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards.  There’s no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum.  Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.  And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.  Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.  In short:  The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger.  Some of you fought in Afghanistan.  Some of you will deploy there.  As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that’s why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.  Now, let me be clear:  There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.  Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.  And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.

This review is now complete.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.  We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.  Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.  And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I’ve traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear.  This is not just America’s war.  Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.  The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered.  And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.  Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan.  And now, we must come together to end this war successfully.  For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.  We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance.  The days of providing a blank check are over.  President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.  We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.  We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.  So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.  We have no interest in occupying your country.  We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.  And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.  But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.  But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism.  Public opinion has turned.  The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan.  And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.  Those days are over.  Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.  America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.  And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy:  a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach.  So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I’ve heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.  Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.  Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.  And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.  To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.  But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there.  It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility.  Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort  — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade.  I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.  Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.  It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.  I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one.  Indeed, I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We’ve failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.  In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills.  Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.  Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce.  So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars.  Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.  Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home.  Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.  It pays for our military.  It underwrites our diplomacy.  It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.  And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.  That’s why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear:  None of this will be easy.  The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.  And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict — not just how we wage wars.  We’ll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.  Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can’t count on military might alone.  We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction.  And that’s why I’ve made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them — because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I’ve spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That’s why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.  That is who we are.  That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs.  We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents.  We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies.  We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.  What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren.  And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.  (Applause.)

As a country, we’re not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President.  Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom.  And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms.  It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.  (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we.  But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It’s easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear.  I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.  (Applause.)  I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose.  For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America — we are passing through a time of great trial.  And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear:  that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.  We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  May God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

ENDS

Tweet this!

GM Statement Attributed To Chairman Ed Whitacre

Fritz has done a remarkable job in leading the company through an unprecedented period of challenge and change.  While momentum has been building over the past several months, all involved agree that changes needed to be made.  To this end, I have taken over the role of Chairman and CEO while an international search for a new president and CEO begins immediately.  With these new duties, I will begin working in the Renaissance Center headquarters on a daily basis.  The leadership team – many who are with me today – are united and committed to the task at hand.

I want to assure all of our employees, dealers, suppliers, union partners and most of all, our customers, that GM’s daily business operations will continue as normal. I remain more convinced than ever that our company is on the right path and that we will continue to be a leader in offering the worldwide buying public the highest quality, highest value cars and trucks.  We now need to accelerate our progress toward that goal, which will also mean a return to profitability and repaying the American and Canadian tax payers as soon as possible.

In closing, I want to once again thank Fritz Henderson for his years of leadership and service to General Motors; we’re grateful for his many contributions.  I look forward to working with the entire GM team as we now begin the next chapter of this great company.

DETROIT – The GM Board of Directors has received expressions of interest in Saab since the conclusion of negotiations with Koenigsegg Group AB.  The Board will evaluate potential bids between now and the end of December.  At that time, we will determine whether a suitable arrangement for Saab exists.  If not, we will begin an orderly wind down of the global Saab business at that time.

Due to non-disclosure agreements, we will not confirm or comment on any potential transactions or other matters unless, and until, we determine that disclosure is appropriate.

General Motors Company, one of the world’s largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM’s largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors Company acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009.

Tweet this!

The scam is difficult for police and other agencies to target

Online criminals are making millions of pounds by convincing computer users to download fake anti-virus software, internet security experts claim.

Symantec says more than 40 million people have fallen victim to the “scareware” scam in the past 12 months.

The download is usually harmful and criminals can sometimes use it to get the victim’s credit card details.

The firm has identified 250 versions of scareware, and criminals are thought to earn more than £750,000 each a year.

Franchised out

Scareware sellers use pop-up adverts deliberately designed to look legitimate, for example, using the same typefaces as Microsoft and other well-known software providers.

They appear, often when the user is switching between websites, and falsely warn that a computer’s security has been compromised.

If the user then clicks on the message they are directed towards another site where they can download the fake anti-virus software they supposedly need to clean up their computer – for a fee of up to £60.

Con Mallon, from Symantec, told the BBC the apparent fix could have a double impact on victims.

It is very prevalent and it’s growing very quickly out there on the internet Con Mallon, Symantec Read your stories

“Obviously, you’re losing your own hard-earned cash up front, but at the back end of that, if you’re transacting with these guys online you’re offering them credit card details, debit card details and other personal information,” he said.

“That’s obviously very valuable because these cyber criminals can try to raid those accounts themselves or they can then pass them on or sell them to others who ultimately will try to use that information to their benefit not yours.”

The findings were revealed in a report written following Symantec analysis of data collected from July 2008 to June 2009. Symantec said 43 million people fell for such scams during that period.

It has become so popular that the rogue software has been franchised out.

Fake reviews help build the credibility of bogus anti-virus software.

Mr Mallon said some scareware took the scam a step further.

“[They] could hold your computer to ransom where they will stop your computer working or lock up some of your personal information, your photographs or some of your Word documents.

“They will extort money from you at that point. They will ask you to pay some additional money and they will then release your machine back to you.”

The scam is hard for police or other agencies to investigate because the individual sums of money involved are very small.

Therefore, experts say users must protect themselves with common sense and legitimate security software.

‘Steal your identity’

Tony Neate, from Get Safe Online, told the BBC the threats presented by the internet had changed in recent years.

“Where we used to say protect your PC… we’ve now got to look at ourselves, making sure we’re protected against the con men who are out there,” he said.

“They want you to help them infect your machine. When they’ve infected your machine it’s possibly no longer your machine – you’ve got no control over it.

“Then what they’re looking to do is take away your identity, steal bits of your identity, or even get some financial information from you.”

He added: “They used to be 16-year-olds in their bedrooms causing damage with viruses. Now those 16-year-olds have grown up [and] they’re looking for money, they’re looking for information.”

Link to original BBC article

Tweet this!