WASHINGTON — Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress believe they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century.
In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers — instead of looking to employers for health insurance — would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.
Elements of that approach have been on the conservative agenda for years, but what has suddenly put it on the fast track is GOP confidence that the political balance of power has changed.
With Democratic strength reduced, President Bush (news - web sites), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) are pushing for action.
Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills. Also, they say, the lower premiums on high-deductible plans would make coverage affordable for the uninsured and for small businesses.
"My view is that this is absolutely the next big thing," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose consulting firm focuses on healthcare. "You are going to see a continued move to trying to get people involved in the process by owning their own health accounts."
Critics say the Republican approach is really an attempt to shift the risks, massive costs and knotty problems of healthcare from employers to individuals. And they say the GOP is moving forward with far less public attention or debate than have surrounded Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security (news - web sites).
...........................
A study released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that supports research on healthcare policy, found that people with high-deductible policies were more likely to have trouble paying medical bills than those in traditional insurance plans. They were also more likely to skip care because of cost.
The study did not look at the combination of high-deductible plans with HSAs, but the report cautioned that the savings accounts might not solve all the problems.
Many experts believe HSAs could quickly become one of the main ways to obtain health insurance for people working in small companies or buying coverage on their own.
Workers at large companies with standard health plans may be less likely to experiment with HSAs, although many large employers are already requiring their workers to shoulder a bigger share of health insurance costs. The existence of a government-sanctioned alternative to the traditional system might accelerate that trend.
"We are not trying to do one big change for the whole country, all at once — like what sunk Hillary-care," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization that promotes conservative, market-based health reform.
"We want to let people choose this if it meets their needs, and not rip out the underpinnings of the current system."
But even the most ardent backers of HSAs concede that the country is not fully ready for them. They say critics such as Stark are correct to point out that there is little information available to consumers for comparing the costs of various medical options.
In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites), Frist called for what would amount to a healthcare information revolution. Within the next decade, he said, patients should be able to gain online access to performance rankings and prices for doctors and hospitals.
"Increased access to more accurate information about care and pricing will make possible … the transformation of the healthcare system," Frist wrote. "Whether selecting their physician, hospital or health plan, consumers must be able to choose what best meets their needs."
A comprehensive system of healthcare information would be costly to create, and perhaps challenging for patients to navigate. On Thursday, Bush proposed some initial steps, such as computerized medical records and standardized information technology for medical offices.
His vision of an empowered patient calling the shots may stand little chance without a new information infrastructure.
Gingrich acknowledged: "You can't have an informed marketplace in a setting where you don't have any information."
What about drug costs? This kind of insurance plan can leave people vunerable to routine, chronic illnesses and once again, shifts the risk from the employer, who can moderate it, to individuals, who cannot. Health insurance allows people to get top quality care without regard to expense. If you have a market-based system, patients will choose the cheaper option, even if is not the best one medically. People already have to beg for expesnive care. Without some kind of universal, federally-run health care system, we will just make these problems worse. The US is the only western country where health care is not a fundamwental right of residency. Instead of creating an incentive for preventative care, this is designed to drive people even further away from treatment.
Why doesn't Congress try this first, and tell us how it works.
Any plan which relies upon people saving money, in a society where many workers already have to forgo company health insurance because they can't afford the plans, is aksing for a disaster. Any discussion of savings should start with "Americans have $8000 in credit card debt".
The Houston Chronicle August 29, 1999, Sunday 4 STAR EDITION
History gives lie to myth of black Confederate soldiers
TRUMAN R. CLARK*
A racist fabrication has sprung up in the last decade: that the Confederacy had "thousands" of African- American slaves "fighting" in its armies during the Civil War.
Unfortunately, even some African-American men today have gotten conned into Putting on Confederate uniforms to play "re-enactors" in an army that fought to ensure that their ancestors would remain slaves.
There are two underlying points of this claim: first, to say that slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves themselves fought to preserve the slave South; and second, that the Confederacy wasn't really fighting for slavery. Both these notions may make some of our contemporaries feel good, but neither is historically accurate.
When one speaks of "soldiers" and "fighting" in a war, one is not talking about slaves who were taken from their masters and forced to work on military roads and other military construction projects; nor is one talking about slaves who were taken along by their masters to continue the duties of a personal valet that they performed back on the plantation. Of course, there were thousands of African-Americans forced into these situations, but they were hardly "soldiers fighting."
Another logical point against this wacky modern idea of a racially integrated Confederate army has to do with the prisoner of war issue during the Civil War. Through 1862, there was an effective exchange system of POWs between the two sides. This entirely broke down in 1863, however, because the Confederacy refused to see black Union soldiers as soldiers - they would not be exchanged, but instead were made slaves (or, as in the 1864 Fort Pillow incident, simply murdered after their surrender). At that, the United States refused to exchange any Southern POWs and the prisoner of war camps on both sides grew immensely in numbers and misery the rest of the war.
....................
The war was virtually over by then, and when black Union soldiers rode into Richmond on April 3, they found two companies of black men beginning to train as potential soldiers. (When those black men had marched down the street in Confederate uniforms, local whites had pelted them with mud.) None got into the war, and Lee surrendered on April 9.
Yes, thousands of African-American men did fight in the Civil War - about 179,000. About 37,000 of them died in uniform. But they were all in the Army (or Navy) of the United States of America. The Confederate veterans who were still alive in the generations after the war all knew that and said so.
.......................
The slave South rested upon a master-race ideology, as many generations of white Southerners stated it and lived it, from the 1600s until 1865. There is an uncomfortable parallel in our century with the master- race ideology of Nazi Germany. First, millions of the men who bravely fought and died for the Third Reich were not Nazis, but they weren't exactly fighting for the human rights of Jews or gypsies. And second, yes, as was pointed out in the movie Schindler's List, many thousands of Jews did slave labor in military production factories in Nazi Germany - but that certainly didn't make them "thousands of Jewish soldiers fighting for Germany.
We can believe in the "black soldiers fighting" in the Confederate armies just as soon as historians discover the "thousands" of Jews in the SS and Gestapo.
Sure, many black people fought in the Civil War....for the Union. When Confederate General Pat Cleburne suggested using black troops, he never got another promotion.
PORTLAND, Jan 28 (Reuters) - The American Nazi Party has volunteered to pick up trash along a quiet stretch of rural road in Oregon state, causing an uproar after getting a sign placed there crediting its work.
The issue has flared up in the same week that world leaders and aging survivors gathered in the Polish town of Auschwitz to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the infamous Nazi death camp.
"American Nazi Party" reads the sign, which is part of the the "Adopt-A-Road" program, a widely promoted U.S. scheme encouraging local groups to clean up road litter in exchange for recognition on small signs.
The sign, located on a quiet stretch of road near Salem, Oregon, also lists the initials "NSM," which stands for the National Socialists Movement, another white supremacists group.
Marion County officials say there is nothing they can do about the Nazi litter pick up because barring the group from the program would violate its First Amendment free speech rights.
..............
Any group sponsoring a litter pick-up must clean the roads twice a year. They must be a recognized organization, but it is usually a Boy Scout troop or civic organization.
Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.
Respectfully,
Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired)Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas OwensRalph Peters Danielle Pletka
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg
If you ever needed a reason to cancle your TNR subscription, this is it. Why is Beinart, who must be running for the Pierre Laval seat at the Vichy Dem table, aligning himself with the warmongers who started this mess. Does he think this will make him tough? Well, he's still young enough to actually enlist. So I say we should encorage him. It would interesting if military recruiters got his e-mail address and office number. I mean, if he thinks the Army should be expanded, well, let him help expand it.
I thought this was some kind of joke until I saw Atrios post it up.
Now that it isn't, well, it's time to let Peter "Pierre Laval" Beinart how we feel about his armchair warrior status.
www.usmc.mil
www.army.mil
Why we know he's going to volunteer for infanty officer training, right? Straight to Benning or Lejune for him.
Make sure that he recruiters know he's ready, willing and able to serve his country in Iraq.
Nowadays soldiers are considered pros who signed up to fight for our country, so they should shut up, suck it up and do what they’re being underpaid to do.
When I discussed this national shame with Lt. Col. Roger Charles, USMC (Ret.) and President of Soldiers For The Truth, he told me “Hack, you’ve only got it half right.”
Then he gave me the hot skinny that his organization has been studying what’s really going down with Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) in order to inform the American public and the U.S. Congress and hopefully cause change. “Combat pay is a misnomer. Today there’s no such thing as combat pay if you’re talking about extra pay that goes to those who actually trade rounds with the bad guys. Military personnel who serve in cushy posts hundreds of miles from Afghanistan and Iraq earn the same amount as those who kick in doors in Fallujah or drive fuel trucks through RPG Alley and IED Boulevard between Mosul and Baghdad.”
So I made a few phone calls. And sure enough, the guys living the good life in places like Kuwait and Qatar – for example that bronzed, handsome lifeguard saving lives at the base pool – get the same $7.50 a day as our heroes facing the bear on the mean streets of Iraq and in the treacherous mountains of Afghanistan.
A soldier’s father reports that his son and his buddies – just back from Afghanistan – became very bitter when they went on R&R in Qatar and talked to Joes and Jills inside a fortress-like base so safe that soldiers are not authorized to carry individual weapons. And these lucky stiffs living in a relative paradise were also drawing combat pay!
Another loophole creates an even more gross inequity: senior officers – read generals and colonels – regularly fly into Afghanistan and Iraq on monthly 48-hour useless VIP visits in order to both collect their combat pay for the entire month and rack up tax breaks that can run almost seven grand a month. Not bad double-headers for Perfumed Princes who can barely tell a foxhole from a bidet.
“The problem of our paying an equitable combat pay is the Pentagon’s bottom line,” says DefenseWatch Editor Ed Offley (SFTT.ORG). “Two years ago the ink hadn’t dried on the last Imminent Danger Pay increase when the Pentagon bean-counters were hustling to cut it.”
LONDON (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces could leave Iraq (news - web sites) within 18 months, Iraqi interim Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib told Britain's Channel 4 News Sunday after Iraq's election.
"I think we will not need the multi-national, foreign forces, in this country within 18 months," he said. "I think we will be able to depend on ourselves."
Election officials said turnout had been higher than expected in Sunday's elections despite attacks by insurgents bent on destroying the poll.
At least 35 people died in assaults across the country.
President Bush, under pressure to start bringing troops home after the election, has said U.S.-led forces must keep going to help the new government get its footing.
......................
Now, you have Iraqis, who except more power to be placed in their hands because of the election and a very reluctant US government.
Despite the lies about Iraqi effectiveness, we've seen exactly how effective they are today. Shut down the country, prohibit driving and they will do just fine guarding buildings.
While the media and the warbloggers cheered the election, their usual lack of perspective lets them miss the main issue, which is what happens when the Shia run the government. Allawi may have a job, but I doubt it. What is likely is that a Sistani-loyal government will take the place of the CIA stooge Allawi and then might start making demands on the US, like controlling combat operations and demanding trials in Iraqi courts`when US troops shoot Iraqis and other things the USG might not go along with. You know, like not having those death squads.
Also, the warbloggers missed the potential disaster of the Sunni non-participation. It isn't one yet, but if this is a Sunni rebellion, that was evident today. The question is if they will enter the government or attack it.
Everyone is pleasantly surprised this didn't turn into a bloodbath. But the real test was not voting, Sistani was going to get his votes, but what follows. Another thing the media glossed over was the expectation that a vote would lead to the end of the occupation. If that doesn't seem to be the case, the rebellion could grow rapidly.
There is a childish belief that "oh, the Iraqis faced down the terrorists". Well no. That's not true. Sunni turn out was abysmal and the Shia and Kurds were going vote no matter what. So the resistance laid low, as they have on other big days, only to increase the tempo of combat in the following days. The members of the assembly cannot remain anonymous forever. When they start getting killed, what then?
This is the first thing in 18 months which has gone even remotely right. The question is does it lead to peace and the end of the war or a violent reaction. John Kerry said the next few days would make all the difference. Judging from the backslapping, they don't seem to understand that.
If you're going to call a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," readers will expect some serious carrying on about race, and Thomas Woods Jr. does not disappoint. He fulminates against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, best known for forcing restaurants and bus stations in the Jim Crow South to integrate, and against Brown v. Board of Education. And he offers up some curious views on the Civil War - or "the War of Northern Aggression," a name he calls "much more accurate."
The introduction bills the book as an effort to "set the record straight," but it is actually an attempt to push the record far to the right. More than a history, it is a checklist of arch-conservative talking points. The New Deal public works programs that helped millions survive the Depression were a "disaster," and Social Security "damaged the economy." The Marshall Plan, which lifted up devastated European nations after World War II, was a "failed giveaway program." And the long-discredited theory of "nullification," which held that states could suspend federal laws, "isn't as crazy as it sounds."
It is tempting to dismiss the book as fringe scholarship, not worth worrying about, but the numbers say otherwise. It is being snapped up on college campuses and, helped along by plugs from Fox News and other conservative media, it recently soared to No. 8 on the New York Times paperback nonfiction best-seller list. It is part of a boomlet in far-right attacks on mainstream history that includes books like Jim Powell's "FDR's Folly," which argues that Franklin Roosevelt made the Depression worse, and Michelle Malkin's "In Defense of Internment," a warm look back on the mass internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
It is not surprising, in the current political climate, that liberal pieties are being challenged, and many of them ought to be. But the latest revisionist histories are disturbing both because they are so extreme - even Ronald Reagan called the Japanese internment a "grave wrong" and signed a reparations law - and because they seem intent on distorting the past to promote dangerous policies today. If Social Security contributed to the Depression, it makes sense to get rid of it now. If internment was a good thing in 1942, think what it could do in 2005. And if the 14th Amendment, which guarantees minorities "equal protection of the law," was never properly ratified - as Mr. Woods argues - racial discrimination may be constitutional after all.
The reason they have to lie about history is simple, they are on the wrong side of it. Woods is obviously a racist, since only a racist could suggest that the North attacked the South. The great flaw in the conservative movement is race. They have to redefine history to make their racist view tolerable.
So they lie and repeat those lies to justify their policies. The way to nail this crap down is to make sure that they have to defend this bullshit with real scholarship and facts. Which they cannot do.
Cooking for Engineers takes a road trip. You have to hit the links to see the pics. It's pretty nice work.
Yosemite National Park has often been called a photographer's paradise, but many visitors venturing into the Valley are unaware of the world class Ahwahnee Hotel. The Ahwahnee is not only an elegant mix of history and nature, but also has some of the finest dining in California. This week, I had the opportunity to tour their kitchen and get an inside peek as the Ahwahnee staff rushed to prepare for the Chef's Holiday Gala Dinner.
The Ahwahnee Hotel was completed in 1927 (to the tune of $1.5 million) to provide accommodations in Yosemite National Park fitting for visiting dignitaries who didn't want to "rough it". The Ahwahnee was not the first hotel constructed in Yosemite with this in mind, but it was the first designed to last. It is almost completely constructed of stone, concrete, and steel so that it would not meet the same doom as previous hotels in Yosemite - fire. The exterior facade of the Ahwahnee is constructed of poured concrete shaped and stained to resemble redwood. The only large wood construction in the hotel is the dining room which comfortably sits over three hundred.
If you're wondering about the name: The Ahwahnee name comes from the language of the Miwok Indians who lived in Yosemite Valley. They called the Valley "Ahwahnee" which many people agree means "Gaping Mouth" (although there is some disagreement about this). The Miwoks residing in Yosemite called themselves the Ahwahneechee while Miwoks residing in the Mariposa region to the south referred to them as the "Yehemite" meaning "some among them are killers". This word was most likely corrupted into the English name "Yosemite".
Throughout the month of January, the Ahwahnee Hotel features talks and demonstrations from guest chefs. The demonstrations are free on a first come, first serve basis while dining at the Gala dinner is $140 per person. Lucky for me, Tina and I happened to be vacationing in Yosemite. We decided to attend a demonstration by Josh Silvers (owner and chef of Syrah Bistro in Sonoma County, California) entitled "Romantic Dinner for Two" highlighting a New York steak, Clam Chowder, and Raspberry Chocolate Torte. Josh kept the room entertained and engaged throughout his demonstration and provided everyone a taste of the dessert.
The next day, we toured the Ahwahnee Hotel kitchen with one of the sous chefs as our guide. It was explained to us that, just recently, the Ahwahnee kitchen had it's ventilation system upgraded. Prior to the $1.5 million (yep, the upgrade cost as much as the hotel's original price tag, ignoring inflation of course) upgrade, the kitchen temperatures would fluctuate from over 100&176;F (38&176;C) in the summer to below freezing in the winter. Now the kitchens are kept at an even 65 to 70&176;F. In the photograph below you can see the extremely high ceilings of the kitchen. The original architectural design intended for the hot air to have enough room to rise above the busy kitchen. The windows at the top were the only ventilation, allowing hot air to escape and cold air to be let in. Now that air conditioning has been installed, the temperature is no longer a problem, but it does create a great deal of noise.
One man handles all the room service at the Ahwahnee, whose 123 rooms aren't all inside the main building but include cottages as well. Later, when we saw this man rushing outside with a tray, we knew someone had called room service for lunch in one of the cottages.
The refrigeration room held several refrigerator chambers side by side (I counted four from where I stood, but was told there were more). The chambers were designed to allow air circulation between each one to promote even cooling. Prior to the availability of condenser units, at the beginning of each winter, the hotel staff would go out to Mirror Lake (about 1.5 miles away) and cut 500 pound (225 kg) blocks of ice from the frozen lake. These blocks would be hauled back to the hotel and stored under straw and sawdust. When the refrigerators needed "refilling", the blocks were lifted by a winch and slid into these doorways situated above each chamber. Each of these doorways led to compartments big enough for ten 500-pound blocks of ice.
