Jennifer Hudson IS reportedly pregnant with David PUNK Otunga’s baby. Hudson’s pregnancy was reported in February 2009.
That night Hudson took awards as best new artist, outstanding collaboration, and best album with her self-titled CD. She reportedly also got a standing ovation.
“Now don’t start me to crying again, y’all. It’s always an honor to come home and feel welcome and to feel the love.”
But the other big chatter that night was if Hud was pregnant. Today Essence reports without confirmation from Hud or Punk that she is in fact pregnant.
Jennifer Hudson Pregnant
Bride Sues Guest Sandrina Purdum Jennifer Angevine
I do … sue you! Bride Sandrina Purdum sues her wedding guest Jennifer Angevine for ruining wedding? Sandrina Purdum’s lawsuit against Jennifer Angevine sounds a bit like another wedding lawsuit LALATE told you in 2007.
In 2007, LALATE reported on New York bride Elana Glatt who sued her wedding florist because the flowers were the wrong color. The New York bride claimed it all ruined her wedding.
Now another New York bride is suing mad again.
Sandrina and Harold Purdum got married in September last year but during the ceremony Sandrina claims Harold’s then boss and wedding guest Jennifer Angevine threw a drink on another guest and exclaimed that she slept with Harold, allegedly shouting:
“Me and Harry were good together.
“You had to ruin everything by marrying him. You f- - -ed everything up,”
Purdum is reportedly suing for slander and inflicting emotional distress and battery and her hubby says he never slept with Jennifer.
Don’t mess with New York brides! No comment by Jennifer.
Bride Sues Guest Sandrina Purdum Jennifer Angevine
In 2007, LALATE reported on New York bride Elana Glatt who sued her wedding florist because the flowers were the wrong color. The New York bride claimed it all ruined her wedding.
Now another New York bride is suing mad again.
Sandrina and Harold Purdum got married in September last year but during the ceremony Sandrina claims Harold’s then boss and wedding guest Jennifer Angevine threw a drink on another guest and exclaimed that she slept with Harold, allegedly shouting:
“Me and Harry were good together.
“You had to ruin everything by marrying him. You f- - -ed everything up,”
Purdum is reportedly suing for slander and inflicting emotional distress and battery and her hubby says he never slept with Jennifer.
Don’t mess with New York brides! No comment by Jennifer.
Bride Sues Guest Sandrina Purdum Jennifer Angevine
AAPL Apple beats Earnings expectations, shares up
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Inc posted stronger-than-expected quarterly results on strong iPhone sales, and gave a typically conservative outlook for the current quarter, which failed to dampen enthusiasm from investors.
Shares of the Mac and iPod maker rose 2.5 percent after it said on Wednesday that net profit rose to $1.21 billion, or $1.33 a share, in its fiscal second quarter ended March 28, from $1.05 billion, or $1.16 a share, in the year-ago quarter.
Analysts were expecting a profit of $1.09 a share, according to Reuters Estimates.
Revenue rose 8.7 percent to $8.16 billion, beating Wall Street's forecast of $7.96 billion.
In its always cautious outlook, Apple forecast earnings for the current quarter of 95 cents to $1.00 a share on revenue of $7.7 billion to $7.9 billion.
Wall Street was expecting current-quarter earnings of $1.12 a share on revenue of $8.3 billion.
Shares of Apple closed the regular session down 25 cents at $121.51 on the Nasdaq and rose to $124.60 in extended trading.
(Reporting by Gabriel Madway; Editing by Gary Hill)
AAPL Apple beats Earnings expectations, shares up
Shares of the Mac and iPod maker rose 2.5 percent after it said on Wednesday that net profit rose to $1.21 billion, or $1.33 a share, in its fiscal second quarter ended March 28, from $1.05 billion, or $1.16 a share, in the year-ago quarter.
Analysts were expecting a profit of $1.09 a share, according to Reuters Estimates.
Revenue rose 8.7 percent to $8.16 billion, beating Wall Street's forecast of $7.96 billion.
In its always cautious outlook, Apple forecast earnings for the current quarter of 95 cents to $1.00 a share on revenue of $7.7 billion to $7.9 billion.
