News : aimed at shocking people, arousing emotional responses

 Propaganda

behind the stories 

often lies

wealthy

money moguls

grubbers

iWon News - Elton John feels like 'second-class citizen'

iWon News - Elton John feels like 'second-class citizen'

Elton John feels like 'second-class citizen'
 Email this Story

Jan 23, 3:10 PM (ET)
By DERRIK J. LANG

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Sir Elton John is "fed up" with being a treated like a "second-class citizen" in the U.S. That's why the 63-year-old gay singer said he took a stand last week during a performance at a private Beverly Hills fundraiser for the ongoing legal challenge to California's gay marriage ban.
The outspoken British piano man, who became a parent to a baby boy on Christmas Day with partner David Furnish, added that "as I get older, I get more angry about it."
"In this country, we need more dialogue," he said during an interview Friday. "We don't need any more stone throwing. We don't need any more vitriol. We need people to say, 'OK. I'm straight. You're gay. Let's get along. I'm Republican. You're Democratic. Let's work together.' I'm sick and tired of people being hateful to each other in this country."
John disappointed some gay rights activists after California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage passed in 2008 when he said he had no desire to get married and was satisfied with his civil partnership in England. He sang a different tune Wednesday when he praised the effort to overturn Proposition 8 and promised to do everything he could to support it, even though he is British.
The couple's son, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born in California through a surrogate mother. John said he was disappointed that members of the Church of England questioned his parenthood in the days following his son's birth. He insisted that he's not against religion and that "Jesus was a wonderful, compassionate man, who forgave on the cross."
"Everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs and their own spirituality," said John. "The big difference is that the dogma of the church can be so hateful and divisive. It's stuck in the stone age. We don't live in the stone age anymore. The church is losing people left, right and center because people are fed up with the rhetoric that they're giving them."
---
Online:
http://www.eltonjohn.com

KMBC Blogs

KMBC Blogs

Kansas City's Best Source for News, Weather, Sports & More | KansasCity.com

Kansas City's Best Source for News, Weather, Sports & More | KansasCity.com:

# Name Kansas City Star
# Location Kansas City, Mo.
# Web

# Bio Kansas City's premier information source
twitter

Contacting KMBC - Contact Us News Story - KMBC Kansas City

Contacting KMBC - Contact Us News Story - KMBC Kansas City:

Contacting KMBC

KMBC-TV is located at:

6455 Winchester Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64133
Main Phone Number: (816) 221-9999 You can e-mail the KMBC newsroom at news@KMBC.com. Or you can e-mail the station using the drop-down menu below:

If you need to e-mail a school or church closing, please select Newsroom/Newstips from the menu. Please include your name and phone number.

If there is a problem with the Web site, please select Web Staff from the menu.

If you are e-mailing a news tip, please include a phone number.

If you want to contact a KMBC reporter or anchor directly, their e-mails are posted in their bios on this page.

If you want to e-mail breaking news video to KMBC, send it to KMBCnews@gmail.com.

Department:

Pull Down To Select Recipient: ------------ Community Relations ConsumerWatch Dream Factory Editorials Engineering General Manager HealthWatch KCWE Staff Neighborhood Notes News Director Newsroom/Newstips Programming Sales Sports Weather Weather Photos Web Staff

Your Message:

Your E-mail Address:

Kansas City News, Missouri News and Local Weather from KCTV 5 News

Kansas City News, Missouri News and Local Weather from KCTV 5 News:

* Name Kurt & Greg
* Location KCTV5 - Kansas City
* Web
http://www.kctv5.com/index.html
* Bio Web Managing Editor, KCTV5.com

twitter

***********************************************

News | KCFreePress.com

News | KCFreePress.com:

* Name KCFreePress.com
 * Location Kansas City, MO/KS
 * Web

    * Bio News, events and reviews—built for the web.
twitter

There is no "Ground Zero" Mosque

There is no "Ground Zero" Mosque

Ross Cronkrite | The State Column

Ross Cronkrite | The State Column:

*  Name RCronkrite
*  Web
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/rosscronkrite/
* Bio Political news and analysis. Graduate of Missouri State University's Department of Defense and Strategic Studies.

twitter

**********************************************

KC police bust what they call an organized retail crime ring operating in a nice neighborhood - NBCActionNews.com

KC police bust what they call an organized retail crime ring operating in a nice neighborhood - NBCActionNews.com




 

eBay sellers file billing suit - CNET News

eBay sellers file billing suit - CNET News

A pair of eBay members have initiated a class-action suit against the online auctioneer over a problem with the company's latest billing system.