The ice is no longer used and condensers take their place, but one of the original refrigerator doors is still in use. (The others have been replaced with modern insulated doors.) This door is most likely filled with sawdust for insulation and in the photo below, it's easy to see just how thick the door is.
All the bread in the hotel is prepared in the only remaining original oven. The oven, getting close to eighty years old, is (according to the head baker) the most accurate and precise oven in the facility and beats all the new convection and conventional ovens. However, a sign hanging on the oven asks politely that you "Never Turn Off This Oven". The baker says it takes anywhere from four to six hours for the oven to heat up, so they don't turn it off. When asked if the heating elements will ever wear out through the constant use, the baker responded after a pause: "I don't think they'll wear out."
The pastry chef at the Ahwahnee is excellent, but she often finds that many people want to bring in their own cakes for weddings (which the Ahwahnee hosts about 300 per year). More often than not, these wedding cakes have fallen over or been crushed while been brought up to Yosemite over winding and bumpy roads. Sometimes, the cakes can be fixed, but other times the pastry department goes into overdrive to create a brand new cake. Should have ordered the cake from the Ahwahnee in the first place... Below, an assistant prepares pastry dough for the evenings countless pies.
The thing about computers is that they are unpredictable. No matter the brand or the company, they break down.
I could have bought an iBook today, if I wanted to convert my software. But this isn't a Mac/PC issue, it was probably a power supply issue, and Macs have them crap out as well. So unless Apple has unbreakable power supplies, it really didn't make much of a difference. So I bought the machine on sale. Why? It worked and was on sale. I had enough to buy any machine I wanted, thanks to you guys. Jen's call for extra money was nice, but unnecessary. I still have enough to get a white box, if I need to, which I don't. But thank you anyway. The kindness, as always, is appreciated.
So I went shopping for a new machine. I find it ironic that Jen thinks I should buy a new desktop, since her's is about to reach it's 10th anniversary sometime this spring. She's debated about getting a new TV (her's is a 13")for about a year. The thing about computers is that the more you pay, the smaller and lighter they are. You can pay $4K for one, but why? I just need to get online, play a game or two, and that's it. Nothing complex.
I got a Toshiba Satellite M35x-S161 because Comp USA had it on sale for $799 after the $150 rebate. It looked better than the Compaq at that price range, and of the three low end retail laptops you can get, Toshiba makes the best machines. None are horrible, but from the reviews I read, after the fact, it looks like a bargain.
Of course, it took four stores to find this bargain, two after dialysis. Now, some days, like some days after work, I would run home, get comfortable, watch Gilmore Girls from my bed and call it a night. But some days are better, and yesterday was one of them. So after searching Best Buy and Staples, after going to PC Richards and Circuit City earlier in the day, Needless to say, I found nothing, and spent the rest of the night watching TV, irritated. After all, it's not Groundhog Day, every day is different. Hey, it sounds scarier than it is. But like insulin or chronic pain, you learn to deal with it. I just thank God I write for a living and didn't have to quit being a cop or something. People still work on dialysis and the state will even help you find a job. I have to say that my life is 100 percent better after being sick than before. Even with dialysis and meds and the other crap which goes with any chronic illness.
The funny thing was that there was some nimord writing down the specs to the computers and squniting at them like they were naked chicks in a peep show. I wanted to slap the piss out of him for being annoying. Fucking idiot, go to a library and do some research. He probably didn't even know what he was writing down.
So today, I take the bus down 5th Avenue to CompUSA, and walk past the laptop section. I finally find it and ask the clerk to buy one. Then he tries to sell me the extended warranty.
"Do you want the two year or three year warranty?"
"None. It either works out of the box or it doesn't. It's electronics. And if it doesn't work, it's coming back"
"But that's only good for 21 days."
"No. Look, just sell me the computer, ok."
"OK".
Why the fuck would I buy a useless warranty for a new computer. Extended warranties are a scam. You pay them $100 for what? If my machine breaks, I'll pay the repairs and parts, because it's cheaper than some dumbass extended warranty. Do I look like a techphobic parent of a college freshman? Well, actually, yes, but I'm not.
Let them sell that shit to the soccer moms. I know that's their profit margin on their boxes.
Here's the difference between me and Jen, at least when it comes to buying things: I can buy a computer in five minutes. Jen will take forever. I bought my TV after a couple of trips.
Oh here's why I will never buy anything large in Best Buy: the clerks would rather talk to each other than sell you something. Great to look at, shitty to buy anything in.
The best part of the Toshiba is the wide screen 15.4". It's a real gem. It's also nice to have a new machine for the first time in my life. I've always been skeptical about new machines, but it's nice to have one. Now to load some games on this.
When I was watching CNN International, I noticed a couple of things.
One: Shia and Kurds were eager to vote to actually have a say in Iraq's future. Having never had the chance before. Sadr decided to stay home, earning chits with the Sunnis who help fund him. But omninously, the Sunni stayed home. This is a bigger deal than the TV talking dogs make it seem. The country's ruling class pretty much stayed home and their intentions cannot be read at this point.
Two: The resistance usually doesn't strike on big days, but the days after. Why ruin election day, when you made your point with the Sunnis and then why not show that the Shias cannot govern any better. The point is that they have time, elections or not.
Three: I remember saying that elections would give the Shia power. Which is what they have done. Why is anyone surprised by this?
There are two real issues which our idiot press is glossing over:
First, many of the Shia voted to get us to go home. What happens when we don't go?
Second, I saw a young Kurdish woman say to CNN's, Nic Robertson "This is my country. I voted for my country." Uh, I don't think she was talking about Iraq. I don't think that played well in Ankara. Not for a second.
I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan.
Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.
So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.
With all the hoopla, it is easy to forget that this was an extremely troubling and flawed "election." Iraq is an armed camp. There were troops and security checkpoints everywhere. Vehicle traffic was banned. The measures were successful in cutting down on car bombings that could have done massive damage. But even these Draconian steps did not prevent widespread attacks, which is not actually good news. There is every reason to think that when the vehicle traffic starts up again, so will the guerrilla insurgency.
The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen. (This is the part of the process that I called a "joke," and I stand by that.)
This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader would lead parliament.
Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country. The new parliament is unlikely to make such a demand immediately, because its members will be afraid of being killed by the Baath military. One fears a certain amount of resentment among the electorate when this reticence becomes clear.
Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it.
I. like many of the media, were surprised the bloodshed was kept to a minimum. But the hard work comes after. Which is how does the US leaves. If Sistani is forced to evict the US, what happens then.
Even the military is wondering why the resistance is lying low. Well, because they strike afterwards. There's a second act here, we need to see what it is.
Freakshow of the Century Continues--Michael Jackson Trial to Start Real Soon
So what if I admitted on national TV that I like to share a bed with little boys? Yeah, I know, this story is a cheap shot and a gimmie, but I'm short on time today, and Gilly is still presumably hunting for a functioning machine. Besides, stories like this and the Internet go together like ants and picnics.
Now, nevermind the circus tent full of other "witnesses" that they are dragging out of the woodwork. The trump card here is Jackson's own admissions--on PUBLIC TELEVISION--that he thinks that sleeping with little boys is A-OK and "innocent."
All the prosecution has to do is turn to the jury and ask them:
"Would you let YOUR child sleep overnight in Michael Jackson's bed?"
That, combined with the other material details of the case--the secret alarmed door to the Gloved One's inner chamber, the pornography, and the defendant's own bizarre taped admissions and behavior--is probably enough to convict him no matter how unwholesome or biased the "witnesses" or victims' families are.
I say that if he gets off the hook on this one, major money changed hands, and it's on the judicial side, not the victims' side.
Mission Accomplished Part II--US soldier guarding empty polling booths in Sunni region Okay, I'm not Steve and can't write in his voice, but I know that this is a story he'd want up here today. As we've all heard from US news sources, our Chimp in Chief is calling the Iraqi elections "a great success" even though exact voting turnout numbers have swung wildly, and there was a near-boycott of the election in Sunni regions, and suicide bombers left their mark as well.
Some folks are still voting with high explosives out there--maybe they shoulda served more cookies and punch at the polls, like they did in NY.
Now, even the conservative voter turnout numbers have been remarkable, but if they exclude a large part of the country, it doesn't matter who got "elected." If there was a vote in the US and a huge chunk of the country had NO ballots cast, would that be a legitimate vote?
I realize that the LGF crowd will be saying "I told you so," and to them I say, remember this?
Or here, to make them feel better, I'll give them another photo from that day--a little bit of patriotic porn, Chimp Boy all dressed up:
Hey Kids! Help me think of a caption for this picture! Use the Comments Section! I'm sure that right now, he's just grateful that he never had to do time with the guys who would spend the next odd year or so getting bits blown off.
GillyBlogOfficePool Question: How much longer will we be in Iraq "supporting the legitimate voice of the Iraqi people" by propping up whomever eventually gets "elected?" Or fighting the winner if they happen to be a Muslim extremists?
Have fun with this thread--if you can't cry, laugh.
This is sort of what my wonderful dog Cuddles looked like. Okay, while Gilly goes and un-screws-up his box, let's talk about pets.
Pets you grew up with, pets you have, pets that you have had, people you know with odd pets (or your own odd pets), etc. etc. etc.
This is a thread to talk about companion animals.
I may say more about Cuddles (a basset-beagle mix who was part of my life for almost 17 years) later in the comments, or edit this thread, but in the meantime, I need to take delivery of my Chinese food (two kinds of soup and other starchy things that will Slip Down Well) and try to keep my sinuses clear.
Take care, and hug your pet (if it's huggable) on this cold night.
When bad things happen to good computers I just got a call from Gilly--he called from his dialysis session to inform me that his Thinkpad is dead.
No nothing, no lights, no signs of life.
I told him that it was probably a blown power supply. He is adamant about not just getting a new power supply for whatever reason--he claims he'll lose time in ordering it, etc, which I disagree with, but it's his nickel.
So, tomorrow, he's probably going to go get a cheap laptop and look at desktops (also cheap) at Circuit City.
Now, if it was me, I'd get a desktop for the Blog only because they break less. Also, the Thinkpad is a good machine, and if it's just a power supply that he can put in himself, just do it. This is New York City, and if he calls around, he can get the part.
Oh, and yes, while he does have an old refurb Apple laptop, it "barely works" online.
In the meantime, please continue to keep the comment threads lively--I will not be posting much if anything, as I have a very, very bad cold and have to try to recover before a major and mandatory family event on Monday.
Oh, and if you want to donate more money to Gilly, I know he wouldn't say no to it. *grin* I just hope y'all can convice him to (for once) spend his money on a NEW box/deck, with stuff like support and warranties and stuff.
No. 4 -- MYTH: Outsourcing Is Bad for American Workers
We've been hearing a lot lately about how American workers are suffering because companies are "outsourcing" their jobs to other countries. During the presidential campaign, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told voters they were concerned about keeping jobs here at home. And CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has made complaints about outsourcing a running theme of his nightly news program.
Dobbs' new book, "Exporting America," says the government should limit free trade and immediately outlaw outsourcing of government contracts.
"Just because of cheap labor, we're destroying our middle class. That is just stupid," Dobbs said, adding, "Being stupid is un-American."
Wait a second. It's restricting outsourcing that would be un-American and stupid.
You may not like it that someone in India takes your customer service call, but outsourcing helps the middle class by bringing lower prices and faster service. Take E-Loan, for example. It gives customers a choice of whether to get their loan paperwork processed in America in 12 days or in India in 10 days. An incredible 87 percent of customers in the United States choose the faster loan processing offered by sending their paperwork to India.
............
It's true that in the last four years, America has lost more than 1 million jobs, but those were years when we had a recession. Look at the big picture. Since 1992, America has lost 361 million jobs, but during that same time we also gained 380 million jobs. Millions more than we lost.
That should be hopeful for people like Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. While it's true that they had to dig into savings and still worry about their long-term security, last year Shirley Barnard eventually found a new job as a secretary. The new position pays more than her old job at Levi's, and the Levi's work was harder -- hot, noisy and physically difficult. She says that her new job is much easier.
Her husband and some other former co-workers are still looking for work, but she told us some of her former Levi's colleagues are now working in better jobs than they had before. "Some of them have got, really got excellent jobs that they would never have even left Levi's for if the plant hadn't closed," she said.
And what happened to that Levi's plant? It's now being converted to a college. There will be new jobs for faculty and administrative staff, and right now there are construction jobs for workers building the new campus. This won't be talked about on the evening news, but these jobs are a product of outsourcing too.
Still, people like Lou Dobbs talk about the outsourcing crisis. However, in reality outsourcing is not a crisis. The crisis will only come if we try to stop it.
Well, John, that may sound rosy, but what happened to the Americans who had those call center jobs? Did they all get new jobs that paid more? And Levis paid living wages to hundreds of people. How many people will qualify for new jobs at the college and will they pay as much as Levis? See, what you forget is that outsourcing doesn't just lower prices, it lowers the standard of living of many people who counted on those jobs. No one will outsource Stossel's job, but when the middle class disappears, who will buy his idiotic books? Oh yeah, how much money did the community lose in the process?
No. 3 -- MYTH: Public Schools for Poor Kids, Not Politicians' Kids
Sadly, it's also a myth that the people who fight for public schools always send their own kids to those public schools. You'd think they would. They're so passionate about the public schools. But, no.
This is one of those do as I say, not as I do things. Politicans who promote public schools don't always send their kids to them.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has called public education the "cornerstone of our democracy." But when she and her husband lived in the White House, they sent their daughter, Chelsea, to the elite Sidwell Friends private school.
When asked about it, President Clinton told ABC News, "We had to make the decision just for our daughter."
Well, sure he did. All of us want to do that, but not everyone can afford a private school. So what do you do if you're poor and live where the public schools are bad?
.....................
The parent without money is stuck, stuck in the prison of the government monopoly.
"I wouldn't call it necessarily a prison," he said. But, he added, "It's not the best possible education system that's available."
Where will Jackson send his kids?
"They will probably do a combination of both public, private, parochial, secular. I want them to have the best possible education that I can provide for them," he said.
So, shouldn't Sylvia Lopez and Ivan Foster have the same options?
Lopez calls politicians hypocrites. "The legislators that send their kids to private schools, but don't think that we should have the power to do that, they're hypocrites.
And would the politicians ever send one of their kids to the public school in her Camden neighborhood? Lopez said, "No way. They would never send their children, their distant cousins. I doubt they would even send their dogs to get training from one of these public schools."
What John Stossel does not tell you is that vouchers would not give kids access to a private education. When asked by the New York Observer, leading private schools like Collegiate, Dalton and Spence pretty much said no way in hell would they take voucher kids, meaning, no niggers from Harlem unless they fit in. The sad reality is vouchers are a racist fraud. They use poor blacks as the shield, but the ultimate goal is to funnel money to white segregationist academies in the South. They will be the largest beneficiaries of a voucher program as poor whites flee the public school system. While public schools are defunded, these legacies of Brown would have billions of state dollars to run their schools with little public accountability.
Parents might get a fraction of what they need, Catholic Schools would take that money, but if the kid couldn't deal, it's back to the underfunded public school.
But Stossel went to Camden not Savannah to make his point.
Oh yeah, Jesse Jackson didn't ask for tax money to send his kid to school.
No. 2 -- MYTH -- Urban Sprawl Is Ruining America
Suburban sprawl is evil. The unplanned growth, cookie cutter developments is gobbling up all the space and ruining America. Right?
Wrong.
But in town after town, civic leaders talk about going to war! They want "smart growth." They say sprawl has wrecked lives.
So-called experts on TV say all sorts of nasty things about the changing suburban landscape.
James Kunstler, author of "The Geography of Nowhere," said, "Most of the country really is living in these mutilated and defective environments."
Kunstler and others say suburbs are despicable places. He calls them, "uniformly, low-grade miserably designed environments that make people feel bad." Even ABC News' "Nightline" ran a program called "America the Ugly."
What upsets many critics most is the loss of open space.
But is open space disappearing in America? No, that's a total myth. More than 95 percent of the country is still undeveloped.
............
They can't have back yards? Please! Remember, more than 95 percent of the country is undeveloped.
And even places that may look like soulless subdivisions to him are places where many people want to live. They have playgrounds, parks and back yards. What the busybodies call sprawl, others call homes they can afford.
Yeah, try breathing the air in one of these sprawl communities or go shopping. They are car traps, increasing pollution and illness. Backyard? Try your health. Are we counting the Grand Canyon as well?.
MYTH No. 1 Sharing Would Make the World a Better Place
We learn in childhood that sharing is a good thing. And it's true -- in families and small groups.
But would the world be better off if we shared everything? No.
Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They're often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed. Earlier I mentioned how people litter on public lands, and think about what you share at work. The refrigerator where I work is disgusting -- filled with food that's rotten. I found cottage cheese that was more than a year old. It's because it's shared property.
Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University, points out that private property rarely gets abused or degraded.
And there's an explanation for this. "When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. No one owns it. There's no incentive to take care of it. It gets abused and degraded," Roberts said.
Private property sounds selfish. We think of rich people taking advantage of other people. But it works a lot better, Roberts said.
Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners -- selfishly seeking a profit -- work at keeping them clean.
Ah, the core of conservative theory, self-interest is the best interest.
MOSUL, Iraq (news - web sites) -- The 21-ton Stryker attack vehicles pulled into the neighborhood of al-Whada just after noon. Their rear ramps dropped simultaneously, disgorging dozens of American infantrymen into the cold rain.
