Thursday, December 2, 2010

Football’s governing body, FIFA, today announced Russia is to host the 2018 World Cup, and Qatar is to host the 2022 World Cup. The decision was made by FIFA’s 22 executive members, who conducted a ballot in Zurich today. Russia beat England, Spain-Portugal and Holland-Belgium to host the event in 2018. The Qatar bid was picked ahead of the United States, Australia, Japan, and South Korea to stage the 2022 tournament.

Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Igor Shuvalov spoke briefly to react to his country’s victory. “You have entrusted us with the FIFA World Cup for 2018 and I can promise, we all can promise, you will never regret it. Let us make history together,” he said. Some analysts had suggested that Russia would not win the right to host the tournament, since Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had decided not to travel to Zurich, but remained in Moscow. FIFA President Sepp Blatter said of Russia: “I am sure that to organise the World Cup in that region, or that continent, it will do a lot of good for this part of the world.”

Russia captain Andrey Arshavin said he was “very, very happy” with the result. “It is going to have a huge impact in sports, in our economy, in the development of the country and even in politics. The influence of football in the world is huge. You can see that even today with the presentations and those who were making them,” he said. “It’s going to be the best World Cup in history because Russians are so hospitable. I hope it will change the way that Europe and the world view Russia—and hopefully change the opinion of Russian people too.”

Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruling Emir of Qatar, praised FIFA for “believing in change”. Al Thani, who was in Zurich for the announcement, added: “We have worked very hard over past two years to get to this point. Today we celebrate, but tomorrow, the work begins. We acknowledge there is a lot of work for us to do, but we also stand by our promise that we will deliver.” Qatar urged FIFA to take “a bold gamble” by hosting the event in the Middle East for the first time. While only 1.7 million people live in Qatar, the bid representatives said that football is popular there. It was thought that there may be concerns that the extreme heat in Qatar would put the delegates off. Hassan Al-Thawadi, the chief executive of the bid, played down the fears. “We know it would be a bold gamble and an exciting prospect but with no risk,” he said. “Heat is not and will not be an issue.”

“Everyone is celebrating in the Middle East; everyone was behind us since the very beginning. They believed in us the whole way. And I’m so glad FIFA believed in us as well,” Al Thani added. “I’m speechless, but very proud and happy. I’m so proud that the Middle East was recognised by FIFA. We are so privileged to have a tournament like this coming to our region for the first time. It shows the value of FIFA and what it stands for as an organisation. As I promised, we will not let FIFA down. Everything we have promised until now will become a reality.” Speaking about why Qatar won the bid, he said: “What made us different is that we pushed the boundaries; we created new concepts, things which were not conventional but still very possible, very realistic for a country like ours. Therefore we are very proud to represent a new era, a new age for FIFA to look towards the future—the World Cup is for everyone.

There was disappointment in the countries which were beaten by Russia and Qatar. “Naturally we are hugely disappointed. At the same time we gave it our best shot,” said England ambassador Gary Lineker. “It was very well presented by our bid team. All you can do is wish Russia well and hope they have a really good World Cup but I wish it was us.” A journalist in Spain reported that there was “bitter disappointment here amongst Spanish fans,” and added that the economic crisis in the country may have been to blame. American supporters watching on large screens in Washington, D.C. were, when it was announced Qatar had won, “simply stunned—no booing or tears, but disbelief; and then a minute later, every face shows honest disappointment,” a BBC correspondent said.

The managing director for the Spain-Portugal joint bid, Miguel Angel Lopez, commented on losing out to Russia. “FIFA thought it was better to promote football in other latitudes and there we are,” he said. “The decision is focused on taking football to regions which have never held a World Cup.” Former Belgian footballer Marc Wilmots said: “Russia is a political choice and Qatar is an economic choice. You can say that to some extent the sport has been the loser with the decision for these two World Cups.”

Howard Stringer, Japan’s bid chairman and CEO of Sony said: “We had it in 2002—that was too big a mountain to climb. I was hoping we could get Japan another mission—the chance to do something spectacular in technology for society.” The vice-president of the Japan Football Association Kuniya Daini added: “We had heard people say our bid was too soon so it’s possible that was the reason. We knew it would be tough but it’s still a big disappointment. We have set a target of hosting the World Cup alone by 2050 so we will be bidding again.” The Australian Sports Minister Mark Arbib told local media: “We’re all pretty shattered over here. It was a bit unexpected because we thought we had run a first-class campaign to win. We did our best … unfortunately it wasn’t the case.”

