'Birthers' still doubtful, despite proof

If President Obama's team can't connect with voters on the big issues — the economy, Bain Capital, immigration — there's always the birthers.

Whether it's Donald Trump or the Arizona secretary of state, it's clear that there are people who will never be convinced the president was born in Hawaii. Thanks to recent movements in the Republican Party, Democrats may have an opportunity to tie these nonbelievers to Mitt Romney. And that's probably just fine by the White House.

The birther "controversy" reignited this week in Arizona. There, secretary of state Ken Bennett had asked Hawaii to verify Obama's birth certificate — the long-form document that the president released last year in response to demands by reality TV host Donald Trump. A key detail: Bennett is the co-chairman of Romney's campaign in Arizona.

Hawaii told Bennett that the birth certificate was real, and Bennett, apparently satisfied, declared the matter closed.

Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney, responded by pointing to Romney's previous quotes about Obama's citizenship (Romney thinks Obama was born in the United States). But when asked if it was inappropriate for Bennett to investigate the matter altogether, Saul didn't respond.

Some liberals have parodied Bennett's effort by asking him to investigate Romney's birth certificate from Michigan. Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Bennett, said the office is considering the request.

"Right now, we are determining whether or not that's necessary, and it's under consideration," Roberts said.

Democrats also revived Trump's flirtations with birthers on Thursday, as Romney announced a contest to share a meal with the real estate mogul for a $3 donation to his campaign. Trump famously crusaded against Obama's claims of citizenship last year, creating a media frenzy that led the president to put his long-form birth certificate online for everyone to see.

"Once again Mitt Romney is failing the moral leadership test," Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said in a statement. "Instead of rejecting Donald Trump's 'birther' conspiracy theories and divisive attacks, he's endorsing them by campaigning and fundraising with him. Romney has shown time and again that he's not ready to have his John McCain 2008 type moment by speaking out against these types of attacks against the President. This type of false and extremely divisive rhetoric has no place in the political discourse of our country and Mitt Romney should stand up against it instead of standing with Donald Trump to raise money for his campaign."

Newt Gingrich has tried again to distance himself from the birther movement. Asked Thursday evening on MSNBC why some Republicans continue to beat the birther drum, Gingrich smiled and said, "Beats me."

A rash of so-called birther bills have swept across the country in the past couple of years in nearly a dozen state legislatures, sponsored by Republicans who wanted proof that Obama is American-born before his name is allowed on the ballot.

View the original article here

Despite growth, still millions of Facebook holdouts

  ANICK JESDANUNNEW YORK -- Don't try to friend MaLi Arwood on Facebook. You won't find her there.

You won't find Thomas Chin, either. Or Kariann Goldschmitt. Or Jake Edelstein.

More than 900 million people worldwide check their Facebook accounts at least once a month, but millions more are Facebook holdouts.

INTERACTION: WHAT ARE POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF FACEBOOK?

They say they don't want Facebook. They insist they don't need Facebook. They say they're living life just fine without the long-forgotten acquaintances that the world's largest social network sometimes resurrects.

They are the resisters.

"I'm absolutely in touch with everyone in my life that I want to be in touch with," Arwood says. "I don't need to share triviality with someone that I might have known for six months 12 years ago."

Even without people like Arwood, Facebook is one of the biggest business success stories in history. The site had 1 million users by the end of 2004, the year Mark Zuckerberg started it in his Harvard dorm room. Two years later, it had 12 million. Facebook had 500 million by summer 2010 and 901 million as of March 31, according to the company.

That staggering rise in popularity is one reason why Facebook Inc.'s initial public offering is one of the most hotly anticipated in years. The company's shares are expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market on Friday under the ticker symbol "FB". Facebook is likely to have an estimated market valuation of some $100 billion, making it worth more than Kraft Foods, Ford or Disney.

Facebook still has plenty of room to grow, particularly in developing countries where people are only starting to get Internet access. As it is, about 80 percent of its users are outside U.S. and Canada.

But if Facebook is to live up to its pre-IPO hype and reward the investors who are clamoring for its stock this week, it needs to convince some of the resisters to join. Two out of every five American adults have not joined Facebook, according to a recent Associated Press-CNBC poll. Among those who are not on Facebook, a third cited a lack of interest or need.