The two eBay members filed the claim on Friday, alleging that eBay failed to address problems with a billing tool that overcharged individuals selling items on its site. In the suit, brought in California Superior Court, eBay members Robert Cerreta and Nancy Spaulding contend that the online auction host double-billed their user accounts after launching a new payment processing system in February.



According to the complaint, Cerreta and Spaulding, who hail from Florida and Ohio, respectively, were charged twice the amount they actually owed eBay for handling auctions of goods they were selling. The eBay users assert that the funds were then inappropriately drawn from bank accounts and credit cards they had registered with the company. In addition, the two customers said that eBay threatened to suspend their user accounts over the disputed charges.



An eBay representative said late Wednesday that the company has yet to be officially served with the suit and declined to comment on the claims.



However, company executives have already apologized publicly for the billing issue. In mid-June, General Manager Jeff Jordan told attendees at the company's user conference that eBay had discovered the double-billing issue, fixed the problem and was in the process of addressing credit issues that had resulted from the gaffe. Jordan acknowledged in a speech that eBay had let its customers down, and he promised that the company would be more careful in launching a new search tool that is one of the company's forthcoming technological improvements.



The billing problem was first aired in the company's own online user forums. eBay's billing team eventually posted messages to the discussion area, pledging to fix the issue and help customers address any mistakes.



While neither Cerreta nor Spaulding was charged large amounts of money as a result of the glitch--each was overcharged about $20--the customers maintain that eBay's payment system also rounds up the dollar amounts it charges sellers without telling them it does so. For instance, they said, eBay now rounds a bill of $30.78 up to $30.80. Despite the fact that the system tacks on only a few cents to each transaction, the customers said the additional charges add up over time.



In the suit, Spaulding also said she was threatened with jail when she attempted to protest outside the user conference, which was held in New Orleans. A copy of the lawsuit has been published on the Web site of the law firm that the two eBay members are using, Fazio & Micheletti, of San Mateo, Calif.



In related news, eBay's PayPal unit recently reached a settlement with customers who accused the company of illegally freezing their funds. As a result, PayPal said it would pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which would go to paying its customers' legal fees. PayPal admitted no wrongdoing in settling the claims, which were filed in 2002 as part of two federal class-action suits that also alleged other customer service deficiencies.





Add a Comment (Log in or register)

Showing 1 of 3 pages (77 Comments)

prev

123next.eBay Gets Its Just Desserts

by July 6, 2004 11:20 AM PDT

I am a seller on eBay. Personally, I think eBay is free enterprise at its best. Anyone can sell just about anyhing on eBay. Nowhere else can you find such a wide variety of goods and services, all available to the highest bidder!



Unfortunately, I have also witnessed a gradual crumbling of its infrastructure. Under eBay's "new and improved" billing system, sellers who generate $15 to $20 in fees are getting bills for $200 to $300 and more. Corrections to these errors sometimes take months. The billing system has run amock. Unilateral changes in category structures have put hundreds of sellers who depend on the income generated by eBay sales out of business. The sad thing is, the sellers are getting steamrolled by corporate greed.



I wholeheartedly support the efforts of these brave individuals who are leading the way to justice for all of us. Someone has finally spoken up and said, "Enough!" My respect and admiration are tempered, however, with melancholy. It didn't have to come to this. How sad...for us all.