The soldiers had multiple tasks on this day. In addition to hunting insurgents and searching houses, they were to help get out the vote for Sunday's national elections. For the next three hours, soldiers armed with assault rifles and election fliers moved warily through al-Whada's muddy streets, trying to get Iraqis to embrace democracy.
The inherent danger of the mission was driven home at 3:30 p.m. A single shot rang out, and 1st Lt. Nainoa K. Hoe, 27, the popular leader of the 2nd Platoon, C Company, 3rd Battalion of the 21st Infantry Regiment, fell dead in the street.
"Treat him! Treat him!" screamed Staff Sgt. Steve Siglock, one of his closest friends. The shot that killed Hoe on Saturday was followed within seconds by a blizzard of gunfire aimed at his exposed platoon. It was already too late for Hoe, but his men stepped directly into the gunfire in a desperate attempt to save him while fending off the unseen insurgents.
On the campaign trail in Iraq, U.S. troops are almost alone. Violence has kept away the election monitors, international peacekeepers and nongovernmental organizations that normally perform the basic tasks of electioneering in nascent democracies. With not even the candidates out on the streets, the role of getting out the vote has fallen to thousands of infantrymen like Hoe, soldiers who are menaced by the possibility of instant death.
.....................
Aside from the troops, the streets were empty.
"The local population, they want to be hospitable, but a lot of times they're either nervous, just due to our very presence or due to the fact that as soon as we show up, several minutes later they're gonna start receiving mortar fire or RPG fire or small-arms fire near their homes" from the insurgents, said the Charlie Company commander, Capt. Rob Born, 30, of Burke, Va.
Born stopped to chat up a butcher hacking up a cow in his carport.
"Are you gonna vote?" Born asked cheerfully.
He handed the man a red-and-white leaflet that showed two Iraqis casting ballots. "One vote is more precious than gold," the leaflet said.
"If it's safe to go, I will. If it's not, I won't," the butcher told him.
.....................
The 1st Platoon was to escort two members of a tactical human intelligence team, or THT, to the medical clinic. The 2nd Platoon was to hand off an encryption device to U.S. advisers working with Iraqi troops near a hospital.
At the last minute, however, the orders changed. Hoe was ordered to escort the THT to the clinic.
"Nobody had a problem with it. It was just easier for us to transport the THT guys, so we swapped missions," Siglock recalled. In interviews, he and 15 other soldiers described the events that followed.
Hoe decided to pull up several hundred yards short of the clinic and take only one squad of nine soldiers to avoid frightening the clinic staff. When the men dismounted from the rear of the Stryker, however, the platoon was still a city block away, farther than Hoe had intended.
"Everyone remount," Hoe started to say, according to Thornton, who was still in the vehicle. Then he decided against it. "Nah, [expletive] it, we'll walk."
Hoe joined the formation, the two-man intelligence team behind him. The soldiers began to walk toward the clinic on a street that ran along an open field. On the other side of the field, about 250 yards away, stood a mosque.
The shot rang out from a building near the mosque. Hoe was wearing a bulletproof vest, but the bullet hit him in the exposed crease behind his left shoulder. It traveled through both lungs and punctured his aorta before exiting his body through his right armpit. He died almost instantly, doctors later concluded.
"Ow," Hoe seemed to say as he fell.
"In my opinion, it was an ambush initiated by a sniper," Siglock said. The sniper probably identified Hoe as the platoon leader by his proximity to his radio operator, Pfc. Jerome Roettgers, 23, of Cincinnati, who was trailing Hoe with a two-foot antenna.
As Hoe lay in the street, Siglock relayed the unthinkable to Myers, the platoon sergeant: "2-7, this is 2-1, 2-6 is down."
Hoe's radio call sign was Tiger 2-6.
The message bludgeoned the platoon.
Fire From the Mosque
In the brief moment of shock, at least five insurgents opened up on them. The shots came from across the field; muzzle flashes were seen coming from the tall minaret of the mosque.
................
The men got Hoe into an alley, which the platoon then sealed off with a Stryker. Myers and the platoon medic, Spec. Rusty "Doc" Mauney, took over. Mauney gave Hoe two quick "rescue breaths" and took his pulse. Hoe had none. Mauney thought he might have missed it because of the noise from the gunfire, but the firing stopped and Hoe's condition was the same.
Hoe was dead, but his men refused to believe it.
They loaded him into the Stryker and drove to the combat support hospital about seven miles away. The 21-ton trucks raced 60 mph through the streets of Mosul, fishtailing around corners, air horns blasting.
Inside the lead vehicle, Mauney frantically performed chest compressions while Myers gave Hoe mouth-to-mouth. "I was covered in his blood," Myers recalled somberly. "We were doing the compressions, and every time there would be something coming out of something and hitting me in the face. There was swelling in his chest area; the blood was pooling up in his chest. We turned him on his side to get the fluid out of his lungs, like you'd do when somebody is drowning. A large volume of blood came out at that point."
"Don't give up!" Myers shouted at Hoe. "Don't you [expletive] quit on me!"
Mauney and Myers helped carry Hoe into the emergency room. A doctor walked over to Myers to see if he too had been wounded. When the doctor learned that Myers was covered in Hoe's blood, he took out a white rag and tenderly wiped off his face, "like I was some kid who had candy all over him," Myers said.
The rest of the platoon gathered in a dirt parking lot that had turned into a swamp. The men were soaked. It was still raining, but no one sat inside the Strykers. Nearly everyone was smoking; they burned the cigarettes to the butt and then used them to light more.
Mauney was still in the operating room when the chief surgeon shook his head and announced, "Time of death: 1602."
Mauney walked outside and smoked. A doctor came out and handed him Hoe's soaked pistol belt. The medic kept thinking about the previous summer. Hoe had been hit by a car while jogging, and Mauney went to his house every day to change his dressing.
"Hey, Doc, I never saw a medic who makes house calls," Hoe's new wife, Emily, teased him. Then she said: "Well, I don't have to worry about him over there with you looking out for him, do I?"
"I was just sitting out there in the rain, holding his pistol belt, and that was going over and over in my mind," Mauney said.
By then, Gibler, the battalion commander, had arrived. He wanted to break the news to the platoon, but Myers insisted that he be the one to do it.
Gibler, Myers and Born, the company commander, walked out into the rain. The platoon was gathered around the Strykers. Some of the soldiers already knew. Some knew but didn't want to believe it.
"Nainoa didn't make it," Myers told them.
'You Caught Your Wave'
The men were crying now, all 40 of them. Born started to speak. "I know how close you all are. . . ." He broke down and turned away.
Myers announced that anyone who wanted to could come inside the hospital and pay their last respects. At first, no one moved. Then slowly the soldiers shuffled forward.
Hoe rested on a gurney in a remote hallway. He was covered by a blanket except for his face.
His men walked slowly around the gurney until they had nearly formed a circle. Then the entire platoon, all 40 men, knelt beside their platoon leader and prayed.
The men rose and moved on. Some reached out and stroked Hoe's cheek. Some leaned over and whispered into his ear.
"Vaya con Dios," said Moreno.
Why are Americans dying to encourage Iraqis to vote? It's their country. Yet, they not only passively watch the guerillas, they run to tell them when we show up. That unit wasn't there five minutes before they got lit up. How many more young men die before we realize how futile this is.
That young officer died handing out election leaflets. Not hunting the enemy, not protecting Iraqis, but telling Iraqis to vote in their own country. I wonder what would have happened if Iraqi cops or guardsmen were asked to do the same. They would have run like their asses were on fire.
Iraq is so dangerous, we have companies of 11B's canvassing for votes.
That, in and of itself, is a sad, sad fact. Losing a good officer makes it just that much sadder and pointless.
Taking a dive in boxing or knobbling a horse in racing are as old as the sports themselves. Even team sports - such as baseball, football and cricket - have long been afflicted by match-fixing and dodgy gambling, mostly by influencing money-hungry players.
But sporting corruption has taken a relatively disturbing twist this week in German football: the active involvement of the referee. Robert Hoyzer, a lower-league official, has admitted fixing at least five matches in return for a five-figure sum, alleged to be from a Croatian betting syndicate. At the heart of the scandal - the largest to hit German football since more than 50 players, officials and coaches were caught up in corruption in 1971 - was a cup game in which Bundesliga side Hamburg SV lost a 2-0 lead against lower-placed opposition as Hoyzer awarded two dubious penalties and sent a player off.
Hoyzer's admission, after initially denying the allegations, has sent German football into shock. Hamburg - whose manager had to resign shortly after the cup match as the team's form nosedived - are considering taking legal action. The German football association, the DFB, has been deeply embarrassed by the scandal and is changing the rules so that referees will know only two days before a game which one they will officiate. It is unclear, however, how this measure will stop last-minute betting on games where the official has already been bought.
More serious is the thought that fans and teams will no longer accept a controversial decision as flawed but honest. "We cannot link every questionable decision to what is happening at the moment," said Torsten Frings, a midfielder at Bayern Munich. "That would slowly bring about the death of football."
...................
Equally worrying for authorities is the murky nature of the people behind the corruption. The recent corruption in cricket was largely sparked by Asian-based betting syndicates. Officials in Europe are worried about eastern European gangs, citing the alleged involvement of Croatian betting rings in Berlin in the latest German scandal.
Another growing problem is that the result of matches no longer has to be fixed for a punter to clean up at bookmakers. It is now possible to bet on almost anything in sporting contests: who wins the toss in cricket, how quickly the first corner will come on football, even who will finish last in horse racing. This creates a whole series of other areas to be policed. When one English Premiership football team a few years ago booted the ball out of play almost straight from the kick-off, many asked whether some players had had a small flutter.
The DFB and German football are hoping that Hoyzer is just an isolated case so they can put this scandal behind them as cricket, baseball and all the other sports affected have done. But Hoyzer himself sounded less certain things were over. Ominously, he told German television that there were "a lot of other people" involved.
Of Europe's four major leagues, the EPL, La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga, the last one is the shakiest. Having lost millions from TV contracts, and suffering from a decline of interest compared to the booming EPL and the well-funded La Liga, the last thing they need is a cheating scandal, especially tied to East European mafias.
In Europe, sports betting is not only legal, but common. So you can walk down any high street, place a bet on you team and then go to the match, no bookie, no phone calls, no debts. The problem is that fixing games makes it that much more serious because of the impact.
If German football is corrupt, one of the sports most important leagues, will be seriously tainted. Everyone knows Serie A has issues, no one wants the Bundesliga to develop it's own issues beyond what they have now. Especially as the EPL's popularity in the US and Asia is exploding. FIFA has to be wary that any scandal could hurt the image of the sport. If Hoyzer isn't alone, this could cause a major crisis in European football.
The Condoleezza Rice nomination was a sorry spectacle, but not in the way everyone is saying. Frankly, I think Sen. Barbara Boxer was completely within her rights - as rude and as typically middle-brow as she was - to criticize Condoleezza Rice. Cabinet appointments are a time-honored way of expressing opposition to presidential policies.
No, the sorry spectacle is the grand fog of racial confusion that the Rice hearings illuminated. On one side we have some Republicans and conservatives accusing Democrats of some veiled form of racism or sexism for giving Rice a hard time. On the other side we some Democrats denouncing Republicans for even bringing Rice's race and sex into the discussion. This is all about policy, they insist. In other words, nonsense all around.
How'd we get here? Well, that's a long story. But let's start with Bush's victory in 2000, which presented a real dilemma for Democrats who'd spent the 1990s playing the race card like it was an expiring coupon. It was Bill Clinton who really transformed the rules of the game when it comes to diversity-mongering. The most obvious symbol of this enlightened thinking was the famous declaration that his cabinet would "look like America." This meant that "diversity" would be achieved once you've appointed a crayon box of different colors (and sexes, though that ruins the metaphor).
........................
Oh right, there is one good reason not to do that: hypocrisy. If you believe in a colorblind society - as Republicans allegedly do - such litmus tests are a violation of principle. But let's put that thought aside for a moment.
Bush's strategy was greeted with moderate success at first. Then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle declared in May 2001, "I'm pleased that the White House has chosen to work with us on the first group of nominations." Even the hyperpartisan Sen. Leahy said he was encouraged. The New York Times welcomed Bush's nominees as "eclectic and conciliatory." Why the warm welcome? Well, largely because over half the nominees were blacks, Hispanics or women. Peter Beinart of the New Republic caught on to what was happening at the time, warning that Bush had taken the "specious logic" of liberal multiculturalism "and driven a truck through it."
Eventually the Democrats came to the same realization - and followed Beinart's hypercynical advice and took dead aim at the minority nominees. Miguel Estrada, for example, a very well-qualified Hispanic whom the Bush team hoped to groom for a Supreme Court seat, was singled out by Democrats because he was a Hispanic and therefore so much more threatening. In response, Republicans went batty and played exactly the same game the Democrats had played. Sen. Pete Domenici, for example, deadpanned: "I want to say to Democrats . you don't have to be afraid. . They (Hispanics) are good lawyers and great judges." Sen. Rick Santorum called Democratic policy "complete discrimination."
And so here we are today. Different players, same game. Republicans bought the racial logic of Democrats for partisan gain - and it worked. Democrats abandoned the same logic when it stopped working for them. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves.
But, as a conservative who actually believes in color-blindness, I have to say that the Democrats deserve the lion's share of ridicule in this mess. Yes, Republicans are being hypocritical, but they aren't putting their hypocrisy into law. Democrats may claim a sudden conversion to colorblindness, but they still reflexively claim any opposition to affirmative action is ipso facto evidence of racism.
And, more to the point: They started it.
No, my racist friend Jonah, people like misgenist Strom Thurmond started it. They were the ones obsessed by race.
Clinton merely wanted a cabinet which regflected an increasingly diverse America. I know NRO believes in white man's privledge, but clearly by ignoring blacks and latinos, he would have to ignore some of the country's brightest minds.
What Bush did was find barely qualified blacks and latinos, like Miguel Estrada and Janice Brown and said "approvethem, they're colored." It was not about their race, but their minimal qualifications for the jobs they sought. Estrada wouldn't give a straight answer on abortion, Brown objected to the Bill of Rights being in the Constitution. Now, we know NR and NRO would never just hire a Negro to look good, but Bush was clearly playing the Clarence Thomas card, hire any incompetent if he's black and conservative. And if people oppose him, they're racist. Man on dog Santorum was wrong, Estrada was not a good lawyer and Gonzalez's legal skills may have condemned the innocent to death because he zipped through their cases.
To say that the Dems singled out Estrada because of his ethnicity is a lie. It was his inability to answer direct questions.
Oh yeah, on to Rice. She is incompetent. Has been from day one. She is a joke to our allies and her word is worthless. The fact that she is widely regarded as an embarassment to black people is secondary. Clarence Thomas in a dress. She was the worst NSA in modern history and will probably go down making William Rogers look like Metternich. Her color is probably the only reason she has a job where she could fail so badly and get promoted.
But for the racists at NRO to object to racial politics is comical. It's like ManU fans complaining about Chelsea buying players. They are in no position to say a word.
It’s not often these days that Arsenal and Manchester United are heard singing from the same hymn-sheet, but Gunners’ striker Thierry Henry and United defender Rio Ferdinand joined forces as the Frenchman launched his ‘Stand Up, Speak Up’ campaign to counteract the racist tendency in European football.
As part of the campaign, ’Stand Up Speak Out’ black-and-white wristbands, available for a £1.50 charity donation, are being launched, together with a pan-European advertising campaign, and the players of both Arsenal and United will all wear the wristbands in next week’s eagerly awaited Premiership clash at Highbury.
If such unity sounds remarkable, so is the story of how Henry came to devise this initiative.
He was motivated to do so by the racist slur against him uttered to Arsenal team-mate Jose Antonio Reyes by Spain coach Luis Aragones.
The Arsenal striker revealed that he would be prepared to meet Aragones, who was filmed using the racist term to describe Henry during a Spain training session last year.
Henry said he could still not believe the Spain coach’s comments, and warned that the "game was suffering" because of the enduring racism problem in some countries.
"It makes me think of a proverb - you can always forgive but I will never forget," he declared.
"I could meet him, I would have no problem with that. I can forgive but it will always be in my mind."
Aragones has been investigated but not yet punished for his racist comments, having insisted he was merely trying to motivate Henry’s Arsenal team-mate Jose Reyes.
But Henry observed: "There is no possible reason to say something like that.
"When I heard about what he had said, I was preparing for a game with France and I thought someone was telling me a bad ...................
At this week’s launch he was joined by Ferdinand in bridging the recent divide between their two clubs, and revealed just why he had been prompted to do something constructive about this issue.
"I was asked what I wanted to be done and I said that I would like the authorities to step in a bit harder, but then I thought that I could bring everyone behind me in the fight against racism," he said.
"We are suffering out there as human beings but the game is suffering as well. We are aware that this campaign cannot change everything but doing nothing will certainly not change anything.
"Sometimes you don’t understand quite how hard it is to keep cool out there on the pitch in the middle of this kind of thing.
..............
Race is the hidden subtext in modern European life. The Spanish behavior was excretable but racism has a long history in European football. But it clearly reflects a deeper problem that Europeans have in dealing with their increasingly multicultural societies. The racial taunting is nothing new, but as blacks gain a larger profile in European life, stands have to be made to ensure this kind of behavior is curtailed.
As an American, that kind of racial taunting is pretty much unknown. When Rush Limbaugh implied that Donovan McNab was being praised for his race and not his blinding talent, he was quickly forced to apologize and was fired from ESPN. A sports team, on any level, which tolerated that kind of abuse would be quickly sanctioned. Even the use of Confederate Battle Flags has been the subject of controversy, as has the use of Indian team names. Open racial taunting is simply not accepted in US sports.