If all those people continue to shun Facebook, the social network could become akin to a postal system that only delivers mail to houses on one side of the street. The system isn't as useful, and people aren't apt to spend as much time with it. That means fewer opportunities for Facebook to sell ads.

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, says that new communications channels - from the telephone to radio, TV and personal computers - often breed a cadre of holdouts in their early days.

"It's disorienting because people have different relationships with others depending on the media they use," Rainie says. "But we've been through this before. As each new communications media comes to prominence, there is a period of adoption."

Len Kleinrock, 77, says Facebook is fine for his grandchildren, but it's not for him.

"I do not want more distractions," he says. "As it is, I am deluged with email. My friends and colleagues have ready access to me and I don't really want another service that I would feel obliged to check into on a frequent basis."

Kleinrock says his resistance is generational, but discomfort with technology isn't a factor.

After all, Kleinrock is arguably the world's first Internet user. The University of California, Los Angeles professor was part of the team that invented the Internet. His lab was where researchers gathered in 1969 to send test data between two bulky computers -the beginnings of the Arpanet network, which morphed into the Internet we know today.

"I'm having a 'been-there, done-that' feeling," Kleinrock says. "There's not a need on my part for reaching out and finding new social groups to interact with. I have trouble keeping up with those I'm involved with now."

Thomas Chin, 35, who works at an advertising and media planning company in New York, says he may be missing out on what friends-of-friends-of-friends are doing, but he doesn't need Facebook to connect with family and closer acquaintances.

"If we're going to go out to do stuff, we organize it (outside) of Facebook," he says.

Some people don't join the social network because they don't have a computer or Internet access, are concerned about privacy, or generally dislike Facebook. Those without a college education are less likely to be on Facebook, as are those with lower incomes. Women who choose to skip Facebook are more likely than men to cite privacy issues, while seniors are more likely than those 50-64 years old to cite computer issues, according the AP-CNBC poll.

About three-quarters of seniors are not on Facebook. By contrast, more than half of those under 35 use it every day.

The poll of 1,004 adults nationwide was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications May 3-7 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Steve Jones, a professor who studies online culture and communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says many resisters consider Facebook to be too much of a chore.

"We've added social networking to our lives. We haven't added any hours to our days," Jones says. "The decision to be online on Facebook is simultaneously a decision not to be doing something else."

Jones says many people on Facebook try to overcome that by multitasking, but they end up splitting their attention and engaging with others online only superficially.

Arwood, 47, a restaurant manager in Chicago, says she was surprised when colleagues on an English-teaching program in rural Spain in 2010 opted to spend their breaks checking Facebook.

"I spent my time on break trying to learn more about the Spanish culture, really taking advantage of it," she says. "I went on walks with some of the students and asked them questions."

Kariann Goldschmitt, 32, a music professor at New College of Florida in Sarasota, Fla., was on Facebook not long after its founding in 2004, but she quit in 2010. In part, it was because of growing concerns about her privacy and Facebook's ongoing encouragement of people to share more about themselves with the company, with marketers and with the world.

She says she's been much more productive since leaving.

"I was a typical user, on it once or twice a day," she says. "After a certain point, I sort of resented how it felt like an obligation rather than fun."

Besides Facebook resisters and quitters, there are those who take a break. In some cases, people quit temporarily as they apply for new jobs, so that potential employers won't stumble on photos of their wild nights out drinking. Although Facebook doesn't make it easy to find, it offers options for both deleting and suspending accounts.

Goldschmitt says it takes effort to stay in touch with friends and relatives without Facebook. For instance, she has to make mental notes of when her friends are expecting babies, knowing that they have become so used to Facebook "that they don't engage with us anymore."

"I'm like, 'Hmmm, when is nine months?' I have to remember to contact them since they won't remember to tell me when the baby's born."

Neil Robinson, 54, a government lawyer in Washington, says that when his nephew's son was born, pictures went up on Facebook almost immediately. As a Facebook holdout, he had to wait for someone to email photos.

After years of resisting, Robinson plans to join next month, mostly because he doesn't want to lose touch with younger relatives who choose Facebook as their primary means of communication.

But for every Robinson, there is an Edelstein, who has no desire for Facebook and prefers email and postcards.