Like this Reply to this comment .eBay Gets Its Just Desserts

by July 6, 2004 11:20 AM PDT

I am a seller on eBay. Personally, I think eBay is free enterprise at its best. Anyone can sell just about anyhing on eBay. Nowhere else can you find such a wide variety of goods and services, all available to the highest bidder!



Unfortunately, I have also witnessed a gradual crumbling of its infrastructure. Under eBay's "new and improved" billing system, sellers who generate $15 to $20 in fees are getting bills for $200 to $300 and more. Corrections to these errors sometimes take months. The billing system has run amock. Unilateral changes in category structures have put hundreds of sellers who depend on the income generated by eBay sales out of business. The sad thing is, the sellers are getting steamrolled by corporate greed.



I wholeheartedly support the efforts of these brave individuals who are leading the way to justice for all of us. Someone has finally spoken up and said, "Enough!" My respect and admiration are tempered, however, with melancholy. It didn't have to come to this. How sad...for us all.

Like this Reply to this comment .At last - the arrogant ones get theirs!

by July 6, 2004 7:30 PM PDT

I have never purchased anything from eBay as a result of my observation of a friend's terrible experiences. The view of eBay through his e-mails showed me a company that was absurdly rude and heavy-handed, completely money (not service) focused and as rule-bound an old Soviet Comissar. I am not surprised at the experience of these two individuals who are bringing suit - the feel of this case had such a familiar ring to it. It was the same theme - eBay insisted my friend owed them money that he had already paid.



In my experience, eBay acts like a bunch of bullys who will gladly conduit online crooks into your living room for ridiculuous fees. If you have a relative who is an addicted eBayer, do him/her a favor and point them to Pricewatch - you will save them their money and dignity.

Kansas City News, Kansas City, Missouri News, Weather, and Sports - KMBC Kansas City's Channel 9

Kansas City News, Kansas City, Missouri News, Weather, and Sports - KMBC Kansas City's Channel 9

The Rocket Summer Official Website :: News

The Rocket Summer Official Website :: News

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


twitter

http://twitter.com/nytimes

Internet Censorship: Is it Inevitable? wxpnews

Internet Censorship: Is it Inevitable?




The Internet has been called the last frontier of free speech, where you can say what you think without fear of repercussions. Of course, we all know that's no longer completely true - if it ever was. Most of us are aware that some countries exert heavy-handed government control over the Internet access of their citizens. The Chinese communist party (PRC) blocks web sites that express political opinions critical of the party, and even monitors what individuals do on the Internet. Dissidents have been imprisoned for signing petitions or speaking out against the government. Even such web sites as CNN, NBC and BBC News have been blocked, along with the Chinese version of Wikipedia.



Chinese search engine results are filtered, as well. If you search on a key word that is on the censored list, you get no results. Search providers must abide by the regulations to operate in China. Some of the blocked words and phrases include the Chinese forms of: democracy, dictatorship, genocide, oppression and evil. References to certain groups, events and politicians are also blocked.



A recent hacking attack on Google and other companies that was reported to have originated in China brought the censorship issue into the news. The attacks occurred in December, and in early January, Google announced that they were going to stop censoring search results on Google.cn and might even pull out of China entirely if they couldn't operate an unfiltered search service within Chinese law. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got involved.

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-China-Censorship
Vol. 10, #7 - Feb 15, 2010 - Issue #417


However, it's been a month since Google's initial announcement, and AP reports that the "Great Firewall of China" is still up and Google is still there, with their search results still being filtered. The company is apparently in negotiations with the Chinese government. Of course, all this is complicated further by the fact that China has the world's largest online population and its online advertising market is predicted to be up to $20 billion per year by 2014:

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Great-Firewall



Of course, China isn't the only country that censors the Internet; it's just the biggest. Iran uses what is called "one of the most extensive technical filtering systems in the world" to block web sites that run counter to the government's purposes - including not just the sites of political dissenters but also social networking sites such as Facebook and Flickr and many foreign blogs. Since all Internet traffic that comes into or out of Iran goes through one gateway, the Telecommunications Company of Iran, it's easy for them to monitor and block traffic, and the filtering got much more intense there after last summer's elections:

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Iran-Censorship



Although we might think of Internet censorship as something associated only with totalitarian regimes, that's not the case. Australian citizens are currently up in arms (well, figuratively) over the government's efforts to control Internet content there. The party in power reportedly is getting ready to introduce legislation to force ISPs in Australia to block web sites on a list compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Google is part of this controversy, too, having said it would not "voluntarily" comply with the government's request.