OK, Cary's advice here isn't horrible, but the letter was interesting enough to get comments on.
Demanding the big rock She wants her fiance to spend three months' salary on her engagement ring. Is that fair to the man?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Cary Tennis
Jan. 28, 2005 | Dear Cary,
About a year and a half ago, my husband's and my best friends broke up. She was unhappy and disappointed with him; he was rejecting and cheating on her. We all got together and got married at the same time, and they had been together over 12 years. They have a son (whom the husband never wanted) who is now 3. Since then, he has been through a couple of new girls, and she has recently moved in with her boyfriend of about a year. He is the complete opposite of her ex-husband, and is a very good man. I thought he would be her rebound man, since he was the first one after the split and is not really her type, physically or culturally. She has said right from the beginning that she's not really attracted to him or passionately in love. She has been honest with him about that, but he hung in there. She now says that she loves him, but not like the way she loved her ex. He is good to her, and is trying hard with her son, who is a willful boy, to say the least.
My concern is that she may be in this relationship for the wrong reasons, but maybe I think that because I was raised very differently from her. I never expected a man to take care of me or that I would be dependent upon anyone. My friend sees this man as a way out of a financial hole. While my husband and I were progressing in our careers, our friends were working low-wage, dead-end jobs, despite high levels of education and potential. My friend has had severe financial difficulty, particularly since the baby and the split. Her job is better now, but she still couldn't support herself alone. Her boyfriend's company pays their living expenses, and he has always saved his money -- he doesn't believe in living in debt. This support is enabling my friend to get back on her feet financially. Her boyfriend is very generous, and she takes good care of him.
They have a conflict, though -- they have been talking about getting married and she is adamant that she wants an expensive engagement ring -- worth three months of his salary. She says that she doesn't want to be greedy, but after the split she told herself that her next guy would be fairly well-off and the ring is an important symbol of that to her. I tried to tell her that's a lot of B.S. put out by the diamond industry, but her upbringing was more traditional and she wants this. She's also starting to lobby for a new, more expensive house, which he would pay for. He doesn't believe in spending money on rings, he would rather spend it on something more worthwhile -- like a vacation or furniture or a house. He has also depleted his savings setting up their current home for her, and needs some time to recuperate, but my friend is working herself into a tiz over the ring.
My question -- is this a normal expectation that women have? It seems very antiquated and unfair to me. Is it right for my friend to expect an expensive ring? I see a lot of women wearing them -- am I the weird one for thinking it's ridiculous? Actually, I think part of the problem I have with this situation is that I see her as selling her soul for material goods. She loves this man, but does she love him enough? I don't know.
By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 28, 2005; Page C01
At yesterday's gathering of world leaders in southern Poland to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the United States was represented by Vice President Cheney. The ceremony at the Nazi death camp was outdoors, so those in attendance, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, were wearing dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots. Because it was cold and snowing, they were also wearing gentlemen's hats. In short, they were dressed for the inclement weather as well as the sobriety and dignity of the event.
The vice president, however, was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower.
Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood. It is embroidered with his name. It reminded one of the way in which children's clothes are inscribed with their names before they are sent away to camp. And indeed, the vice president looked like an awkward boy amid the well-dressed adults.
Like other attendees, the vice president was wearing a hat. But it was not a fedora or a Stetson or a fur hat or any kind of hat that one might wear to a memorial service as the representative of one's country. Instead, it was a knit ski cap, embroidered with the words "Staff 2001." It was the kind of hat a conventioneer might find in a goodie bag.
It is also worth mentioning that Cheney was wearing hiking boots -- thick, brown, lace-up ones. Did he think he was going to have to hike the 44 miles from Krakow -- where he had made remarks earlier in the day -- to Auschwitz?
I wonder if one would normally dress like they were going to see a Wyoming Cowboys game to visit the largest cemetery on earth. More people died at Auschwitz than any other single spot on earth and Dick Cheney dressed like it was a pain in the ass to be there. The ex-Soviet soldiers, barely living on pensions, had more dignity and dressed better. So did the survivors. Only Cheney decided dressing like my 9 year old nephew was appropriate for the occasion.
Washington is a very insular place. And no place more insular than the White House.
Oh yeah, he was playing dress up as well. That is an AF-issue parka used for cold weather air crews. You see it on units stationed in Alaska. At least he didn't wear a bright orange Navy parka, the one they use for trips to the antartic.
It was so clear that Cheney could not give a shit about the occasion or what it meant, that his clothes reflected the boredom of a child trapped at the funeral of a distant relative.
We can't have the president cold at the largest grave on earth, can we?
I'm watching Nightline's town hall on Iraq and it's the same shit in a different day.
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) should never be in a room with a serious thought. Thankfully he talked so much that Richard Perle had to keep his mouth shut. Joe Wilson kept talking about "internationalization" as if any European government could survive such a vote. Marty Meehan (D-MA) made some sense about setting a time table for leaving Iraq.
Two years later, it's like watching a debate frozen in amber.
No one wants to say the obvious, that we are losing and our fate is quickly slipping from our hands. Train the Iraqis was the mantra. The only problem is that the Iraqis hate Americans, as much for the poor services as the random shootings. Allen repeated the party line that the Baathists were doing all the killing. Which is a nice slogan, but clearly not true. The fact is that the resistance has excellent intelligence, constant observation and a cloak of silence. This has resulted from a combination of fear, patriotism and American racism.
The war is growing by the day and in Washington, we're having the same circular debate.
My solution: cut and run, before we are forced to leave at gunpoint. Sistani has NEVER defended the Shia cops who are dying or called for Shia men to join the Army. Instead, he has waited and remained silent. The idea that he can cut a deal which keeps the US in Iraq and live is ridiculous. They can get to him if they want.
They keep talking about millions of Iraqis going to vote, when only a quarter of those living outside Iraq are going to bother and no one is shooting at them.
It was just disappointing to see the same debate about Iraq as if things have not slid downhill like a mudslide.
The one thing which the election may do is bring some reality to Iraq policy, if not at DOD, up on the Hill and in the media.
Update:This is from someone who atteneded the Nightline meeting
I just came from the townhall meeting hosted by Ted Koppel at St. John's Episcopal Church across from the White House in Washington D.C.
The topic is IRAQ: Why Stay?
The panel consisted of Joseph Wilson, Sen. George Allen (R), and Rep Marty Meehan (D)
There was some good dialogue, but mostly ended up that time was given primarily to the pro-war agenda. There were a few outbursts that will probably be edited out, and one major outburst from a Rabbi Waskau that you will not see because it was during a commercial break.
I am posting this now, so you are aware, and will watch Nightline, but am going to keep adding to this diary continuously until I can accurately describe the event as I witnessed it.
Diaries :: NewWay4NewDay's diary ::
It started out seemingly okay. People were asked to submit questions to producers.
I submitted a question... it was about the effects of Depleted Uranium on our military personnel and Iraqui Civillians, and I wanted to ask what has been done to protect our troops from exposure to radioactive dust particles, and wanted to know if the Veterans Administration is prepared for the long term health effects to soldiers & their offspring caused by over exposure to DU.
The producer told me that since there were no helath experts on the panel, it was not a proper question for the theme of the show, and So, I restructured my comment, and she said it was better and would run it by the executive producer: "As a navy veteran who was deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991, I am concerned that America is not prepared for a resurgence of Gulf War Syndrome" and that the Veterans Administration is ill-equipped to deal with the long term health issues faced by soldiers who have been exposed to Depleted Uranium".
So, We all sat and waited for the program to begin.
It starts out with a Democratic congresswoman from Illinois (can't remember her name) underscoring that she felt the war was based on a lie etc.
Then Ted Koppel asked if their were any military people who wanted to respond. The first woman who got the mic (I think by accident) was a woman who had lost her husband in the war last year and said she was a part of a group (I think Millitary Famlies Speak Out, but not sure) who gave a heartfelt plea to pull out of Iraq before anymore spouses had to go through what she had gone through.
From there, it started becoming clear that the pro-war people were going to be given more time to speak than people who dissented. The next comment came from a woman who also lost her husband (actually in the same unit as the other wife) and she gave a patriotic speech about how poud she was that he had died for his country etc and that we needed to finish the job of bring freedom to Iraq.
So, it went on this way, with the pro-war side taking precedence.
Then, during the third commercial break Rabbi Waskau stood up and loudly said, "I was invited hear to speak, but then was told I could you would not allow anyone from the religious community to sit in the front row and that I would be allowed to make a comment later if I would take a seat in back. But now I have been told that I will not be allowed to speak at all."
(upon hearing that, I realized that nobody had spoken from a religious/faith based perspective, and wondered if that was indeed intentional).
He went on, "So I will ask my question now during the break so as not to cause embarrassment to you Mr. Koppel"
Ted Koppel said, "Thank you, go ahead"
The Rabbi spoke: "You do not want the religious community to speak beacause we DO see the BIG picture (reffrencng a marine who had spoken earlier saying that people who were for ending the occupation in Iraq di not see the big picture) "We know the story of the Pharoah, who tried to hold back God's people, and that the Pharoah's lust for power was so great that we pushed his army against the Hebrews again and again no matter how many time's he failed... he continued to deny the circumstances until the amry of Egypt was beat down and depleted at the expense of his subjects." (I wish I could communicate the eloquence with which he spoke)... "President Bush is the Pharoah, and he has stripped the American people of basic social services such as healthcare and education in order to arrogantly keep up his holy war. I will no longer stand for the U.S. governmen and the media denying the religious community our voice. The common people of the Untied States and of Iraq and elsewhere are suffering."
Then he said he was done, (there was definitely some applause during parts of his speech) and he was escorted out the church where the Nightline episode was being taped.
Antother outburst happened toward the last half hour when a tall older African American gentleman went up to a mic without permission and siad, "ask Richard Perle about the PNAC... that's all I've got to say... I'm outa here!"
Then, it went on and during the last break their was a similar occurence as to the rabbi's, when an Iraqi spoke loudly saying, there are many Iraqi's here sitting in the back, and we were told we could speak, but have been denied."
Before it went further, Ted Koppel said they would be given a chance to speak in the last seven minute segment.
However, when the show started again, one man was brought to the microphone from another section... not from where the first Iraqi said he and others were sitting. That one man said he was an Iraqi and represented the majority of Iraqi's and he supproted the U.S. freedom fighters, and only a small percentage of Sunni's were angered by the U.S. presence in Iraq. that was all.
Ted Koppel went to the closing statements and let each of the four guest panelists have their say, then started to do his closing.
I was upset that nothing was said about the health of our troops mentally, physically or otherwise.
So, I satrted chanting "GULF WAR SYNDROME" over and over again, very loudly so it filled the church and drown out Ted Koppel.
He replied, "I am sure I have no idea what you're taking about"
and I yelled, "It's about Depleted Uranium!"
Then I shut up, and he finished his closing and it was over.
As I was waiting to filter out with everybody else, I heard one of the Iraqi's, who was very upset, talking to a producer: "This is not what we expected, we were told we would get a chance to speak in the press release you sent us, and you did not give us the chance to say what we came to say."
The producer just kind of appeased him... nodded and stuff.
That's it.
I think they will probably re-shoot Ted Koppel's closing.
I just wanted you to post this so the whole story could get out there... pass it on as you deem appropriate.
I am really feeling at this moment that the media is intentionally trying to appear as they foster "free speech" and "open dialogue", but are actually doing everything they can to keep dissenting views muted and to a minimum.
Manchester United has asked for scouting tapes of 9-year-old Jean Carlos Chera.
Boy wonder Brazilian phenom, 9, catching attention of pro teams
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- At this rate, sonograms will become a soccer recruiting tool pretty soon.
Jean Carlos Chera, a 9-year-old who is 4-foot-6, is attracting interest from Manchester United and other top European teams. Chera, who weighs 77 pounds, currently plays for the youth teams of Associacao Desportiva Atletica, a small club in the southern Brazilian state of Parana.
"Seven or eight European clubs have already contacted us to know more about Jean," team president Adilson Batista Prado said in a telephone interview Thursday. "They want to know what he is all about, and I tell them he's a phenomenon, probably the best player to come out of Brazil."
Prado and team officials would not identify all the clubs interested in Jean, but confirmed that representatives of Manchester United have asked for videotapes of his matches.
Prado said teams from Portugal, France and Germany have made contact, and local media identified FC Porto as one of the teams.
.....................
Two years ago, Manchester and Inter Milan were among top clubs that expressed interest in then 14-year-old Freddy Adu, who signed Major League Soccer instead. European clubs generally are not allowed to use players from outside the European Union on their first teams until they turn 18.
AC Milan wanted to sign Adu at 10, but his mother said no.
That doesn't mean that he would have played against David Beckham or Dennis Bergkampf as a kid, but they have developmental junior squads where young players go through the ranks and then get on the first squad at 18. But unlike the NBA, which snatch kids from high school and expects them to be professionals overnight, European clubs have a minor league system which kids can rise in.
This is one of the things a lot of American kids with delusions of professional sports stardom don't understand, by the age of 12, if you have talent, coaches are already sniffing around. The odds of success are low and any spark of talent draws interest, especially in soccer, where the money generated by good players could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
However, it is still highly embarrassing, especially just a few months after the FA complained vociferously at the racist abuse hurled at black England players in Madrid and stressed their own commitment to tackling the issue.
Piara Powar, spokesman for the Kick It Out anti-racism campaign, welcomed the FA's apology, while stressing the need for the governing body to remain acutely aware of such sensitive issues.
"We can understand the concerns that have been raised as black players have contributed an immense amount to the game in England, but the FA's apology shows they realise that they have made a faux-pas," he said.
Many of the 17 players on the original DVD would be uncontroversial choices, including Bobby Moore, Gary Lineker, Sir Bobby Charlton, Paul Gascoigne, Alan Shearer, Bryan Robson, David Beckham and Terry Butcher.
However, Martin Peters, Chris Waddle, Stuart Pearce and Steven Gerrard were also included, while black players such as Rio Ferdinand, Sol Campbell, Paul Ince, John Barnes, Ashley Cole and Viv Anderson were not.
Bevington added: "There have been numerous outstanding black footballers since Viv Anderson's debut in 1978 and that should have been highlighted on the original DVD." The original list of players - including some black internationals - was selected by a group of 'englandfans' members but, after editing, the FA still had final responsibility for the contents. They are now deciding upon which black players will be included on an extended version of the DVD.
Oops.
In a sport which is increasingly open to black players, how could one make a tape of England's internationals and forget Rio Ferdinand or Ashley Cole?
Race is still a far bigger issue in football than in American sport. Calling Barry Bonds a nigger would be completely unacceptable, but last year, the Spanish coach tolerated racial insults directed towards England's squad. But in a sport which is open to local black talent in an increasingly multicultural society, this is the kind of crap people have to deal with every so often.
Four workers in the United States have lost their jobs after refusing to take a test to see if they were smokers.
They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.
The firm says the ban is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights.
If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent.
Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.
The four workers who refused to take the test left their jobs voluntarily, although a lawyer for Weyco confirmed the company was preparing to dismiss them.
The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue.
"For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.
Eating habits
But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs.
According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers.
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said
SANTIAGO, Chile - Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.
Under the Chilean program - which President Bush has cited as a model for his plans to overhaul Social Security - the promise was that such investments, by helping to spur economic growth and generating higher returns, would deliver monthly pension benefits larger than what the traditional system could offer.
But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month. Many others - because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally - remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system.
Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.
Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.
"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."
With many Chileans finding themselves in a situation much like that of Mr. Sáez, people are still looking to the government, not private pension funds, to ensure a secure retirement.
..................
The Chilean example also makes clear that introducing private accounts does not solve a lot of the problems faced in the United States, Europe and Japan, where pay-as-you-go systems remain the principal means of government retirement support.
He should have invested better.
Of course this is a failure and in the end the government will have to do something. His private investments have earned him half of what the government will pay.
World leaders are gathering in Poland on Thursday to mark 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, the most notorious of the Nazi death camps.
The heads of state of both Israel and Germany will join those of Russia and other countries to remember the arrival of Soviet troops in 1945.
More than a million people, the vast majority of them Jews, were murdered in the Auschwitz "death factory".
Former inmates and Red Army veterans will lead a candle-lighting ceremony.
The anniversary will also be marked in Germany and Israel.
The BBC's William Horsley notes that since its liberation, Auschwitz has become a unique symbol of the evil that men are capable of, and a warning from history.
Poems from Auschwitz
The start of the ceremony will be signalled by a train whistle at the Auschwitz-Birkenau site where a railway track brought hundreds of thousands to their deaths.
.......................
'Some cried, some laughed'
One of the Red Army men due to attend the ceremony, Yakov Vinnichenko, told The Associated Press news agency of his impressions.
He and his comrades from the Soviet 322nd Infantry Division cut through the barbed wire and entered the death camp.
"How could people be tortured to make them so frail, skin and bones, that they could hardly stand on their feet?" the Ukrainian old soldier asked.
The Nazis had already evacuated most of their remaining prisoners and the 7,000 who were left behind were "those who couldn't move", the soldier recalled.
"Some were crying, some were laughing."
Anatoly Shapiro, then a veteran officer, recalled for Reuters news agency the horror the camp inspired in his men before they set about washing and feeding the survivors:
"We saw everything. The chambers used to gas the prisoners, ovens where the bodies were burned. We saw the piles of ash. Some of my men approached me and said 'Major, we cannot stand this. Let's move on'."
In the telling of the Auschwitz story, it's liberation is often glossed over, but it is important in setting the stage for the German surrender.