"I prefer to keep my communications personal and targeted," says Jake Edelstein, 41, a pharmaceutical consultant in New York. "You're getting a message that's written for you. Clearly someone took the time to sit down to do it."

---
Associated Press Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius in Washington contributed this report.

---
Get Eyewitness News Delivered

Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters | Text Alerts

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more Science & Technology »

facebook, science & technology

View the original article here

House OKs cybersecurity bill despite veto threat

  DONNA CASSATAWASHINGTON -- The House ignored Obama administration objections Thursday and approved legislation aimed at helping stop electronic attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure and private companies.

On a bipartisan vote of 248-168, the GOP-controlled House backed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which would encourage companies and the federal government to share information collected on the Internet to prevent electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments and terrorists.

"This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said after more than five hours of debate.

More than 10 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, proponents cast the bill as an initial step to deal with an evolving threat of the Internet age. The information sharing would be voluntary to avoid imposing new regulations on businesses, an imperative for Republicans.

The legislation would allow the government to relay cyber threat information to a company to prevent attacks from Russia or China. In the private sector, corporations could alert the government and provide data that could stop an attack intended to disrupt the country's water supply or take down the banking system.

The Obama administration has threatened a veto of the House bill, preferring a Senate measure that would give the Homeland Security Department the primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity and the authority to set security standards. That Senate bill remains stalled.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the administration's approach was misguided.

"The White House believes the government ought to control the Internet, government ought to set standards and government ought to take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity," Boehner told reporters at his weekly news conference. "They're in a camp all by themselves."

Faced with widespread privacy concerns, Rogers and Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland, the Intelligence panel's top Democrat, pulled together an amendment that limits the government's use of threat information to five specific purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of national security.

The House passed the amendment, 410-3.

The White House, along with a coalition of liberal and conservative groups and some lawmakers, strongly opposed the measure, complaining that Americans' privacy could be violated. They argued that companies could share an employee's personal information with the government, data that could end up in the hands of officials from the National Security Agency or the Defense Department. They also challenged the bill's liability waiver for private companies that disclose information, complaining that it was too broad.

"Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity," a coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union and former conservative Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., wrote lawmakers Thursday.

Echoing those concerns were several Republicans and Democrats who warned of potential government spying on its citizens with the help of employers.

"In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single American using the Internet. It would create a 'Wild West' of information sharing," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: "Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."

Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued that the bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private emails or close a website. It urges companies that share data to remove personal information.

"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill," Rogers said.

Among the amendments the House approved was one by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., that put certain personal information off limits: library, medical and gun sale records, tax returns and education documents.

"I don't know why the government would want to snoop through library records or tax returns to counter the cybersecurity threat," Amash said. The House approved his amendment, 415-0.

Trumping any privacy concerns were the national security argument, always powerful in an election year, and Republicans' political desire to complete a bill that would then force the Democratic-led Senate to act.

The administration backs a Senate bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that gives Homeland Security the authority to establish security standards.

However, that legislation faces opposition from senior Senate Republicans.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a hearing last month that the Homeland Security Department is "probably the most inefficient bureaucracy that I have ever encountered" and is ill-equipped to determine how best to secure the nation's essential infrastructure. McCain has introduced a competing bill.

---
GET THE LATEST NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEWS FROM ABCNEWS.COM

---
Get Eyewitness News Delivered

Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters | Text Alerts

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more U.S. & World News »

barack obama, u.s. & world news

View the original article here

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

  Eyewitness NewsHONOLULU -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S.

allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

This week, Iran warned that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz - a vital Persian Gulf waterway. But on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off that threat when a commander of its Revolutionary Guard said such discussion is a thing of the past and "belongs to five years ago."

Iran also said Saturday that it had proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with the U.S. and other world powers.

The invitation would come after the U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

---
GET MORE POLITICAL NEWS FROM ABCNEWS.COM

---
Get Eyewitness News Delivered

Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters | Text Alerts

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more Politics & Elections »

barack obama, politics & elections

View the original article here

More drivers texting at wheel, despite state bans

  By JOAN LOWYWASHINGTON -- For all the criticism and new legal bans, texting by drivers just keeps increasing, especially among younger motorists.