Wall Street was expecting current-quarter earnings of $1.12 a share on revenue of $8.3 billion.
Shares of Apple closed the regular session down 25 cents at $121.51 on the Nasdaq and rose to $124.60 in extended trading.
(Reporting by Gabriel Madway; Editing by Gary Hill)
AAPL Apple beats Earnings expectations, shares up
Clinton warns Pakistan facing 'existential' threat
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Wednesday that Pakistan is in danger of falling into terrorist hands because of failed government policies, and called on Pakistani citizens and expatriates to voice more concern.
"I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, a nuclear-armed state," Clinton said in an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"I don't hear that kind of outrage and concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan."
In her first congressional hearing since being confirmed, Clinton told the panel the chief goal of the Obama administration's strategy is to defeat al Qaeda and prevent it from returning to Afghanistan.
Taliban militants, who implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week, have now taken control of a neighboring district 60 miles (less than 100 kilometers) from the capital, Islamabad.
Several members of Congress voiced concern about Islamic extremists gaining ground in Pakistan, including Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-California, who warned the United States cannot allow extremists to control Pakistan or operate with impunity along the border with Afghanistan.
Clinton said the international community is working closely to combat extremism in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but Pakistanis themselves need to take responsibility.
"Not only do the Pakistani government officials, but the Pakistani people and the Pakistani diaspora -- many of whom are extremely successful Americans here, in academia, businesses, the professions and so much else -- need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents, to the Taliban, to al Qaeda, to the allies that are in this terrorist syndicate," she said.
Last week, the Taliban imposed sharia law in the Swat Valley as part of a peace deal with the government, which appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance.
Clinton warns Pakistan facing 'existential' threat
"I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, a nuclear-armed state," Clinton said in an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"I don't hear that kind of outrage and concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan."
In her first congressional hearing since being confirmed, Clinton told the panel the chief goal of the Obama administration's strategy is to defeat al Qaeda and prevent it from returning to Afghanistan.
Taliban militants, who implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week, have now taken control of a neighboring district 60 miles (less than 100 kilometers) from the capital, Islamabad.
Several members of Congress voiced concern about Islamic extremists gaining ground in Pakistan, including Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-California, who warned the United States cannot allow extremists to control Pakistan or operate with impunity along the border with Afghanistan.
Clinton said the international community is working closely to combat extremism in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but Pakistanis themselves need to take responsibility.
"Not only do the Pakistani government officials, but the Pakistani people and the Pakistani diaspora -- many of whom are extremely successful Americans here, in academia, businesses, the professions and so much else -- need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents, to the Taliban, to al Qaeda, to the allies that are in this terrorist syndicate," she said.
Last week, the Taliban imposed sharia law in the Swat Valley as part of a peace deal with the government, which appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance.
Clinton warns Pakistan facing 'existential' threat
Obama misreads Cuban offer, Fidel Castro says
HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) -- President Obama misinterpreted Cuban President Raúl Castro's offer to start talks with the United States, Castro's brother Fidel said Wednesday, appearing to dismiss the U.S. leader's call for Cuba to release political prisoners.
In an essay published in state-run newspapers Wednesday, the ailing revolutionary leader said the people Washington calls political prisoners are "in the service of a foreign power that threatens and blockades our homeland."
Fidel Castro's comments come after signs of a thaw in the decades-old impasse between the United States and the communist-ruled island to its south.
Obama lifted all restrictions on visits and money transfers between American citizens and relatives in Cuba this month, while Raúl Castro said Cuba is prepared to talk with the United States about "everything -- human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners."
Speaking at a conference of inter-American and Caribbean leaders Sunday, Obama said the Cuban leader's declaration was "a sign of progress."
He added that the Cuban government could send a much clearer, more positive signal by releasing political prisoners or reducing fees charged on remittances Americans send to relatives in the country.
But Fidel Castro wrote Wednesday, "There is no doubt that the president misinterpreted Raúl's statements."
"When the president of Cuba said he was ready to discuss any topic with the U.S. president, he meant he was not afraid of addressing any issue," Castro wrote. "That shows his courage and confidence on the principles of the revolution."