Once the NKVD took photos of everything they found, Stalin told the Allies what he had found. But they thought it was propaganda until the spring. But once word spread of what the Nazis did there throughout the Red Army, even the battle hardened vets of years of brutal combat, were stunned by what they saw. These were men who had often liberated their own home towns and seen German atrocities up close. But even for them, Auschwitz was beyond the pale. The resulting rape and violence which followed the Russians into Germany was in no doubt fueled by the discovery of Auschwitz.
One of the best-known architects in the United States, Philip Johnson, has died at the age of 98.
Johnson designed in a range of styles during his long career, but was best-known for his use of glass.
His buildings include a glass cube in the woods of Connecticut - which became his own home - and a greenhouse-style cathedral in Los Angeles.
Johnson was also the architect of the Seagram building in New York, where he organised pioneering exhibitions.
Controversial private life
Johnson died on Tuesday evening at his home in New Canaan, Connecticut, according to attorney Joel Ehrenkranz's office.
Philip Johnson displays a model of a proposed 17-story addition to New York's Museum of Broadcasting in 1988
Johnson was often described as the dean of US architects
........................
Johnson's private life was controversial - he was attracted to fascism after spending some time in Berlin in the 1930s.
"I have no excuse [for] such utter, unbelievable stupidity," the architect said later.
Johnson was born in 1906 in Cleveland to a wealthy family.
After graduating from Harvard University in 1927, he toured Europe, soon becoming interested in new styles of architecture.
People need to remember, that as we debate Social Security and the New Deal, many wealthy people had warm feelings towards Hitler's criminal regime. While Johnson's work overcame his embrace of fascism, he never quite lived it down, which is a good thing.
We forget how popular Hitler and Mussolini were in the US. Now, people are ashamed, but at the time, Mussolini's picture dominated Little Italy, and German-American Bund rallies were all the rage. When Johnson talked about his admiration of Hitler, he was hardly alone.
Third-rate pundit Maggie Gallhager confusing ethics with excuses.
"It is not uncommon for researchers, scholars, or experts to get paid by the government to do work relating to their field of expertise. Nor is it considered unethical or shady: if anything, government funded work is considered a mark of an expert's respectability. Until today, researchers and scholars have not generally been expected to disclose a government-funded research project in the past, when they later wrote about their field of expertise in the popular press or in scholarly journals.
"For these reasons, it simply never occurred to me there was a need to disclose this information. I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised 'Should you have disclosed?' the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again."
In response, Kurtz told E&P: "It's too bad that Maggie Gallagher, in the process of apologizing for her mistake, has seen fit to blame the messenger. My story made quite clear that her work at HHS included writing brochures for the President's marriage initiative, ghostwriting a magazine article for a top official, and briefing other department officials on the issue. That sure sounds like promotion to me, but none of this would be a media controversy had Ms. Gallagher disclosed the contract in her writing trumpeting the Bush marriage plan."
Here's a simple statement: people who write about policy issues should not get paid by the government. If I were still freelancing, I would clearly disclose any relationship I had with a company. If I freelance again or when I publish a book, I'll mention those relationships as well. Gallagher shouldn't be under contract to the government, period. She chose to write about government policy. To then accept a contract with the feds for the same is an obvious conflict.
Only a hack would even get into this mess.
Now, about your wife's work for the GOP Mistah Kurtz........
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 9:54 AM EST (1454 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald's for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred when he dismissed parts of the lawsuit brought on behalf of two New York children.
..............................
The lawsuit alleges that tens of thousands of children have suffered obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and other health problems after being misled about McDonald's products.
Sweet ruled that consumers cannot blame McDonald's if they choose to eat at its fast-food restaurants.
"If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain," Sweet had written, "it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses."
Jen
Y'know, the fact that McD's got rid of supersized meals and started offering salads AFTER "Supersize Me" came out may actually work AGAINST them.
Still not sure how I feel about this, but I still never, ever see nutritional info posted in a convenient place in a McD's. They never have the "mandatory" handouts, and the plaque is usually posted high and/or behind the counter. The fact that NYC food banks are trying to get poor folks to eat more (expensive) fruits and fresh produce rather than $1 meals at McD's--and the stated fact that they are doing this to reduce diet-related illnesses in poor minorities--speaks volumes.
The problem is two-fold. One, we're talking about child plantiffs here. Is it reasonable that they know that McDonalds is unhealthy? Or that their parents have the requisite nutritional information? Supersize me, the 2004 film of a man who ate nothing but McDonalds for 30 days and gained 40 pounds and damaged his liver cannot help their case. Clearly McDonalds doesn't discuss their flavor additives along with other information they disclose. It would be a good thing to hash this out before a judge.
Two, McDonald's markets intensively to minority communities. Most of their national ads have either a majority or exclusively black cast. At no point do they suggest in their marketing that McDonalds be an occasional treat. They imply that it can be part of a daily diet.
Now, it is one thing to argue adults should know better, but I would like to see McDonald's executives answer some questions under oath. Maybe the kids have no case, maybe they do, but I would like to this decided in a court of law. Because trials are a good way to find out things we don't know, like their internal surveys and marketing shifts as well as the chemicals they place in their food.
The ex-landlord of Jennifer 8. Lee, the New York Times reporter who drew attention for the parties she threw for well-connected twenty-somethings in her apartment while on assignment in D.C., says she intends to sue Lee for damage inflicted on the place during her tenancy.
Lee’s soirees were the subject of 2004 articles in the New York Sun and the Washington City Paper, which portrayed her as a junior version of the late Katherine Graham. Perhaps that was the problem.
Beth Solomon, owner of the 1,500-square-foot penthouse condo in the neighborhood of Shaw, is preparing to sue Lee in D.C. Superior Court for more than $60,000 for loss of use and damage incurred during Lee’s residency there from January 2003 to August 2004.
The $2,800-per-month rent included a fully furnished living room and fully stocked kitchen.
Among the damage alleged in the complaint is destruction of flooring, some subfloor areas and kitchen cabinets, resulting in full replacement; stains on wall-hanging artwork, rugs and all living-room furniture; a broken tabletop; damage to an heirloom baby grand piano; and missing kitchen items.
In addition to damage to the apartment and its furnishing, Solomon’s fellow condo owners complained about Lee’s parties, citing instances of beer raining “down onto us,” the walls of the building “shaking” due to the number of people in the building, and party guests relieving themselves wherever the spirit moved them.
Said one e-mail, “At every gathering there, you can anticipate that racket on their floor and upon the roof will ensue until 2:30 a.m., when sufficient noise and litter have been created to pacify themselves.”
Lee’s attorney, Larry Bank, said, “I think [Lee] is less responsible” for the damage than alleged. “I think Beth Solomon had existing conditions and she put them off on Jenny.”
After months of negotiations, the parties have reached an impasse and Solomon has taken a previous offer of a $20,000 settlement off the table.
Bank said he thought the previous negotiations were “fair and reasonable,” adding, “I guess she just wants her pound of flesh.”
Well, two things:
One, don't rent apartments to 20-something reporters. That's just asking for trouble. I know two of my friends lost leases behind such antics.
Two, Wonkette says they were little better than tea parties. Now, to be honest, I can't say what she considers a good time, but given the general wimpiness of the kind of folks who work for newspapers these days, a white wine sipping crowd, this sounds like it was blown out of proportion. 2:30? Shit, I used to start drinking at 2:30. If the sun doesn't come up, what kind of party is it anyway?
What's a little pissing off of balconies and beer raining down. That sounds like a football sunday to me.
In New York, one knows better than to rent to young reporters and whine about it.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thirty-one U.S. troops were reported killed in a helicopter crash and five more died in insurgent attacks Wednesday in the deadliest day for American forces since they invaded Iraq (news - web sites) 22 months ago.
The heavy U.S. toll came amid a series of guerrilla bombings and raids that killed 10 Iraqis in a campaign to sabotage Sunday's landmark election -- a cornerstone of U.S. plans in Iraq.
CNN, quoting the U.S. military, reported 31 Marines died when their transport helicopter went down in the deserts of the restive Anbar province of western Iraq.
The military confirmed casualties to reporters but gave no figures, as search and rescue teams scoured the area. The cause of the crash was not immediately known.
Four U.S. Marines were killed in action in Anbar province, and an American soldier was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack north of Baghdad, U.S. officials said.
Every helo shoot down has been called a crash. Which is what happens when a SAM smacks into your engine. But it could be bad weather as well. But the CH-53 is a big fucking bird and makes a nice fat target. It seems that the helo was shot down , then were hit with an ambush.
36 dead in one day.
But Bush said he's sorry they died in colonial war march of freedom.
President Bush (news - web sites) met yesterday with a group of black business, religious and community leaders, using the opportunity to talk up his plan to allow workers to divert a portion of their Social Security (news - web sites) taxes to private accounts.
Joined by about a dozen aides, Bush met for nearly two hours at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with the group of 23, in a session described by participants as both informal and substantive. Beyond his Social Security plan, which Bush said would be particularly beneficial to blacks by creating inheritable accounts, the discussion touched on the president's efforts to funnel more social service money to faith-based institutions, his plans to press for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and aid to Africa, participants said.
"The president spent a lot of time briefing us on his initiative to reform Social Security," said Robert L. Woodson Sr., president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. "We are pleased that the president has touched the third rail and has not backed off of it."
............
For years, GOP leaders have talked about the potential for making inroads among black voters, many of whom are culturally conservative. In polls, large numbers of blacks voice support for issues often identified with the GOP. Many black voters are anti-abortion, favor school choice and back efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
.............
Bush was more interested in talking about his ideas for moving society toward greater independence and less reliance on government. "His whole notion of an ownership society and African Americans owning homes and businesses was very much on his mind," said Michelle D. Bernard, a senior vice president at the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative research group.
Among others who attended the meeting were the Rev. Joe Watkins of Philadelphia's Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church; the Rev. Eugene Rivers of the TenPoint Coalition in Boston -- one of the leading proponents of Bush's faith-based initiative; Deborah Wright, chief executive officer of New York's Carver Federal Savings Bank; and John Bryant, chief executive officer of Operation HOPE, a Los Angeles-based group that teaches financial literacy.
First of all, Bush's pitch is as racist as the day is long. You die earlier so support me? So why do blacks die earlier? Maybe if we spent a trillion on universal health insurance that wouldn't be the case.
Let's see, he rounded up the usual toms and jemimas and calls that talking to black people.
Woodson has to have white people do his press. Deborah Wright worked for Rudy Giuliani.
Well, this was a waste of time. None of these people have the credibility of Snoop Dogg on being drug free. Bob Woodson is a joke, the rest of these people greedy preachers who get ignored by their congregations.
Black people are not economically conservative. They are, in the same survey cited in the piece, quite liberal, like Swedish social democratic liberal. This plan scares black people. Sure, Woodson has to hop up and down to his master's tune but this all translates into starving old black people. They don't trust Bush or Wall Street.
All these fucking clowns wanted to do is fag bash and get paid off.
They can't get a councilman elected. So who would take them seriously about Social Security? A minister endorsing his plan would be laughed out of church by the fund managers, accountants and other financial professionals in their congregations. Who the hell do you think goes to a black church in 2005? Sharecroppers? The larger the church, the educated the congregation. A minister can say what he wants, but their professional training doesn't go anywhere. Church crosses economic lines and is often filled with educated black professionals. The idea that if you get the minister, the negro will follow happily along was never true and certainly isn't true in 2005.
The GOP still acts like there is no cable in Harlem and the newspaper isn't sold in West Philly. When I was a kid, nearly every black adult on the train had a copy of the Daily News or Post and they weren't reading sports. My mother would by the News in the morning and my father would buy the Post when he came home, and I'd buy Newsday from time to time. The GOP acts as if black people don't make independent political decisions and inform themselves on politics. As long as they patronize, all they will get is greedy ministers and black people so weak that they can't speak for themselves.
Long live secession! It will never work, but that doesn't stop blue-state radicals from insisting they have the right to break up Bush's -- and Lincoln's -- "imperial" union. A revolutionary guide to American history.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Christopher Ketcham
Jan. 20, 2005 | The idea of an American right of secession -- a state's right to abandon the union -- today invites a veritable cyclone of scorn and bafflement. Secessionism, you will be told, is immoral, treasonous, seditious, the failed machination of slave-holding Southerners whose nutty dream died in the judgment of 1865. "What insanity it is to reopen this issue," says Pauline Maier, professor of American history at MIT.
What you will not hear is that secessionism is as old as the states themselves, that it was not always a reviled idea, that it cleaves to the heart of a celebrated but perhaps outmoded American principle -- the rebellion against centralized power -- and that it is a founding American act enshrined in our most revolutionary document. "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive," counsels the Declaration of Independence, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
Click here
Although secessionism today is politically impossible, if tenuously legal, the secession specter has arisen again, waking to the Declaration's call to self-governance. In 2005, it is the blue-state Northerners, bitter from the defeat of Nov. 2, who are, ironically, wearing its robes.
If their plaints have an epicenter, it is in Charlotte, Vt., in the wood-frame house of Thomas Naylor, professor emeritus, agitator, author, Rage Against the Machine fan, and founder and chair of the "Second Vermont Republic." Naylor seeks the rebirth of Vermont as the independent nation it was between 1777 and 1791. White-haired, jowly and soft-spoken, Naylor describes his little band of "rebels" (the Second Vermont Republic boasts 125 card-carrying members) as "a peaceful, democratic, libertarian, grassroots movement opposed to the tyranny of the United States," which has become "too big, too centralized, too intrusive, too militarized, and too unresponsive to the needs of individual citizens and small communities."
Dear Professor Naylor,
Several of my ancestors died in the Civil War, possibly at the hands of your ancestors. Please forward instructions on their ressurection. Since they died for the Union and you no longer think their deaths were necessary or worthwhile, I would think they are owed four to six decades of life. So let me know how you plan to accomplish this. I await your answer.
---Steve Gilliard
I hate selfish liberal assholes like Naylor. They get to run and the people who need the protection of a federal government will no longer have it. It's the same whining I hear about the draft. "Oh, I'll go to Canada", which means some Mexican kid who has had zero advantages in life will serve in his place. I'm tired of the self-centered nature of this discussion. It isn't just about your kid or your town or your state. It is about all of us, together.
We have to see beyond our noses and work together so everyone has the right to an abortion and no one is drafted. It isn't abiout just saving your own, because you know something, that won't work. Naylor makes the ridiculous comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union. Uh, the Soviet Union was made up of different countries, not states. Ukranian and Uzbek are languages, not accents. They didn't have a long common history.
The odds are high that you won't be able to run, much less secede. There is one country and we don't get to walk away from it. Because there are people who need our help, those unfortunate and unlucky. Walking away from them is moral cowardice and disgraces the sacrifice my ancestors made to keep the Union whole and gain their freedom. A right only secured by the federal government Prof. Naylor wants to toss away.
The value of a life Removing a feeding tube for the sake of convenience belies the principles of a humanitarian society -- Terri Schiavo should not be left to starve to death.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Linda Reid Chassiakos
Jan. 26, 2005 | Sitting on the cold, shiny linoleum, we forced our smiles and took turns introducing ourselves to the other parents who had reluctantly joined us in the "winner's circle." Life's lottery had awarded us all with gifts -- our children with special needs. Our daughter, born with severe oxygen and nutritional deprivation because of an undiscovered clot in my placenta, could do little else but blink and cry, but we had hope that with the intervention program we'd signed up for, Stacy, then almost a year old, would in time become the normal little girl of which we'd dreamed.
....................
Over the next few years, many of us would graduate from our seats on the floor. The luckiest parents saw their children grow and develop, if not to "normality," then to a level allowing them to be fully included in school -- and the world. Others of us sought full-time care for our children, whether at our homes or foster homes, special educational facilities, hospices or other institutions.
..........................
Today, our humanity is perched on the precipice of a slippery slope. A disabled woman in Tampa, Fla., breathing on her own and cared for by her parents, is to be denied a simple feeding tube, thereby hastening her death and freeing her husband to marry his fiancée and the mother of his two children. Terri Schiavo is no longer convenient in her husband Michael's life, and so is to be sentenced to a passive execution.
..................
As a doctor, I have cared for patients who have chosen, in sound mind and in good conscience, not to prolong their lives via extreme measures. Their decisions were documented in written contracts, often after intensive counseling and personal consideration. Hearsay communications from potentially interested parties, however, are not an acceptable substitute. In the absence of a living will, I remain committed by my Hippocratic oath (an ethical code for the medical profession that prohibits doctors from causing any harm) and duty to my profession to do the utmost for my seriously ill patients.
...................
Terri Schiavo did have a "normal" life for many years, and like so many who used to be "temporarily able-bodied" (a phrase used by some in the paralyzed community) and clear-minded, now she doesn't. From the vantage point of normality, the quality of life of those with severe mental or physical losses like hers may seem devastatingly negative. But those who are disabled often perceive the quality of their life very differently -- and positively. We don't suggest that quadriplegics be starved because they can no longer feed themselves; neither should we foist that fate on Terri. Making a decision, as her no-longer-committed husband has, that implies that Terri's life today has no value opens the door to similar judgments about so many others whose life isn't normal. All sorts of people, fellow humans, with special needs -- paralyzed, developmentally delayed, seriously ill, elderly, my Stacy -- could be next on the list of the devalued and inconvenient.
...
Except for the fact that the author never talked to Michael Schiavo, and is taking the parent's word for this, sure, call him indifferent to his wife's fate. Except he isn't, and her life has been turned into a football by Jeb Bush and her parents. He became a nurse to care for her, a fact his moral judges tend to forget.