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Australias-Censorship



Of course, in a democracy like Australia - or the U.S. - censorship is carefully presented as something that must be done to protect the citizenry, most often the children. Even though the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, even here some speech is deemed to be more free than other speech. Child pornography is the most glaring example of a case where the mere act of looking at pictures can get a person thrown in prison for a long, long time - even if no real children were used in the making of those pictures. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a 2003 law that makes it a federal offense to obtain or provide sexually explicit images of children, regardless of whether the images are computer-generated. In fact, just requesting or offering such images is illegal even if no images exist.

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Child-Pornography-Law



Now we all know that pedophiles do tremendous harm to children and who can argue with curbing their rights to free speech? But does it become a slippery slope when you start making one type of speech illegal? There's another law in the making that's also designed to protect children, called the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. It would impose penalties of up to two years in prison for "coercing, intimidating, harassing or causing substantial emotion distress to a person" via electronic means (email, web boards, or other network technologies).

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Anti-Bullying



In most states, harassment is already a crime, but to rise to that level requires more than just "causing distress." After all, it doesn't take much for some people to become distressed. What if you get into a political discussion in an email group and post opinions (or even facts) that reflect negatively on a candidate or cause that another group member believes in? If what you say causes that person to feel emotionally distressed, will the feds should up at your door to carry you away? It may sound silly, but when it comes to the law, wording is very important and the wording of this one is very troubling.



I don't think anyone advocates completely free and unfettered speech on the Internet. Obviously the concept of free speech shouldn't be a defense for plagiarism or copyright infringement or libel. But those things traditionally have been considered matters for the civil courts, not the criminal justice system. If you post something I created (writing, a picture, a song) without my permission, I could sue you and get an injunction forcing you to take it down and/or get a monetary judgment against you. If you posted false statements about me that damaged my reputation, caused me to lose my job or broke up my marriage, likewise I could take you to court and get compensation for my pain and suffering.



The trend today is to make every possible undesirable behavior a crime. Because the Internet is a venue that brings together many different people from many different places, cultures, social classes and belief systems, there is the potential for a lot of undesirable behaviors. Are we to make them all criminal offenses? Aside from the obvious practical drawbacks (even greater overcrowding of jails and prisons and the high costs of processing so many criminal actions), there are sociological implications. If everything is a crime, then everyone becomes a de facto criminal. And if we turn a whole society of generally law abiding people into criminals, what does that do to respect for the law in general? And who will enforce all these new federal Internet crimes? And just how far away are we from being just like the totalitarian regimes whose censorship of thought and speech we abhor?



We may be closer than you think. Legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year that would give the White House unprecedented control over the Internet, with the power to declare a "cybersecurity emergency relating to "non-governmental computers networks" (yours and mine?) and "do what's necessary" to deal with the alleged threat.

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Control-of-Internet



That bill hasn't passed into law, but it's not dead, either. Just last week, the House passed its own cybersecurity bill, and it could be joined with the Senate bill (SB 773).

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Cybersecurity-Bill



It's something to think about. Tell us what you think about it. Is freedom of speech on the Internet (and indeed, everywhere else) long gone? Was it ever a viable concept, or just a utopian ideal that couldn't work in practice? Is it worth giving up freedom of speech to see that pedophiles and other criminals get punished? Are we creating a nation of weak children by outlawing the bullying behaviors that were once a normal part of growing up? Or is making those behaviors illegal a step in the right direction toward a more civilized society? What online behaviors should (or shouldn't) be crimes? We invite you to discuss these topics in our forum at

http://www.wxpnews.com/3CUUKK/100216-Forum-Discussion