Mediaboss Marketing

Wow, it's already just about halfway through June.

It seems like just yesterday that we were talking about the primary results. And, well, we are still talking about the results in a couple of races.

These include the Democratic primary in Senate District 30, where there is an update in the Word from the Maxine Velasquez campaign.

And, of course, there are still those fires that are still raging in southern New Mexico. It would be nice to have those monsoons come through -- without the lightning that, spectacular as it may be, would be very dangerous in these very dry conditions.

On to the Word:

We won on election night, they won tonight, but there is still a long way to go until the recount on June 26th," Velasquez said. "I feel confident well come out on top in the end." Yup, a recount is acomin'.

The board revoked the license for La Mesa Racetrack and Casino in Raton because developers failed to open the casino by May 2010 and didn't show they had adequate financing to complete the racetrack.

In order to cope with the influx of a younger workforce, Jeff Aronoff created D:Hive, a community and business hub in downtown Detroit that serves as a one-stop shop for young people in the city. As executive director, Aronoff assists them with job, housing and quality-of-life resources. Like many of Detroits other economic development initiatives, D:Hive, which formally launched last month, is funded primarily by a grant from a local foundation (in this case, a three-year, $1.2 million grant from the Hudson-Webber Foundation).

Foundations, supported largely by money from the once-booming auto industry, are still a mainstay in southeast Michigan.

Look, we want to end the wars now. We want to bring home our troops from Afghanistan. We want to balance the federal budget now. We need to reform entitlements now. We want to repeal the Patriot Act. We want to bring an end to the drug war. Marriage equality is a good thing," he says according to the press release. "I am socially tolerant and I am fiscally responsible. I am the average American. I want to be represented.

Go here to see the original:
Morning Word, 06-14-12

June 17, 2012, 6:42 AM PDT

Takeaway: Change a few key default settings in Word and you wont have to make the same tweaks over and over.

Word does a good job of assuming how the average user works, but some of Words default settings can be annoying and inefficient. Some users dont know they can permanently change these settings, so they continue to reset them for each new document or just struggle along. Users should consider resetting the following defaults to work more productively. Of course, there are more defaults to set; feel free to share your suggestions in the discussion below.

The default line spacing setting in Word 2007 and 2010 is 1.15, not 1, as it is in 2003. Microsoft believes 1.15 is more readable online. If youre not generating Web content, adjust the style(s) you use in Words template (Normal.dotx), as follows:

If you generate Web content or other published material, you probably have to undo Words smart quotes in favor of straight quotes. You can do so quickly enough by pressing [Ctrl]+Z, but that becomes tedious after a while and you might forget. If you use straight quotes more than smart quotes, disable smart quotes as follows:

Words paste special feature retains the source formatting. If youre pasting from foreign sources, you probably reformat it once its in your Word document. If you do this a lot, change the Paste Special default as follows:

This feature is significantly different in Word 2003. From the Tools menu, choose Options, and click the Edit tab. In the Cut And Paste section, click the Settings button to display the options shown in Figure D.

Follow this link:
10 Word defaults you can customize to work the way YOU want

WASHINGTON Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law as the "decision of the century." But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

___

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected.

The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama's law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.

Visit link:
Q&A: Supreme Court's decision on Obama's health care law unlikely to be the last word

By Jocelyn R. Uy, Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer

Catholic Church leaders on Friday expressed confidence that President Benigno Aquino III would keep his word on the full implementation of agrarian reform, but vowed to remain vigilant to make sure that land distribution to farmers is completed by 2014 as promised.

Farmers across the country, however, expressed guarded optimism, hope and skepticism over the Presidents pronouncements assuring landless tillers of the land due them.

Land reform advocate Christian Monsod meanwhile said that aside from the promise of land, the farmers are also holding on to the Presidents commitment to support their transition from tenants to owner-cultivators of the land.

Monsod, the counsel for Task Force Mapalad who represented the farmers in the Malacaang dialogue with President Aquino on Thursday, said that the farmers expect the government to comply with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program extension with reforms (Carper)s mandate that P150 billion be set aside for the implementation of land reform for five years.

Support services have suffered the most, as in the past, Monsod said in a text message to the Inquirer.

He added that it was significant that the President had committed part of the agriculture budget to farmer-beneficiaries to help their transition from tenants to owner-cultivators.

Cagayan de Oro Archbishop Antonio Ledesma said he believed that the Chief Executive would deliver on his promises to the farmers, especially now that a multisectoral monitoring body would be set up to ensure the full implementation of Carper.

There has been an instruction to form a monitoring body (and) we will closely follow this to see if President Aquinos promises would have results, Ledesma said over Church-run Radio Veritas on Friday.

The body would be composed of representatives from farmers groups, Church leaders, nongovernment organizations, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and other attached agencies involved in the implementation of Carper, said the prelate who was among the Church leaders present during the farmers dialogue with Mr. Aquino.

See more here:
Church upbeat Aquino will keep word; militant farmers wary

Rep. Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield)

LANSING (WWJ) - The Speaker of the Houses office is defending the decision to reprimanded a state lawmaker whosaid vagina during adiscussion on the House floor.

Rep. Lisa Brown, a Democrat, was told by House Republican leaders she could not participate in debate Thursday because she used the word vagina during a discussion about abortion legislation the day before.

Her words on the House floor Wednesday were: And, finally, Mr. Speaker Im flattered that youre all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.

WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick spoke with Ari Adler, press secretary for House Speaker James Bolger.

Was the use of the v-word the problem for Ms. Brown? Skubick asked.

It was the context in which it was used and the way it was used, that was the problem, said Adler.

Adler said the situation will be resolved when the chamber resumes after asummer break.

In an interview Thursday with Skubick, Brown defended her comments.

I used an anatomically correct word. I said vagina. Is there something wrong with that? Can I not say elbow? I dont see what the difference is, she said.

Excerpt from:
Office Defends Censorship: ‘Context’ Was Problem With Rep’s Use Of ‘V-Word’