He said Cuba would be willing to release prisoners held since a 2003 crackdown on dissidents if the United States would release five Cubans convicted of spying in 2001.
And he criticized Obama for not doing more to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba, imposed in 1962.
"Should we wait for so many years before his blockade is lifted?" Castro asked. "He did not invent it, but he embraced it just as much as the previous 10 U.S. presidents did."
Castro ceded power to his brother in 2006 before undergoing surgery for a still-undisclosed intestinal condition. But he remains head of the Communist Party, and his essay raises the question of who would be calling the shots in any talks with Washington.
In an essay published in state-run newspapers Wednesday, the ailing revolutionary leader said the people Washington calls political prisoners are "in the service of a foreign power that threatens and blockades our homeland."
Fidel Castro's comments come after signs of a thaw in the decades-old impasse between the United States and the communist-ruled island to its south.
Obama lifted all restrictions on visits and money transfers between American citizens and relatives in Cuba this month, while Raúl Castro said Cuba is prepared to talk with the United States about "everything -- human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners."
Speaking at a conference of inter-American and Caribbean leaders Sunday, Obama said the Cuban leader's declaration was "a sign of progress."
He added that the Cuban government could send a much clearer, more positive signal by releasing political prisoners or reducing fees charged on remittances Americans send to relatives in the country.
But Fidel Castro wrote Wednesday, "There is no doubt that the president misinterpreted Raúl's statements."
"When the president of Cuba said he was ready to discuss any topic with the U.S. president, he meant he was not afraid of addressing any issue," Castro wrote. "That shows his courage and confidence on the principles of the revolution."
He said Cuba would be willing to release prisoners held since a 2003 crackdown on dissidents if the United States would release five Cubans convicted of spying in 2001.
And he criticized Obama for not doing more to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba, imposed in 1962.
"Should we wait for so many years before his blockade is lifted?" Castro asked. "He did not invent it, but he embraced it just as much as the previous 10 U.S. presidents did."
Castro ceded power to his brother in 2006 before undergoing surgery for a still-undisclosed intestinal condition. But he remains head of the Communist Party, and his essay raises the question of who would be calling the shots in any talks with Washington.
High court asked to untangle reverse discrimination case
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority expressed varying degrees of concern Wednesday over a civil rights case brought by 20 firefighters, most of them white, who claim reverse discrimination in promotions.
The suit was filed in response to New Haven, Connecticut, officials' decision to throw out results of promotional exams that they said left too few minorities qualified.
At issue is whether the city intentionally discriminated, in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's equal protection clause.
The high court is being asked to decide whether there is a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere where an African-American occupies the White House.
As is true in many hot-button social issues, Wednesday's arguments fell along familiar ideological lines, with most justices expressing clear views on when race considerations are proper to ensure a diverse workplace.
"It looked at the results and classified successful and unsuccessful applicants by race," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, head in hand. "And you (the city) want us to say this isn't race? I have trouble with this argument."
But a ruling against the city could leave New Haven officials stuck in a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" situation, subject to lawsuits from both minority and majority employees, said Justice David Souter. It is a situation business groups and municipalities have long expressed concern about.
Key plaintiff Frank Ricci and others took promotional exams in 2003 for lieutenant and captain positions that had become available in New Haven, Connecticut's second-largest city. The personnel department contracted with a private firm to design an oral and written exam. When the results came back, city lawyers expressed concern about the results because none of the black firefighters and only one Latino who took the exam would have been promoted.
The New Haven corporation counsel refused to certify the test and no promotions were given. The record does not indicate how many firefighters took the two tests for promotion to captain and lieutenant.
The city said that under a federal civil rights law known as Title VII, employers must ban actions such as promotion tests that would have a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as a specified race or gender.
But a group of firefighters sued, calling themselves the "New Haven 20." The plaintiffs, wearing their dress blue uniforms, posed on the high court steps after the 75-minute argument. Nineteen identify themselves as white while one says he is Hispanic-white.
Inside, conservatives on the high court questioned whether the city could throw out the results of the promotion exams after they were already given.