Hearsay? Michael Schiavo is her husband. He has the legal right to act in her interests and he has that right alone. Not her parents, the state of Florida or anyone else.
While projection is a nice thing, this article borders on the ridiculous. Terri Schiavo has no brain waves, her reactions are automatic. She isn't going to move again, and after a decade of ridiculous and illegal interventions to prevent her death, all people can do is judge.
What is more cruel? Starving her to death or letting her linger until pnumonia, the flu or some other illness kills her in agony. It's easy to judge, but hard to live with.
When I was in rehab, I've saw paralyzed people, and they live full lives, working to regain use of their bodies. Their courage is amazing. But, they can function. Terri Schiavo cannot. Without a feeding tube she will die.
Would the doctor like her neighbor to make critical decisions for husband if he should be seriously ill? Would she like people outside her marriage judging her and calling her a callous murderer? Michael Schiavo, under the law, and common sense, is his wife's next of kin. And he's had to watch her suffer every day. I feel for her parents, but they are desperate to not let go when that might be the last kindness availble for her.
It's a lot like the car stop in Iraq where the 25th ID troopers lit up a family. We are all horrified by that. We all wish it didn't happen. But, we cannot judge them. We were not there. We can curse the situation they are in and the people who sent them there. But that moment, as tragic as it is, is not for us to judge. None of us know what we would do in that situation and it is a lie to say we would.
It is easy to attack Michael Schiavo for doing what we think is wrong. But we do not have to make that choice and to judge him for it is not in our power. It is easy for other people to question his motives and doubt his judgment. But it is his judgement, not her parents, not Jeb Bush's. And certainly not moralizing strangers. I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I cannot judge him for what he does.
"When I was about 13 it came from my heart and soul, the feeling that I was different from others," says Manisha, who has the body of a man but wants to be a woman - and likes to be described as a woman.
Manisha, now 24, is what is known in Kathmandu as a "meti" or a transgender person.
"Up to the age of 18 I thought I was the only person like that in the world. I was very depressed."
That changed when Manisha began meeting similar people in the parks of the Nepalese capital.
It changed even more in 2001 with the founding of the Blue Diamond Society (BDS), Nepal's only organisation for sexual minorities.
The BDS has just launched a weekly newspaper, with editions in English and Nepali.
.......................
In Kathmandu he was surprised at the number of "MSMs" - men who have sex with men. Some identified as homosexual but many others did not, for instance those choosing metis as partners.
"The scary thing was the lack of knowledge on HIV-Aids, the low level of condom usage," he says.
........
Nepalese attitudes to sexual diversity are complex.
Sunil says most Nepalese - especially Buddhists - are tolerant in this regard. The Gurung people of western Nepal have a tradition of men called maarunis, who dance in female clothes.
The tradition, he says, is also popular in the Royal Nepalese Army.
"Maarunis are recruited to perform dances to entertain within the barracks," he says, adding that they have traditionally had a role in the royal palaces too.
"Whenever a general or minister or high-ranking officer has to go out, there will be two maarunis with a jug of water, flowers, and a maaruni standing at the gate for their good luck."
But Sunil says there is hostility, for instance from those he describes as fundamentalist Hindus.
And when metis try to claim equal rights, acceptance wanes and may give way to violence. Some have been subjected to attempted murder; others, he says, to rape and arbitrary arrest.
Still taboo
More encouragingly, after a 2003 meeting between metis, gay men and police authorities, the Inspector-General of Police issued a letter to all police stations indicating concern at the level of such police violence.
Sunil Pant admits that BDS tends to be seen as a meti organisation. He believes Nepalese men identifying themselves as gay are less disadvantaged, tending to have a better education and a secure job.
But others point out that they still face considerable problems.
"Though homosexuality definitely exists in Nepalese society, it is still not accepted," says renowned film director Tulsi Ghimire, writing in the new weekly.
ALBANY, Jan. 24 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the opposing sides in the divisive debate over abortion should find "common ground" to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of "religious and moral values" on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Mrs. Clinton said.
Her speech came on the same day as the annual anti-abortion rally in Washington marking the Roe v. Wade anniversary. [Page A17.]
Mrs. Clinton's remarks were generally well received, though the audience was silent during most of her overtures to anti-abortion groups. Afterward, leaders of those groups were skeptical, given Mrs. Clinton's outspoken support for abortion rights over the years.
Mrs. Clinton, widely seen as a possible candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights. She did so not by changing her political stands, but by underscoring her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called "teenage celibacy."
She called on abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion campaigners to form a broad alliance to support sexual education - including abstinence counseling - family planning, and morning-after emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault as ways to reduce unintended pregnancies.
"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
Leading anti-abortion campaigners, in both New York and nationwide, pounced on Mrs. Clinton as a suspect spokeswoman for compromise and common ground.
"I think she's trying to adopt a values-oriented language, but it lacks substance, at least if you compare it to her record," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. "If you look at Senator Clinton's voting record on this issue, it's like Planned Parenthood's condoms - it's defective."
Is she delusional? No pro-life person who votes on that issue will vote with her. She is the embodiment of modern feminism with all that entails. Which includes pro-choice stands.
Also, pro-life people are also anti-sexual education and anti-contraception. Why should they ally with people they think are supporting murder. That's what our Vichy Dem friends don't get. They think abortion is murder. There is no middle ground with murder, Appeasing them is a step to making abortion illegal, not some acceptable middle road.
Instead of speaking out against Gonzalez or Rice or even the cost of the inaugural, this is where she makes her political stand? Allying with people who want to see her and her husband consigned to hell? I still don't think Sen. Clinton gets how much people hate her and how much they want to see her fail. If she wants to reach out to her enemies, that will do nothing but alienate her supporters. With some pols, it's political. With her, it's personal. The quicker she figures that out, the quicker she will stop embarassing herself.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.
But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.
In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.
The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.
"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."
The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."
Did they think they could make a deal with the devil and not be held to their end of it?
Bush knows that if he pushes this issue, it wll blow up on him and he will never have the votes for it. And define him as a religious loon.
But Bush has courted these folks and now they want their due. He should be glad it's gay marriage, a made up issue and the not GOP killing abortion issue. But in no way, shape or form did Bush think he'd have to live up to his word with these people.
Iraqi security forces systematically abuse prisoners, a leading US-based human rights group reports.
Unlawful arrests, torture and the long-term isolation of detainees are "routine", Human Rights Watch says.
Of 90 prisoners interviewed by the group since 2003, 72 said they had been abused by the new Iraqi authorities.
Another rights group, the American Civil Liberties Union charges that similar abuses allegedly committed by US soldiers have not been investigated.
The ACLU said it had obtained documents that told "a damning story of widespread torture reaching well beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib", the notorious US-run jail in Iraq.
'Bribes'
The 94-page report by Human Rights Watch detailed a catalogue of abuses allegedly committed by Iraqi security forces.
The report - The New Iraq? Torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iraqi custody - found evidence of widespread human rights violations against alleged national security suspects and common criminals.
......................
Among the report's findings are:
* Detainees were routinely beaten with cables and metal rods during interrogation, given electric shocks and kept blindfolded and handcuffed for days
* Detainees were held for long periods in isolation, deprived of food and water and crammed into small cells with standing room only
* Iraqi police sought bribes in return for releasing prisoners or allowing them access to family members or food and water.
................
Former Baathist run the government, what do people expect. Allawi is Saddam lite, but lacks the 12,000 man bodyguard.
Some Mississippi lawmakers are scheduled to speak Thursday to the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls "a patently white supremacist group."
Bill Hinson of Pearl, president of the Great Southern chapter of CCC, announced on the group's Web site that "several House and Senate members" are to speak.
He wouldn't tell The Associated Press the names of lawmakers or where the event is taking place, although AP learned it will be at a south Jackson fish house.
Hinson said he wouldn't release details of the meeting because, "we've had so much negative publicity."
He said the CCC does not make an issue of race.
"Our chapter is more focused on taxation, Southern heritage," Hinson said. "I guess you could call us the Christian right, something like that."
Now, let's see how the Southern Poverty Law Center describes the group.
The 'Uptown Klan' Reborn
Political influence has always been a point of pride for the Council of Conservative Citizens. Founded in 1985 by Gordon Baum, a worker's compensation attorney and longtime white-power activist, the CCC rose from the ashes of the Citizens Councils of America (CCA), a coalition of white-supremacist groups formed throughout the South to defend school segregation after the Supreme Court outlawed it in Brown vs. Board of Education.
Unlike the "white trash" KKK, the CCA groups — commonly called "White Citizens Councils" — had a veneer of civic respectability, inspiring the nickname "Uptown Klan." While there were plenty of bare-knuckles racists attracted to the Councils' anti-integration slogan, "Never!" the members also included bankers, merchants, judges, newspaper editors and politicians — folks more given to wearing suits and ties than hoods and robes.
Many of them, including Trent Lott's uncle, were elected to state and local offices. Some were even more powerful: governors, congressmen, U.S. senators.
During the White Citizens Councils' heyday, the groups claimed more than 1 million members. Though they weren't immune to violence — Byron De La Beckwith, who murdered civil-rights leader Medgar Evers in 1963, was a member — the Councils generally used their political and financial pull to offset the effects of "forced integration."
One tactic was particularly effective: The Councils raised millions of dollars to fund "white academies," private schools throughout the South that gave parents the option of keeping their children segregated.
Though the CCA groups presented themselves as civic organizations akin to the Kiwanis and Civitan clubs, they left no doubt where they stood on race. "Integration represents darkness, regimentation, totalitarianism, communism and destruction," wrote Robert "Tut" Patterson, the legendary white supremacist who founded the CCA and still writes columns for the Citizens Informer.
"Segregation represents the freedom to choose one's associates."
Once the segregation battle was lost, the air went out of the White Citizens Councils. The councils steadily lost members throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Sensing the need for a new direction, Baum, formerly the CCA's Midwest field director, called together a group of 30 white men, including former Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox and future Louisiana Congressman John Rarick, for a meeting in Atlanta in 1985.
They cooked up a successor organization: the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Like the White Citizens Councils, the CCC is made up of local chapters — some of them active in civic affairs that have little to do with the national group's racist agenda. But the group's "uptown" days are largely gone; by 1985, there was precious little "respectability" left in joining an unabashedly white-supremacist organization.
And with the CCC, as with the White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and '60s, rabid extremism is never far from the surface.
I have no doubt that Black Republicans will denounce this meeting. I also believe Santa really ate the cookies my niece left for him and his reindeer ate the oatmeal.
But the 477 DNC members who choose the party chair haven't settled on a leader of the 2005 version of the Anybody But Dean movement. For now, the front-running alternative is former congressman Martin Frost of Texas, a pro-labor moderate with a lifetime of traditional organizing who survived 13 terms in Dallas before the GOP redistricted him into oblivion. He's followed by Simon Rosenberg, a young Washington-based fund-raiser and strategist who claims to be as digitized and Net-friendly as Dean—and yet more popular than Dean among the bloggers, who are emerging as new grass-roots powers in the party. Pro-lifer Tim Roemer is also running.
In the meantime, with the DNC meeting approaching on Feb. 12, party insiders have been conducting an urgent, so far fruitless, search for a consensus Dean-stopper. The Clintons don't like Dean on substance or style, seeing him as too left and too loose-lipped. But they're being careful. Hillary, already eying a presidential run in 2008, doesn't want to alienate the possible winner; she's leaving DNC maneuvers to Bill, whose answer last month was to sound out current chairman Terry McAuliffe about remaining in the job. (He declined.) The Clintons are said to have encouraged a good friend, veteran organizer Harold Ickes, to enter the chairman's race, but he begged off, too. Party leaders approached former senator Bob Kerrey, but he told them he would rather keep his job as president of the New School University.
Last week the search for a surefire Dean-stopper (if there is one) reached new levels, NEWSWEEK has learned, with several governors—among them Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Bill Richardson of New Mexico—trying to gin up a last-ditch plan: let Dean be chairman, but confine his role to pure nuts-and-bolts duties by layering him with a new "general chairman" spokesman for the party. They abandoned the idea after realizing that they didn't have the votes to change the rules—and because the person they wanted to take the new role, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, told them she had no interest.
That left the anti-Dean forces with only one clear strategy: recycling the long list of his provocative statements. Among them: that we shouldn't judge Osama bin Laden until he has a jury trial; that America won't always have the strongest military; that "if Bill Clinton could be the first black president, I can be the first gay president." The ABD forces were also pointing reporters to an off-the-record Harvard seminar in November, at which Dean is rumored to have facetiously suggested that Democrats leave Wyoming rather than put up with anti-gay attitudes there. (A Dean spokeswoman says the governor remembers discussing the Matthew Shepherd case, but not the specific remarks about Wyoming. "In any case, his view is that the Democrats need to compete everywhere, including there.")
You can't beat somebody with nobody, and this fear of Dean is downright stupid.
Why? Their instincts suck, that's why. Dean got tagged for being far more liberal than he was and Kerry more conservative than he is.
Hillary Clinton has an average record in the Senate, is widely derided in the media and is basically planning to run for President on a celebrity ticket. Vote for me because I'm a famous woman, not because I've been kicking ass in the Senate. People impressed with Barbara Boxer's stands in the Senate forget that she's running for her seat next year won reelection last year. These stands will get her a shitload of cash and squash any GOP schumck dumb enough to run against her in the future. Hillary is trying to slide around the Senate instead of stepping up to the plate and being a leader.
Now, they're playing games with Dean? Uh, that's a zero sum game, because none of them has his popularity. There isn't a meeting of Democrats which wouldn't fill a banquet hall to hear him speak.
Rosenberg? What the fuck has he run for? The blogger's primary? I don't remember having a vote there. He's not popular with me. I wouldn't know him from a ticket agent.
Look, the Clinton's instincts have served them poorly. Clinton created many of his own problems, not only with his dick, but in not taking the GOP threat seriously. Triangulation turned out to be a disaster which cost the party control of Congress. Clinton repeated gave ground on shit where he should have stood firm. Welfare reform was a gimmie because the Dems never had an alternative to some of the more punative aspects of it.
Without Bill Clinton's charisma, something Hillary is quite free of, a lot of his ideas die stillborn. Terry McAullife was their guy and he did an OK job, but OK isn't what is needed here, leadership is.
Granholm isn't stupid. She's not going to undercut Dean and then have a bunch of folks pissed at her.
Dean scares people for a very simple reason: like John Paul Jones, he wants to head for a fight, not slide out of one. The problem for the anti-Dean forces is this: the public wants a fighter. By something like 2-1, the public wants an aggressive opposing Democratic party. Not an accomodationist one. Roemer is unacceptable and Frost a joke. If all they have is Dean's mouth to use against him, they don't have much.
His very candidacy is a statement of fact: the Washington Dems have failed to represent the wider party. They've tried to do everything but confront the GOP on their policies. It is time to fight them and stop them. Marty Frost and Tim Roemer have made careers tacking close to the GOP, only to be humiliated and defeated. Four more years of that is wasted time. It is time to get someone who wants to not only lead, but make real changes.
The Clinton's don't get that the times have changed. The most active people will no longer tolerate triangulation as policy. They want confrontation and a reaffirmation of democratic values, not just meaninless victories with Repulican-lite theories.
The party of Bush, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that we should dole out social security to Americans based on race and sex.
Let me repeat that.
The Republicans think that your race and sex should determine how much social security benefits you get.
Oh. My. Rep. Bill Thomas, (R - of course) chairman of the House Ways and Means committee:
We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.
Is he stupid? Or is he trying to kill Bush's Social Security theft plan by a thousand cuts. A racial standard for government benefits. Did he time portal to Pretoria 1975? Because he knows people flipped out when he raised gender. Now he goes all in with race? He has to either have the dumbest staff on the Hill or is as crafty as an old time ward heeler. Because he has to know that this will cause a shit storm.
Bush and his allies have been trying to sell this crap to black people by implying that they die earlier and get cheated out of SS. Well, Thomas just blunted that said basically said "if you want to play that card, well, let's judge ALL social security on race. You wanna play the race card, we'll play a race card." Just the debate is going to become a major, negative distraction to SS theft and the CATO Institute can't really handle the race question.
If you give black people less, it's genocide. If you give white people more, it's white supremacy unleashed. Either way, it puts a real ugly face on what had been a technical debate.
"The reserves are pretty well shot" after the Pentagon (news - web sites) makes the next troop rotation, starting this summer, said Robert Goldich, a defense analyst at the Congressional Research Service.
Among the evidence:
_Of the National Guard's 15 best-trained, best-equipped and most ready-to-deploy combat brigades, all but one are either in Iraq now, have demobilized after returning from a one-year tour there or have been alerted for duty in 2005-2006.
The exception is the South Carolina National Guard's 218th Infantry Brigade, which has had not been deployed to Iraq as a full brigade because smaller groups of its soldiers have been mobilized periodically for homeland defense and numerous missions abroad, including Iraq.
_The Army Reserve, with about 205,000 citizen soldiers on its rolls for support rather than combat duty, has been so heavily used since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that, for practical purposes, it has only about 37,500 troops available to perform the kinds of missions required in Iraq, according to an internal briefing chart entitled, "What's Left in the Army Reserve?"
_The chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, recently advised other Army leaders that his citizen militia is in "grave danger" of being unable to meet all its operational responsibilities. He said the Reserve is "rapidly degenerating into a `broken' force."
The mix of troops in the U.S. force rotation now under way in Iraq is about 50 percent active duty and 50 percent reserves. But that is set to change to 70 percent active and 30 percent reserve for the rotation after that, beginning this summer, because combat-ready Guard units have been tapped out.