Making the announcement, Blatter said: “We have had four bidders for 2018 and we can have only one winner. Three of the bidding associations must go home saying ‘what a pity’. But they must say football is not only by winning but football is also a school of life where you learn to lose. That’s not easy.” The 2010 World Cup was held earlier this year in South Africa, and Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup. When the bids for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments were announced in March 2009, Blatter praised the number of countries who wanted to host. “We are very pleased about the fantastic level of interest in our flagship competition, with all initial bidders confirming their candidature.”

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Today, it was announced that Syd Barrett, the founding member of British rock band Pink Floyd died from a complication with diabetes. According to a Pink Floyd spokeswoman, he died days earlier (July 7) but the announcement was withheld. “He died peacefully at home. There will be a private family funeral in the next few days,” said his brother Alan Barrett. “The band are naturally very upset and sad to learn of Syd Barrett’s death. Syd was the guiding light of the early band line-up and leaves a legacy which continues to inspire,” noted a statement issued by Pink Floyd.

During 1967-1968, Syd Barrett was considered to be the main member and songwriter of Pink Floyd. However, due to mental illness, he was forced to leave the band after recording only one album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Barrett had since been a recluse. Pink Floyd recorded Wish You Were Here as a tribute following Barrett’s leave. The album features Shine On You Crazy Diamond, with lyrics explicitly about Barrett’s rise to fame and subsequent dissolution.

Friday, June 29, 2007

A car containing an large explosive device has been defused in the Haymarket, London. A second device was later found in a car park in Park Lane.

A car, a light metallic green Mercedes-Benz E Class saloon (produced 1984-1995), parked near the nightclub ‘TigerTiger’, contained petrol, gas cylinders and nails. Police described it as a “potentially viable explosive device”.

Police carried out a controlled explosion at 2:00 a.m. BST and the car has been taken to a forensic explosives laboratory for further investigation.

Eyewitnesses saw the car driving “erratically” and colliding with bins before being abandoned. An ambulance crew in the area alerted police after seeing smoke inside the car.

Deputy Assistant Police Commissioner Peter Clarke said there could have been “significant injury or loss of life”.

A meeting of COBRA, chaired by new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was held about the incident.

Police say it is too early to tell who is behind the threat. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the country faces a “serious and continued security threat” and urged people to “be vigilant at all times”.

Disruption has been caused to transport in the area with roads closed and bus routes diverted. Piccadilly Circus tube station has reopened after an earlier closure

Police are reviewing major events to be held in London over the weekend.

CBS News has reported that a message appeared on the widely used jihadist Internet forum Al-Hesbah at 8:09 a.m. June 28, saying: “Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed.” The message went on to mention the recently announced knighthood of Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie.

Following an incident at Glasgow airport, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced the elevation of the UK’s national threat level from “Severe” to “Critical”, indicating that an attack could be expected “imminently”.

Two people have been arrested in Cheshire in connection with the Glasgow International Airport attack and attempted London car bombings.

Park Lane was closed to the public due to a suspicious car parked in the underground car park beneath Hyde Park. Police, who believed the two incidents to be linked, cordoned off Park Lane and Hyde Park to allow the bomb disposal unit access to the vehicle. The car was illegally parked on Cockspur Street and was towed to the pound on Park Lane, it was then discovered that the car contained an explosive device.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

A class-action suit has been filed with the Superior court of the state of California accusing Wal-Mart of failing to ensure their suppliers’ employees work in acceptable conditions.

The suit, representing workers from six countries across four continents, conceals the identities of 17 workers from China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Swaziland and Nicaragua in addition to four Californians cited as also representing others from the state.

The complaint accuses Wal-Mart of failing to adequately police garment suppliers and ensure that workers are not kept in sweatshop conditions, and that this is in breach of their own Code of Conduct for foreign suppliers. Wal-Mart counters that they have an extensive programme to ensure suppliers adhere to their Code of Conduct; that 200 full-time inspectors are employed to check supplier factories, and 108 factories have been permanently banned as suppliers. However, this is mainly for child labor violations.