"You had some applicants who were winners and their promotion was set aside," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Chief Justice John Roberts offered a hypothetical: "Jones, you don't get the promotion because you're white ... and they go down the list and throw out everybody who took the test. That would be all right," he asked. "They get do-overs until it comes out right. Or throw out this test, they do another test. Oh, it's just as bad, throw that one out."
Christopher Meade, arguing for New Haven, said, "The city has a duty to ensure that its process is fair for all applicants, both black and white."
Justices on the left seemed to support that view.
High court asked to untangle reverse discrimination case
The suit was filed in response to New Haven, Connecticut, officials' decision to throw out results of promotional exams that they said left too few minorities qualified.
At issue is whether the city intentionally discriminated, in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's equal protection clause.
The high court is being asked to decide whether there is a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere where an African-American occupies the White House.
As is true in many hot-button social issues, Wednesday's arguments fell along familiar ideological lines, with most justices expressing clear views on when race considerations are proper to ensure a diverse workplace.
"It looked at the results and classified successful and unsuccessful applicants by race," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, head in hand. "And you (the city) want us to say this isn't race? I have trouble with this argument."
But a ruling against the city could leave New Haven officials stuck in a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" situation, subject to lawsuits from both minority and majority employees, said Justice David Souter. It is a situation business groups and municipalities have long expressed concern about.
Key plaintiff Frank Ricci and others took promotional exams in 2003 for lieutenant and captain positions that had become available in New Haven, Connecticut's second-largest city. The personnel department contracted with a private firm to design an oral and written exam. When the results came back, city lawyers expressed concern about the results because none of the black firefighters and only one Latino who took the exam would have been promoted.
The New Haven corporation counsel refused to certify the test and no promotions were given. The record does not indicate how many firefighters took the two tests for promotion to captain and lieutenant.
The city said that under a federal civil rights law known as Title VII, employers must ban actions such as promotion tests that would have a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as a specified race or gender.
But a group of firefighters sued, calling themselves the "New Haven 20." The plaintiffs, wearing their dress blue uniforms, posed on the high court steps after the 75-minute argument. Nineteen identify themselves as white while one says he is Hispanic-white.
Inside, conservatives on the high court questioned whether the city could throw out the results of the promotion exams after they were already given.
"You had some applicants who were winners and their promotion was set aside," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Chief Justice John Roberts offered a hypothetical: "Jones, you don't get the promotion because you're white ... and they go down the list and throw out everybody who took the test. That would be all right," he asked. "They get do-overs until it comes out right. Or throw out this test, they do another test. Oh, it's just as bad, throw that one out."
Christopher Meade, arguing for New Haven, said, "The city has a duty to ensure that its process is fair for all applicants, both black and white."
Justices on the left seemed to support that view.
High court asked to untangle reverse discrimination case
In Canada Afghanistan not forgotten
(CNN) -- Afghanistan has been called "the forgotten war" but for Canadians, it is the war.
As U.S. troops begin increased deployments to Afghanistan, the United States can look to its northern neighbor for insights on the frontlines and the home front.
Canada's involvement began in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "There was a feeling in Canada that it had to be done," said Alan Henrikson, a professor of diplomatic history at Tufts University.
Canadian forces increased their numbers in 2006. And last year, following a national debate, the Canadian government extended the mission -- which was to end this February -- until the end of 2011.
More than 2,800 Canadian troops and dozens of civilians are currently in Afghanistan. Most of them are based in the Kandahar province in the southern part of the country, home to some of the worst violence and instability. At least 117 Canadian troops have been killed in Afghanistan as of Wednesday. Canada has had no troops in Iraq.
Afghanistan is the largest recipient of development aid from Canada. According to the government, Canada will have authorized $1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan from 2002 through 2011.
"Relative to other involvements of Canada around the world, it's an enormous commitment," Henrikson said. "It is proportionally larger than the stake the United States has in Afghanistan."
But some recent polling suggests that the increasing violence and slow pace of progress are taking a toll on support for the war.
More than half -- 55 percent -- oppose having Canadian troops in Afghanistan, according to a Harris/Decima poll released in April. Forty percent support the policy.