Thus, two active-duty Army divisions that have already served one-year tours in Iraq — the 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry — have been selected to return in the coming rotation. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force already is on its second tour in Iraq.
The potential squeeze could be avoided if security conditions in Iraq improve so dramatically this year that the Pentagon decides it can achieve stability with a smaller force.
.....................
A portion of the best-trained reservists are approaching the 24-month limit, and some senior officials inside the Army are considering whether the limit should be redefined so that mobilizations over the past three years would, in effect, not count against the 24-month limit.
The Guard and Reserve are hurting in other ways, too. Their casualties in Iraq have been mounting (16 deaths in October, 28 in November, 20 in December and at least 15 in the first 13 days of January), and the National Guard and Army Reserve have been missing their recruiting goals.
The other, a moment in the middle of the show where Carson asked the audience if he could get serious. The studio quieted down, and he pulled out a copy of the National Enquirer, which had printed an article about his marriage headed for divorce. He addressed the camera directly: "I have not seen this until this morning. Now, before I get into this or say any more, I want to go on record right here in front of the American public because this is the only forum I have. They have this publication, I have this show. This is absolutely, completely, 100 percent falsehood ... I'm going to call the National Enquirer, and the people who wrote this, liars. Now that's slander. They can sue me for slander. You know where I am, gentlemen."
The move required balls of steel, and said to the world that "The Tonight Show" might be fun and games, but don't fuck with John William Carson. The Enquirer would print more stories about him, but they never sued.
It wasn't easy to be Johnny Carson. Nobody could tape 5,000 shows, interview 23,000 guests, without sacrificing some amount of personal life to the darkness. He ran through three wives and four producers, and developed a reputation as temperamental and emotionally distant. His three sons didn't see him that often, unless they worked on the show. A long struggle with the booze led to headlines for a drunken driving arrest. During one interview, he snapped at a journalist for not doing his homework and walked away from the table, leaving his then-publicist Gary Stevens to defuse the scene. At parties he either did card tricks, or didn't show up at all, preferring to stay home and tinker with hobbies like archery and astronomy. Other than endorsing a men's clothing line and producing the film "The Big Chill," most business investments were washouts: the DeLorean automobile, a savings and loan bank, TV sitcoms with Gabe Kaplan and Angie Dickinson, a bid to purchase the Aladdin Hotel in Vegas. His first and only concern was always the show.
While all the eulogies about Carson will "celebrate" his life, they forget how cruel, even cold Carson could be for his amusement. Unlike the desperately needy Leno, the conformist O'Brien, and the creepy, sadistic Letterman, Carson kept the worst aspects of his character off screen, but he was hardly the kindly figure he seemed on late night TV.
First, he would get young comics on and then only if he liked their act, would invite them to sit down. Now, if you were Jerry Seinfeld, this worked out, but Carson loved to lord it the young comics he invited on, knowing it was the great break in their career. If they became famous before 1993, they had to pass the Tonight Show test.
Then there was the grudge against Saturday Night Live. He refused to promote the show in it's early years because he felt they were seeking to replace him.
While people are recalling how Carson retired, they forget the numerous cruelities he inflicted on Jay Leno for taking his job. He never appeared on his show, and openly praised the sadistic and difficult Letterman, despite using Leno as his main substitiute host for years. While Leno's jokes are usually lame, he could at least be dealt with, Letterman took pride in being difficult. When NBC had to choose, they chose Leno and have been amply rewarded with an easy going team player. Letterman, and Carson never forgave this, missing no opportunity to go after Leno, and holding a deep, long grudge. Of course, Leno beats Letterman and has for nearly a decade.
Carson was also a wife beating drunk, according to his ex-wives and never really got on with his sons. One time, he nearly broke the face of one wife at a party in one of his violent rages.
Warm and loving are not adjectives associated with Johnny Carson. You can say he was talented, but as a human being, he had some issues. Like violence against women.
These are some shots I took when I went to get the Daily News today. It's not all comfort food and football. But my new Canon Powershot A95 takes nice shots in freezing weather.
By PETE DONOHUE, JOE MAHONEY
and JONATHAN LEMIRE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The state Senator accused of slugging a traffic agent over a parking ticket insisted yesterday that he did nothing wrong and demanded an apology from the city worker.
“I am innocent of all the charges filed against me,” said Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), who was flanked by constituents as he denied attacking the rookie agent after a car accident Thursday afternoon in East Flatbush.
..................
“This was a minor traffic accident that was blown out of proportion by an overzealous traffic agent eager to cover up his own mistakes,” Parker said. “I will be expecting an apology from all people involved.”
Joseph San Felipe, a traffic agent with eight months on the job, also wants an apology, his union president said.
............
The incident was not the first public confrontation for Parker. “Sen. Parker has got a lot of anger management issues,” said John McLoughlin, a Queens-based political consultant. “He’s making a joke out of the 21st Senate District.”
One of Parker’s opponents in last year’s primary – who has filed a slander lawsu9it against him – has charged that the senator viciously “chest butted” him at last year’s Haitian Flag Day parade to try to intimidate him.
“He came up to me and said, ‘Why are you running against me?’” recalled Wellington Sharpe. “He was yelling, 'You’re a punk.’”
Well, this wasn't the first time that he wigged out.
In the 2003 incident, Meyers said she and the other two drivers all stopped at a traffic light after exiting the parkway. The old man who had been cut off, she said, then climbed out of his car to berate the driver of the car with New York state Senate plate 62 – Kevin Parker.
“’You’re a schmuck,’” Meyers remembers the man yelling at Parker.
At that point, she said, Parker flashed his middle finger at the man and yelled, “Hey, you’re a senator. You almost killed those people.”
At that point, she said, Parker began screaming a string of profanities at her.
“’I don’t give a damn!’” she quoted him as saying. “’There is nothing you can do about it, b----! Go f--- yourself!’”
This asshole thinks because he runs up to Albany he can treat people anyway he wants. This happens from time to time. But the arrogance of asking for an apology from someone doing their job is a bit much. If I were Parker, I'd have sucked up the ticket and moved on. If the agent decides to sue, which he can, since he claims he was assaulted, this could get nasty. Elective office is not the right to act like you are royalty. The smaller the man, the larger the arrogance.
BY KERRY BURKE, RUSS BUETTNER
and ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
A bodyguard and chauffeur for former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik was busted on Staten Island after allegedly scuffling with a cop outside a bar.
Kerik confidant Eddie Aswad was charged with disorderly conduct, but cops were more interested in what they found inside his wallet after cuffing him: Kerik's retired NYPD identification card and a duplicate NYPD badge.
"It was Kerik's ID card. It's what Kerik should have in his pocket, not Aswad," a police source said.
Kerik's spokesman said the former top cop was puzzled, too.
"Commissioner Kerik has his NYPD retired ID card with him. He pulled it out of his wallet today," said spokesman Robert Leonard. "He doesn't know what this card is about."
Aswad, a retired captain in the city Correction Department, had been a top aide for Kerik since 1987. Known for his stoic personality, he earned the nickname "One Word Eddie."
When Kerik became police commissioner, Aswad's services were loaned to the NYPD. Sources said he could have palmed as many as a dozen of Kerik's IDs - either as mementos, "or something to flash after a bar brawl so he doesn't get arrested," a police source said.
The stink of corruption comes once again from the bums Kerik had around him. Like a sewer, the stench doesn't stop. Obviously, his crony had Kerik's ID to back cops off. Of course, since cops hated Giuliani and these assholes violated bar rule number one, don't touch women, it didn't work. They're lucky the patrons didn't kick their ass.
And the set of balls on these guys to hit the cops are amazing. I mean, they were dealing with uniforms, and even a 12 year old knows not to hit a cop if they don't want their ass kicked.
Degrading lyrics and videos prompt women's magazine to scrutinize hip-hop.
By Stanley Crouch
......Or it was claimed that these were voices of the black community that had been silenced, and that listeners were getting "reports from the brothers in the street." A performer's authenticity was intensified by an arrest record and time spent off the street as a guest of the state. Thugs became more appealing.
There is a long American tradition of loving the bad boy, and there is a fantasy attraction to anarchy in the world of rock that makes it fairly easy for the thug rapper to present himself in what has become the new minstrelsy of our time. This was true as long as the violence stayed at a distance.
Believe me, had any major white rock star met the fate shared by Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls, rap would have been folded up and rolled out of the business.
But with the violence taking place exclusively among blacks, the white males who buy four out of five rap recordings could enjoy taking an audio safari.
From the black part of the field, the new arrivals to the middle class and those who got higher education within the past 20 years were obsessed with not "selling out" or rejecting black culture in favor of white.
Consequently, listening to thug rappers meant embracing a criminal culture as though it were black culture. Drug dealers and pimps were supposed to be black heroes. Their code, which was only incidentally black, was championed relentlessly: If it made money, it was good; if it didn't, it was bad.
..................
Essence has a year of activities planned on the issue of rap. The moguls and the pimp rappers are in for the fight of their lives this time. As with the civil rights movement, it's foolish to bet against the women.
You mean like it was when Merle Haggard and Johnny Cash rode out criminal reputations and Willie Nelson praised marijuana like he was it's national spokesman? And Cash never served a day in jail, while Haggard did a bid for car theft.
White rock stars die of drug abuse. Tupac and Biggie ran with criminals. People who run with criminals get killed.
Americans love criminals, unless my movie watching created a fanatsy of the James brothers robbing banks and refighting the civil war 10 years later. By modern standards, they would be considered war criminals. People are still named after them. So the idea that this is uniquely black is amusing to say the least. People still tell stories about Bonnie and Clyde and their various kindnesses to the poor. I had to watch a British documentary, however, to find out Clyde Barrow had a jailhouse punk and was bisexual. So rap is in the finest American traditions of glorifying criminal behavior and prison, unless Folsom Prison Blues wasn't a hit.
Let's not pretend that Country or Rock is any kinder to women, it's just that Rap is just that more direct. It, like rock, is also male dominated.
Essence is A) owned by Time Warner, a major owner of said rap publishers, B) read by 30 something black women, while rap is bought by white teenagers. I'm sure they'll have a major effect on their listening habits. '
But this tired old argument misses two other highly relevant points: rap's real influence is not about criminal behavior, but an absurd level of consumerism. Grown men in fur coats and one caret diamond earrings, looking like female Wall Street brokers with bad taste. I mean, pimp is the kind word, dowager also comes to mind. It is amazing that Crouch is worried about the degredation of women, when his jazz heroes were no better than today's rappers, and probably worse when it came to women. They just didn't mention that in their music. There is no Miles Davis "Pimpin' Hard" tune. I don't think the heroin addicted Charlie Parker was all that great a husband.
As Chris Rock says "You don't have any investments, but you got rims." That, to me, is a lot more insidious that the abuse of women, which is bad, but nothing new. The celebration of greed, however, is. The RyanKenny $7000 shirt, the $300 throwback jersey, the $150 hoodie sweatshirt, that sends a message far worse than calling a woman a ho.
Second, it's not as if these values haven't migrated. Gospel is rife with the same, if toned down images, a decided lack of vocal talent, and a creepy use of Jesus as some kind of temporal boyfriend. Women flipping out in church, crying when some woman sings about how hot Jesus is. Well, not so directly, but close enough to make the hair on your back stand up on edge. You watch modern gospel and it's all about loud, bad performance.
Now, America has three major musical art forms, Jazz, blues, and gospel. Jazz has always had a cult aura about it since blues and it's son rock, dominated modern music. But gospel has always been the place where black talent was formed.From Scott Joplin to Jessica Simpson, gospel has been the training ground of America's singers. As silly as Simpson is, she can carry a tune. Now, you have the amazingly untalented singing gospel, weak voices and lots of performance. It's incidious and sad to watch. Once, you used to have to be able to sing to do gospel, now it's all about hopping up and down on stage. Pretty boys hopping around and saying Jesus rather than baby.
I'm not discounting the mysoginy in rap, any more than I would in rock, but it's the celebration of materialism and greed which should frighten people.
Only a fool would argue that racism in America has died. But one would be equally foolish to argue that the black American community either agrees on or has one true solution to its problems.
As one insider says, "Black people can no longer be looked upon as monolithic, and nobody understands this better than President Bush. He has quietly made very big strides by getting funds to faith-based organizations because the Republicans have discovered that the black churches are ready to do serious work."
In other words, Republicans have discovered that the morality trumpeted by the evangelicals who were so important to their victories in November is shared by the black church community, which has always been conservative on issues regarding personal conduct.
In fact, the black community is on the verge of becoming much more politically splintered. The Democrats would be wise to take the black church into consideration. The party, says one black insider, is "in a free fall because Howard Dean seems destined to be the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which will doom them for years to come."
The Republicans have succeeded in making high political appointments that seem to be free of any racial glue and actually recognize the individual rather than color or sex.
Look, ministers want to be bought, but the buying comes with a price, increasing disengagement from the black populace. Black people distrust Bush to an amazing degree. More than Reagan, who had few fans among black people.
But what can you expect from a man who uses the word Negro seriously. I mean, he's not quite subservient to white people, but there's a lot of Booker T. Washington in him.
This, of course, is not backed by any polling data. In fact, Howard Dean would be far closer to the political and economic views of black voters than Tim Roemer or Marty Frost by miles. His main problem was his comment sbout the confederate flag. He would have to hire a senior black deputy to smooth over hard feelings, and my bet is Al Sharpton will have a lot of money this fall to force Bloomberg back to 59th Street.
Crouch, like many Republicans, mistake black social conservatism for a political opening, which it is not. The problem is that the GOP has regressive policies and embrace openly racist candidates. Then it disrespects those blacks who do join the party. Time and again, you have stories of truly racist behavior on the part of GOP officials when it comes to dealing with blacks who want to do GOP outreach.
When you actually do the polling, which I cited here a couple of weeks ago, blacks have a Swedish Social Democratic attitude towards public policy. Where the GOP gets in with their regressive economic policies is beyond me.
Now, someone would have to explain to me how Dean, who is actually quite popular within the grassroots of the party, would "doom" the Democratic Party. In fact, polling would indicate the opposite. People want the Dems to activly oppose Bush's agenda, not accomodate it, by something like two to one. They don't want an accomodationist like Roemer or a Red State sellout like Frost. I think one of the most frequent complaints about the Dems among black people is the refusal to stand up for basic party priniciples. Not that the GOP is talking about irrelevant shit like gay marriage.
Now, the idea that the GOP appoints people without regard to race is a cruel joke, maybe even delusional. If Condi Rice was a white man, let's say Richard Clarke, she would have been savaged by the media for her rank incompetence. Clarence Thomas would be a district court judge.
The problem with the GOP is that the only black people who will deal with them are either so estranged from the wider black community or so morally corrupt, they have no future in elective politics. What Crouch forgets is the savaging Barack Obama took in his first run for Congress. He was ridiculed as a tool of white interests when he ran for Bobby Rush's seat in Congress. Just abused. Cory Booker met the same fate when he ran for mayor of Newark. He was attacked by black radio and accused of being a tool of the Jews and white developers. With no evidence and despite the open corruption of the local government. Now, by any standard, these are highly electable young men with sterling resumes, but because there was some question about their loyalty, they were hammered by locals.
Now, when you do that to people running in Democratic primaries, people who are clearly qualified for elective office, how do you run as a Republican and win? You don't, unless the local Dems are as crooked as the Pacific Coast Highway.
This mythical "splintering" will happen because apostates always gain notice. The problem is that the demographic data shows no such splintering. And the GOP's method is simple: buy the black church. They will pay off the ministers to get them to lean GOP, but the problem is that the racism behind that blinds them to the reality that educated people make educated decisions.
I think the reality is that a Dean-led DNC will be far more responsive and in tune to what Democratic voters want, a vigorous opposition to Bush's policies and nowhere are those policies more unpopular than in black America.
What Dems don't get however, is why the GOP is trying to do outreach. It's simple: the GOP cannot rely on aging white voters in an increasingly multicultural America. They need black voters, and hispanic voters, but the problem is that they still rely on racism to drive voters to the polls. So they want blacks to ignore that obvious contradiction, which is unlikely, given the open dislike of the GOP within black America,
A political action committee set up to burnish Gov. George E. Pataki's national reputation gathered more than $1 million in 2004, and among the biggest donors were four business leaders or officials heavily involved in rebuilding ground zero.
While leading real estate investors often contribute to political officials, these developers made unusually large donations of $25,000 each to the committee, which was created in Virginia to avoid New York State campaign finance limits. Given that the money to the committee came from people with major interests in the redevelopment of ground zero - viewed as sacred space by families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attack - this intersection between money and politics could prove especially delicate.
"I think it's despicable that people involved in rebuilding the World Trade Center would go outside the state and make these kind of huge donations to the governor, who's supposed to be guarding the interests of ground zero," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband, Richard, was killed when the south tower collapsed, and who has been critical of Mr. Pataki's stewardship of the site. "Ground zero is not the place to be lining pockets."
Kevin Quinn, a spokesman for Mr. Pataki, said yesterday that the 21st Century Freedom PAC was created six years ago to pay for travel, events, donations and other activities by the governor to support Republican candidates. Mr. Quinn said that donors did not enjoy any special favor or access with the executive branch.
"Any decisions that we make are based solely on the merits, on sound public policy, and on what is in the best interests of New Yorkers," he said.
Mr. Pataki has taken an intensive role in the redevelopment of ground zero, going so far as to involve himself in the selection of final designs for the site.
The donors are Daniel R. Tishman and John L. Tishman, who each gave $25,000 last month and are executives with Tishman Realty and Construction, which is building 7 World Trade Center; John C. Whitehead, whom Mr. Pataki tapped to be chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation; and Lloyd Goldman, a partner in developing 7 World Trade Center.