This is part of an ongoing campaign against Wal-Mart by the International Labor Rights Fund [1]; a labor rights group opposed to many of the business practices of Wal-Mart that they claim encourage unacceptable working conditions and salaries in developing countries.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Buffalo, New York — A copy has been obtained of the lawsuit filed against the City of Buffalo for allegedly fast-tracking a seven million dollar hotel proposal.

The Elmwood Village Hotel is a 72-room, seven-million-dollar hotel proposed by Savarino Construction Services Corporation and designed by architect Karl Frizlen of the Frizlen Group. Its construction would require the demolition of at least five buildings, currently at 1109-1121 Elmwood, which house several shops and residents. Although the properties are “under contract,” it is still not known whether Savarino Construction actually owns the buildings. It is believed that Hans Mobius, a resident of Clarence, New York and former Buffalo mayoral candidate, is still the owner. The hotel is expected to be a franchise of the Wyndham Hotels group.

According to official court documents, there are more defendants than previously thought. Documents state that not only Buffalo’s Common Council and Planning Board are named in the lawsuit, but also the Mayor of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown, Savarino Construction Services Corporation, Hans J. Mobius and his son Hans S. Mobius owners of the properties at stake, Pano Georgiadis, owner of Pano’s Restaurant on Elmwood, and Cendant Corporation, the parent company of Wyndham Hotels are also named in the suit.

According to the lawsuit, during the length of the trial, Savarino Construction along with their employees, Hans Mobius and his son are not allowed to make any alterations or “engage in the physical alteration” of any of the said properties, 1109-1121 Elmwood and 9999 Forest. The suit also states that the owner of 605 Forest, Pano Georgiadis is also to follow the same rule.

The suit also states that Hans Mobius, his son and employees or “agents” are not allowed to “take any step, lawful or otherwise, to terminate [the] petitioners, Nancy Pollina and Patricia Morris,” owners of Don Apparel at 1119 Elmwood “tenancies.” Although the business is owned by Pollina and Morris, they are without a lease.

Within the suit it states that the rezoning of the properties 1119-1121 Elmwood and 605 Forest, by the Common Council, from a ‘R3’ Dwelling District to a C2 commercial zone “constitutes as impermissible ‘spot-zoning'” and is “not in accord with a well-considered plan for the development of the community and is null and void.” According to the suit the courts of New York have defined spot-zoning as “the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such properties and to the detriment of other owners.” The suit also states that the proposed site for the hotel is different from the surrounding properties because none of the zoning classifications, ‘EB’ [Elmwood Avenue Business District], ‘R3’ [Dwelling District], ‘R1’ [One Family District] and ‘R2’ [Dwelling District], permit the construction and operation of a hotel.

It is alleged that Savarino Construction “failed to utilize forms obtainable from the city clerks office, failed to include an accurate map or survey showing the location of all buildings and structures and failed to include the names and addresses of each of the owners of the properties to be rezoned.”

It is also believed that recommendation in regards to [hotel] compatibility, different land uses, traffic studies, community character, population density, relations between other residents and business owners, public convenience, governmental efficiency, and achieving and maintaining a satisfied community, were to be sent to Erie County’s Planning agency and was to refer Savarino’s rezoning application and site plan to the agency, however; the lawsuit alleges that although a referral was given to Savarino, it “does not appear that the ‘full statement of such proposed action’ was forwarded to the County [Agency].”

The suit also alleges that the Common Council “failed to wait the ‘statutorily-mandated’ 30-days after the County’s Planning Agency’s receipt” of recommendations from the Council. The County’s Planning Agency replied to the recommendations, however; the Agency replied on March 27, 2006, just six days after the Council made its recommendations, falling well short of the “statutorily-mandated” thirty days. The Agency’s reply however, did not support or oppose the recommendations or hotel proposal.

Public hearings are required to be registered by the City clerk to the City Planning Board, and according to the suit, “no record” of the Public hearing on March 7, presenting the initial proposal to the public, was made within the City’s Clerk office or Planning Board.