"Afghanistan continues to be a lightning-rod for controversy among Canadians," said Jeff Walker of Harris/Decima in a statement.
In a March poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies, 48 percent of those surveyed said they'd like the bulk of Canadian troops to be withdrawn before 2011. Another 35 percent said they should be withdrawn as scheduled.
Mario Blais, godfather of a female Canadian soldier recently killed in Afghanistan, told the Canadian Press it's time to pull the troops out.
"I think she did this for absolutely nothing," Blais told the news agency. "The Russians were in Afghanistan for many years and they couldn't push them back. I ask myself what Canada is doing."
Jonathon Narvey, a founding member of the Vancouver-based Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, said this is precisely when the Canadian mission needs public support.
Arguing that the mission was consistent with Canadian foreign policy traditions, Narvey said pulling Canadian troops out of the conflict could lead to more violence and possibly a civil war.
"We're for a robust involvement, and if [Afghanistan] is going to get back on its feet after decades of war, it's only going to do so with huge international involvement. So, more, not less," he said.
The Canadian interest
Before the vote that extended the mission, the Canadian government commissioned an independent panel to study its future role in Afghanistan.
Though the report concluded that "our interests do not seem self-evident," it listed several reasons for a continuing role in Afghanistan: Global and Canadian security, preserving Canada's international reputation and the "well-being of some of the world's most impoverished and vulnerable people."
The policy's philosophical foundation lies in Canada's sense of responsibility to the international community, some observers say.
As U.S. troops begin increased deployments to Afghanistan, the United States can look to its northern neighbor for insights on the frontlines and the home front.
Canada's involvement began in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "There was a feeling in Canada that it had to be done," said Alan Henrikson, a professor of diplomatic history at Tufts University.
Canadian forces increased their numbers in 2006. And last year, following a national debate, the Canadian government extended the mission -- which was to end this February -- until the end of 2011.
More than 2,800 Canadian troops and dozens of civilians are currently in Afghanistan. Most of them are based in the Kandahar province in the southern part of the country, home to some of the worst violence and instability. At least 117 Canadian troops have been killed in Afghanistan as of Wednesday. Canada has had no troops in Iraq.
Afghanistan is the largest recipient of development aid from Canada. According to the government, Canada will have authorized $1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan from 2002 through 2011.
"Relative to other involvements of Canada around the world, it's an enormous commitment," Henrikson said. "It is proportionally larger than the stake the United States has in Afghanistan."
But some recent polling suggests that the increasing violence and slow pace of progress are taking a toll on support for the war.
More than half -- 55 percent -- oppose having Canadian troops in Afghanistan, according to a Harris/Decima poll released in April. Forty percent support the policy.
"Afghanistan continues to be a lightning-rod for controversy among Canadians," said Jeff Walker of Harris/Decima in a statement.
In a March poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies, 48 percent of those surveyed said they'd like the bulk of Canadian troops to be withdrawn before 2011. Another 35 percent said they should be withdrawn as scheduled.
Mario Blais, godfather of a female Canadian soldier recently killed in Afghanistan, told the Canadian Press it's time to pull the troops out.
"I think she did this for absolutely nothing," Blais told the news agency. "The Russians were in Afghanistan for many years and they couldn't push them back. I ask myself what Canada is doing."
Jonathon Narvey, a founding member of the Vancouver-based Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, said this is precisely when the Canadian mission needs public support.
Arguing that the mission was consistent with Canadian foreign policy traditions, Narvey said pulling Canadian troops out of the conflict could lead to more violence and possibly a civil war.
"We're for a robust involvement, and if [Afghanistan] is going to get back on its feet after decades of war, it's only going to do so with huge international involvement. So, more, not less," he said.
The Canadian interest
Before the vote that extended the mission, the Canadian government commissioned an independent panel to study its future role in Afghanistan.
Though the report concluded that "our interests do not seem self-evident," it listed several reasons for a continuing role in Afghanistan: Global and Canadian security, preserving Canada's international reputation and the "well-being of some of the world's most impoverished and vulnerable people."
The policy's philosophical foundation lies in Canada's sense of responsibility to the international community, some observers say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts (Atom)