About half of American drivers between 21 and 24 say they've thumbed messages or emailed from the driver's seat. And what's more, many drivers don't think it's dangerous when they do it - only when others do.

A national survey, the first government study of its kind on distracted driving, and other data released Thursday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration underscore the difficulty authorities face in discouraging texting and cellphone talking while driving.

At any given moment last year on America's streets and highways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a hand-held electronic device, the safety administration said. And those activities spiked 50 percent over the previous year, even as states rush to ban the practices.

Last month, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to forbid texting while driving.

In 2010 there were an estimated 3,092 deaths in crashes affected by a wide range of driver distractions, from eating meals to thumbing email, the safety administration said. That number was derived using a new methodology aimed at getting a more precise picture of distracted driving deaths and can't be compared to tallies from previous years, officials said.

The agency also takes an annual snapshot of drivers' behavior behind the wheel by staking out intersections to count people using cellphones and other devices, as well as other distracting behavior.

While electronic gadgets are in ever greater use by drivers, motorists are deeply conflicted about it, a NHTSA survey of over 6,000 drivers found.

Most said they would answer a cellphone call while driving and continue to drive after answering. And nearly two of 10 acknowledged sending texts or emails from behind the wheel. That spiked up to half of drivers 21 to 24 years old.

More than half of drivers said making a cellphone call made no difference to their driving performance, and a quarter said texting or emailing made no difference. But 90 percent said that when they are passengers they feel very unsafe if the driver is texting or emailing.

Indeed, big majorities of drivers surveyed support bans on hand-held cellphone use and texting while driving - 71 percent and 94 percent, respectively. And most said they want people who violate the bans to be punished with fines of $100 or more. Almost a quarter supported fines in the $200 to $499 range.

"Everyone thinks he or she is an above average driver - it's all the nuts out there who need educating," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

About twice as many drivers reported answering incoming calls as making calls while driving, 71 percent to 41 percent. And more drivers reported reading than sending texts or emails.

There were very few situations in which drivers said they would never talk on the phone or send texts. Bad weather was the most frequent reason cited. Few drivers said they would never place a call or send a message if they'd seen a police officer, had a child on board or were driving at nighttime or in a marked school zone.

The survey results "help us understand why some people continue to make bad decisions about driving distracted," NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said. "But what's clear from all of the information we have is that driver distraction continues to be a major problem."

The increase in texting while driving came even though many states have banned the practice, and that's alarming, said Jonathan Adkins, a spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association.

"It is clear that educational messages alone aren't going to change their behavior," Adkins said. "Rather, good laws with strong enforcement are what is needed. Many drivers won't stop texting until they fear getting a ticket."

The safety administration reported earlier this year that pilot projects in Syracuse, N.Y., and Hartford, Conn., produced significant reductions in distracted driving by combining stepped-up ticketing with high-profile public education campaigns.

Before and after each enforcement wave, NHTSA researchers observed cellphone use by drivers and conducted surveys at drivers' license offices in the two cities. They found that in Syracuse, hand-held cellphone use and texting declined by a third. In Hartford, there was a 57 percent drop in hand-held phone use, and texting behind the wheel dropped by nearly three-quarters.

However, that was with blanket enforcement by police.

"The key measure of all this is, do these restrictions reduce crashes? So far, there is no evidence that crashes are reduced when cellphone and texting restrictions are implemented," Rader said.

But safety advocates are pushing for a national ban on texting while driving. A bill introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., would cut back highway funds to states that fail to enact a ban.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has also advocated a national ban.

Overall, 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in the United States in 2010, a nearly 3 percent drop and the lowest number since 1949. Traffic deaths have been declining for several years. Safety researchers generally attribute the lower deaths to a decline in driving because of the poor economy combined with better designed and equipped cars and stronger safety laws.

Bucking the trend, there were 4,502 motorcycle deaths in 2010, a 0.7 percent increase. That may mean the sudden 16 percent decline in motorcycle deaths in 2009 is beginning to reverse. Overall, motorcycle deaths have doubled since 1995.

---
GET THE LATEST NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEWS FROM ABCNEWS.COM

(Copyright ©2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more U.S. & World News »

u.s. & world news

View the original article here