The suit also alleges that the Common council and Planning Board also violated the State’s Environmental Quality Review Act or SEQRA and the City’s Environmental Review Ordinance by allowing the Planning Board to be the “lead agency” instead of the Common Council. A lead agency is an involved agency principally responsible for undertaking or approving an action and therefore responsible for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS is needed, according to the SEQRA regulations. The suit also states that the hotel proposal “constitutes an action under the SEQRA” because the project could “affect the environment by changing the use, appearance or condition of any natural resource or structure that requires one or more approvals from an agency or agencies” and that the Common Council and Planning Board are “obliged to comply with both the letter [recommendations] and spirit of the SEQRA review process” which include identifying the areas of environmental concerns and taking a “hard look” at them. The suit also claims that the Common Council has the “sole authority to grant Savarino Construction’s rezoning request” and “to approve the special development plan,” but it also claims that the Planning Board is “an involved agency” but that it is “clearly subordinate to that of the Common Council” therefore the decision made by both the Council and Planning Board to allow the Planning Board to be the ‘lead agency,’ is in “violation” of the State’s SEQRA and “renders all determinations” made by the Planning Board and Common Council on March 14, 21, and 28, 2006, “void and unauthorized.” It goes on to say that the Council “proceeded without or in excess of their jurisdiction, and/or made a determination in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, and/or in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” It also states that unless the requirements of the SEQRA are met, then the petitioners have the right to “seek a temporary restraining order” from the Court if circumstances require it.

The suit also states that a failure to grant a preliminary injunction, through the courts, will result in “irreparable injury” to the petitioners and that the Council and Planing Board have failed to comply with the requirements of the SEQRA and have violated several other state laws and city codes.

So far, Savarino Construction has not responded to any calls or e-mails. District councilman Joseph Golombek also has not responded. Georgiadias was unavailable for comment.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m. on June 8, 2006 in the Supreme Court building at 50 Delaware Avenue in Buffalo, on the 8th floor, part 31.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Buffalo, New York — A three alarm fire at a house owned by John and Evelyn Bencinich, two of the initiators of a lawsuit filed against the Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, required firefighters to rescue eight cats and two dogs in Buffalo, New York today.

At about 8:30 (eastern time) firefighters were called to the home on 48 Granger Place to put out a fire that had started in the basement. It quickly spread to the first floor where the main bathroom was destroyed. The fire did not spread to the second floor or attic.

Initial calls said that many animals were inside the house and firefighters quickly worked to rescue all the cats and dogs. At least one cat and one dog had to receive CPR and oxygen, but both are reported to be in stable condition. At least 3 cats are unaccounted for, but after a search of the house, the cats were not believed to have been inside at the time the fire started.

One elderly woman, Anna Bencinich, the mother of Evelyn, was rescued by neighbors who helped her from the burning house.

“There was smoke all over the house. The fire started in the basement and spread to a small portion of the first floor. Two firefighters were injured while fighting the fire and were transported to Erie County Medical Center,” said Division Fire Chief Thomas Ashe who also said that sections of the kitchen wall at the back of the house had to be torn out to stop the fire from spreading through the walls.

One firefighter is being treated for bite injuries to his face that he received while attempting to rescue a dog. The other firefighter was treated for injuries he received to his hand, which was believed to have been caused by glass or a cat scratching him. The names of the injured firefighters are not known. The injuries are said to not be life threatening.

According to witness reports, the home owners had a new water heater installed just last week, but it is not known if the fire was caused by the heater.

“We believe the fire was caused by an electrical (malfunction). An investigation is being conducted,” said Battalion Chief Joe Fahey who also added that they did not believe arson was the cause.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Victoria Wyndham was one of the most seasoned and accomplished actresses in daytime soap opera television. She played Rachel Cory, the maven of Another World‘s fictional town, Bay City, from 1972 to 1999 when the show went off the air. Wyndham talks about how she was seen as the anchor of a show, and the political infighting to keep it on the air as NBC wanted to wrest control of the long-running soap from Procter & Gamble. Wyndham fought to keep it on the air, but eventually succumbed to the inevitable. She discusses life on the soap opera, and the seven years she spent wandering “in the woods” of Los Angeles seeking direction, now divorced from a character who had come to define her professional career. Happy, healthy and with a family she is proud of, Wyndham has found life after the death of Another World in painting and animals. Below is David Shankbone’s interview with the soap diva.