.........................
The New York Public Interest Research Group said that Mr. Pataki's newly proposed state budget for 2005-6 called for a cap of $100 million on the amount of a bond tobacco companies would put up if they lost a lawsuit in the state. "Not to overuse the metaphor, but it turns out that where there's smoke, there's fire," said Blair Horner, a lobbyist for the research group. "We were surprised that Altria would make a $75,000 donation to the governor of the state that has the toughest anti-smoking law, one of the highest cigarette taxes, and the only state that requires cigarettes to meet fire safety standards. This bill looks like a gift to the tobacco industry."
Oh, bullshit. Tishman IS real estate in New York. If they're paying off Pataki, there's a reason. The problem is that 9/11 has been the greatest cash cow since the Yukon. Giuliani and Kerik, now Pataki. People should have been screaming when Kerik used Ground Zero photos from his book, or when Giuliani raised all that money and built his consultancy on it. Now Pataki is taking back door money in a scam which should be illegal.
Now he's taking another payoff from Altria, after coming up with a state budget which has to be seriously reworked. Pataki is planning to run for President. Which is a joke, but this money has bigger purposes than Albany. He's going to be crushed by Spitzer and he knows it. Too bad all he's going to be is Ambassador to Hungary, but a man can dream.
His notice of deployment to Iraq came around Christmas 2003. He waited on a military base for six weeks, but since the majority of his unit had already shipped out before him, he received little training.
"The majority of my time was spent staring at the barracks walls, listening to music and cursing," Resta recalls.
He was a given a rifle that was not personally calibrated for him — so it probably wouldn't shoot straight — and an ill-fitting gas mask. Base commanders could not confirm that Guard and Reserve units would be supplied with personal body armor in Iraq, so Resta took out a $1,500 loan, went to the local police supply store in Columbia, S.C., and bought a ceramic-plated body vest capable of stopping an AK-47 round. He paid off the bank loan six months into his tour. It is common practice for reservists to buy their own body armor. Resta, a medic, also had to fuss to get basic medical supplies he needed for the deployment. "The day before we moved into Iraq," he remembers, "I found out that they were putting me into a vehicle with three other guys and that we would be riding scout, about 200 meters ahead of the convoy. The odds were that we would get hit first. I still had no medical supplies at this point. I'm talking basic stuff: bandages, IV fluid. I was thinking along the lines of us getting hit and us being cut off with no medical supplies, and I'm in a situation where I got guys bleeding to death and I can't do a thing about it."
Resta says he was given the supplies after announcing that he would not get in the truck without them.
The majority of vehicles in Resta's brigade, as throughout much of Iraq, were poorly armored. Most were protected by only half-inch sheets of plywood. During their initial drive into Iraq, the brigade lost its first soldier. He was riding in an unarmored Humvee and was killed by a roadside improvised explosive device (IED). From then on, Resta placed his armor vest on the seat to protect his legs and crotch.
"A lot of times, the only way you find an IED is when one explodes on you," he says. "You're driving along and without warning there is an explosion and then a deafening roar. They're very indiscriminate killers."
Once in Iraq, Resta's brigade was assigned to the Army's 1st Infantry Division and stationed in northeast Iraq. Insurgents attacked the camp with rifle and mortar fire two or three times a week. One time, an 8-year-old Iraqi girl was riding in a vehicle that bypassed an Iraqi National Guard checkpoint. An AK-47 round passed diagonally through her stomach, shredding her internal organs. She was brought into Resta's camp for treatment. He remembers her long, brown hair laying across her lifeless body.
Resta says that aside from treating these kinds of injuries, his commanders would not allow the medics to treat everyday ailments of Iraqi citizens they came across during patrols.
"We were told that the Army did not have enough money to be giving out free medicine," says Resta. "And that the Iraqis would have to get used to their own health-care system anyway."
On Tuesday, Resta began classes at Philadelphia Community College, where he's studying nursing. He says his Guard recruiter conveniently forgot to tell him that his college benefits would end when his contract expired. Though that contract expires next February, Resta has three and a half years of school left and he expects he'll have to take out even more loans to complete his degree.
"You would think there would be some provision to at least give me back the benefits for the two years I was on active duty," Resta says angrily. "But nope, there's nothing."
Winning hearts and minds with the finest Army in the world.
Borrowing money to buy body armor, jesus christ that's bad.
The weird thing about waiting for a snowstorm is that you know it's coming, you can't do anything about it, and you have to plan to watch it. The weather's been so cold here that going outside is restricted to serious errands. I just let the UPS man take up the slack. My living room has tiny boxes filled with packing peanuts.
I've started building plastic models again. I need to do something with my hands besides type.There's something relaxing in looking up squadron colors for P-51's and the Fleet Air Arm's scheme for Corsairs. The painting, the sanding, the airbrushing is relaxing in a way and perfect for cold winters days. Of course,this means no trips with Jen, since it's been 15 degrees here on and off over two weeks.
And it will fill time during the blizzard.
If you don't live or have never lived in the northeast, you don't understand how weird a blizzard is. Because winters tend to hover around the 40's here. So when the temps drop, it gets interesting. Street life tends to shrink to nothing but dog walking and hurried strolls. Unlike the midwest where this is factored into the winter, a true white-out blizzard is an unusual event in a large city, especially New York.
I dropped nearly $70 at the local supermarket and took out money from the ATM just in case I needed a cab or something in an emergency.
Each city is different. Boston is used to snow in a way New York is not, Philly tends to get more snow than New York, which is sheltered by the sea. Washington flips out over six inches, which isn't enough to close schools here. But snow freaks people out here, especially big snow. They run to the supermarket, they buy salt ande prepare to hunker down. It is an event.
What to do?
I say it's time to cook. Pot pies, soup, stews, chili. Warm, slow food which will fill the house with smells of goodness while you wach the snow fall, especially after some sledding or snowball fighting.
So what would be a good snowbound menu?
Breakfast
Oatmeal would be a good way to start the day, then French Toast with warm maple syrup. Or blueberry pancakes slathered in jelly and butter. This really isn't a fruit cup kind of day. A cup of freshly brewed coffee with a shot of bourbon or brandy and some cinnamon to contemplate the power of nature as you stand around in your bathrobe.
Lunch
Grilled cheese sandwiches, croque monsieur or open faced beef or turkey, maybe a tuna melt or patty melt and soup. Warm apple cider doesn't hurt. Not hot, not cold, but warm.
Dinner
By now, that stew/crock pot meal is ready to go. Serve with warm bread, maybe a glass of wine or dark beer(porter, stout). Sheppard's Pie sounds appealing, doesn't it, with that crust and veggies? Well, you're home, you have time to make this stuff. You're stuck indoors and they don't deliver Chinese in blizzards.
Yeah, it's heavy, but it's also real cold outside and you don't get the pleasure of true winter food often. So dine in with gusto.
17:15 21 January 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Deborah MacKenzie
Two more people in Vietnam have been confirmed to have contracted the H5N1 bird flu virus, as the known death toll in the country since the start of 2005 has risen to seven. There are at least seven more cases suspected.
Worryingly, two cases now in hospital might have caught the virus from another person, not from an infected fowl. Overall, these cases also suggest that many human infections with H5N1 may not have been diagnosed, partly because tests are not reliable or widely available.
The more people that have the virus, the more chances it will have to adapt to humans and possibly unleash a pandemic, warned Hans Troedsson of the World Health Organization in Vietnam. The WHO's biggest bird flu fear is that the virus will evolve to spread from human to human. Troedsson called it a "disappointment [that] the international community is not responding more adequately to the threat".
At the start of this week, six human cases of H5N1 flu had been diagnosed in Vietnam since the start of 2005. All have now died. Moreover, a 47-year-old man who died last week in Hanoi had twice tested negative for H5N1. He is now reported to have tested positive the third time around.
The problem is that the story is lost in the tsunami coverage. The Thai government already has one crisis, running around announcing bird flu coul cause an economic disaster. Also, it isn't clear how the disease is moving form human to human.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 21 - Earlier this month, according to Iraqi officials, $300 million in American bills was taken out of Iraq's Central Bank, put into boxes and quietly put on a charter jet bound for Lebanon.
The money was to be used to buy tanks and other weapons from international arms dealers, the officials say, as part of an accelerated effort to assemble an armored division for the fledgling Iraqi Army. But exactly where the money went, and to whom, and for precisely what, remains a mystery, at least to Iraqis who say they have been trying to find out.
The $300 million deal appears to have been arranged outside the American-designed financial controls intended to help Iraq - which defaulted on its external debt in the 1990's - legally import goods. By most accounts here, there was no public bidding for the arms contracts, nor was the deal approved by the entire 33-member Iraqi cabinet.
On Friday, the mysterious flight became an issue in this country's American-backed election campaign, when Defense Minister Hazim al-Shalaan, faced with corruption allegations, threatened to arrest a political rival.
In an interview on Al Jazeera television, Mr. Shalaan said he would order the arrest of Ahmed Chalabi, one of the country's most prominent politicians, who has publicly accused Mr. Shalaan of sending the cash out of the country. Mr. Shalaan said he would extradite Mr. Chalabi to face corruption charges of his own.
"We will arrest him and hand him over to Interpol," Mr. Shalaan thundered on Al Jazeera. The charge against Mr. Chalabi, he said, would be "maligning" him and his ministry. He suggested that Mr. Chalabi had made the charges to further his political ambitions.
Mr. Chalabi first made the allegation against Mr. Shalaan last week, on another Arabic-language television network. He said there was no legitimate reason why the Iraqi government should have used cash to pay for goods from abroad. He implied that at least some of the money was being used for other things.
"Why was $300 million in cash put on an airplane?" Mr. Chalabi asked in an interview this week. "Where did the money go? What was it used for? Who was it given to? We don't know."
...............
And why didn't I get a chance to steal it first, said Chalabi to his Iranian masters.
Come on, it's the Allawi retirement fund. Arms dealers? There are thousands of tanks in mothballs in Iraq. They're stealing what they can before Sistani and his people take over.
NEW YORK - When Jerome Armstrong began consulting for Howard Dean (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign, he thought the ethical thing to do was to suspend the Web journal where he opined on politics.
But to suggest others do the same with their journals, otherwise known as blogs? No way.
"If I'm getting paid by a client, I don't blog about it. That's my personal set of standards," Armstrong said. "I'm not going to hold anybody else to my personal standards. I'm not going to make that universal."
The growing influence of blogs such as his is raising questions about whether they are becoming a new form of journalism and in need of more formal ethical guidelines or codes of conduct.
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 27 percent of adults who go online in the United States read blogs. And blogs have greater impact because their readers tend to be policy makers and other influencers of public opinion, media experts say.
..........
Others, however, have pushed written guidelines.
Jonathan Dube, managing producer at MSNBC.com and publisher of CyberJournalist.net, modified the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics and urged fellow bloggers to adopt it. The principles: Be honest and fair. Minimize harm. Be accountable.
Longtime blogger Rebecca Blood circulated guidelines that call for disclosing any conflicts of interest, publicly correcting any misinformation and linking to any source materials referenced in postings.
"It seems pretty clear to me that having some kind of standard contributes to an individual blogger's own credibility," she said.
Yet Blood knows of fewer than 10 bloggers who have adopted her guidelines by linking to the document.
....................
Bloggers, though, tend to shudder at being called journalists, even as lines between the two blur.
When Apple Computer Inc. got court orders allowing it to subpoena bloggers for the identities of people who had leaked company secrets, two of the bloggers responded by claiming they were entitled to protect confidential sources the way traditional journalists do.
And in Cambridge, Mass., Friday and Saturday, a conference called "Blogging, Journalism and Credibility" explored the evolution of blogging and journalism and the influences of one on the other.
Many bloggers believe standards of practices are inevitable, even if they aren't something formalized in writing.
Zephyr Teachout, who was Dean's director of online organizing, likens it to crafting a constitution — not necessarily written as a formal code of conduct, but as a set of accepted norms.
....................
Dan Gillmor, a former newspaper columnist now studying citizen-driven journalism through blogging, said bloggers who want an audience will voluntarily adopt principles of fairness, thoroughness, accuracy and transparency.
"No one's bound by these rules," Gillmor said, "but I think some norms will emerge for people who want to be taken seriously."
Here's the way I see it. Why should I accept some stranger's guidelines on what I should do online? What people are forgetting here is that there is no society of Internet Bloggers, like SPJ. Who the hell is Rebecca Blood to tell me what my ethics are? Why should I sign on to some code she wrote?
The Circle Jerk at Harvard was about as flawed a device as could be to actually discuss ethics. It would be like discussing infantry tactics in Iraq with Max Boot, Victor Davis Hanson and some armor commanders. If you're going to talk about blogging, try talking to bloggers first. Not people who post once a week or people who's greatest contribution to blogging is being quoted by lazy reporters and settling grudges.
What exactly has the3 unethical blogging lawyer done, besides proclaim her ambition and her 32 job employtment record. Why not actually talk to someone who blogs every day and has managed to gain recognition for their work.
Ok, since I'm one of these people, let's interview me:
Reporter: There's been a lot of talk about blogging standards.
SG: There's also been rumors of herding cats. The problem is that you can't have standards in a vacuum.
Reporter: Vacuum?
SG: Just because some ex-Dean hack sees a problem doesn't mean there is one. Blogs are opinion, not news, unless there is news. I mean, the whole controversy started from grudgework, not some real conflict.
Reporter: But isn't there the potential for conflict?
SG: Sure. Just like when Judy Miller runs around with her neocon friends and then runs with the stories they pimp to her. But the problem is that all this furor is about a few liberal blogs and not the right blogs which are better funded. The problem is that their communities are either freakshows, like Little Green Footballs or don't allow for comments like Instapundit. Kos, Atrios are communities, and they get very different responses.
What these ethics groupies also miss is that our readers serve a serious break on our actions. We get paid directly from them, and they watch our words like hawks. If I mention a brand name product, people see that as an endorsment or a point of debate. The most bitter debates on my site center around Apple, not politics. Now, if Apple's PR departement sent me an iBook and I suddenly said they were the greatest company on the planet, that's far more serious than anything I could say about politics and I would be hammered for it. Well, since I have said I liked the iBook, it wouldn't be a real ethical break, but it would be an issue.
If Kos decides to discuss, oh, his favorite car, that's as going to be influential as anything he writes about politics.
We have a far greater watchdog than some nutjob lawyer, our readers. They don't cut us slack and they will comment on anything we discuss.
Reporter: Is that an issue?
SG: Commericial influences? Sure. Once companies realize that bloggers can influence people beyond politics, they will get a lot of attention. Computer companies will do anything to get the WSJ's Walt Mossberg's attention. He's so popular that his content is free on their site. Well, one day, someone will realize that giving Atrios a new laptop will make a lot of economic sense. And that is what the ethics groupies are missing. I think bloggers who do politics are serious, ethical people. The problem is when there becomes value in their reputation beyond their content. I know if I recommend products, people listen to me. When I post a recipe, people copy it, make it at home. If someone was unethical, it is far more likely to come with commercial products, not politics. Howard Dean can't really do more than offer you cash. Sony can give you a new living room if they choose. They can give you things and no one would ever know. No FEC filing, no open conflict.
Reporter: So while people might be scrupulous about politics, they may not be so concerned about other issues?
SG: I think ethics is all encompasing, not just about the narrow ethics of journalism. Reputations are transferable. Which is why Jeff Gordon sells insurance and corn flakes. Once people realize that there's money in being the "bloggers laptop" or the "blogger's software" then you have a real risk for conflict far beyond politics. Everyone understands that taking favors from politicans is risky. They may not see that risk from Apple.
What I think is that until you have associations and societies of bloggers, then ethics is just a silly conversation. Membership is the key to making ethics codes stick. Not just the odd post. Unless and until bloggers organize, all this is just noise. Not that they should organize, but without that, there is no reason to take an ethics code seriously.
MENA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Haj pilgrims pelted stones at symbols of the devil on Friday, with many saying they were targeting President Bush (news - web sites) and other world leaders seen as oppressing Muslims.
Last year, 250 people were crushed to death at Mena's Jamarat Bridge, but so far new measures by the Saudi authorities have averted any stampedes. This year, more than 2.5 million Muslims streamed into the area for the stoning, meant as an act of purification and rejection of temptation.
.............
"Yes, the devil is Bush and that other one from Israel -- (Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon. And there's (British Prime Minister) Blair too," said Egyptian Tia'amah Mohammed.
"We throw the stones so we can vent our anger at them."
Many Muslims revile Bush for his perceived bias toward Israel and the U.S. occupation of Iraq (news - web sites). Anger at Sharon also runs deep over Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and Jerusalem, the site of one of Islam's holiest shrines.
British journalist Yvonne Ridley, who converted to Islam following her capture by the Taliban in 2001 in the buildup to the Afghan war, said: "During the stoning I couldn't help thinking of Bush, Blair and Sharon."
Syrian Ibrahim Hussein added: "I was throwing stones at the devil because through that we cleanse ourselves of sin. When throwing the stones you shouldn't be thinking of political issues, or Bush and Sharon -- that's for our prayers (against them)."
SAFE STONING
Saudi Arabia, facing a storm of criticism, revamped the Jamarat area, expanding the stoning targets and deploying thousands of security forces to control the crowd.
They also replaced the three pillars the pilgrims stone with thick walls providing a larger target to prevent the crush that normally occurs at the site.
Graffiti denouncing Bush had daubed the pillars. The new walls have so far remained clean.
But they don't understand, we want them to be *free.
*Freedom offer void in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and China.
Technology firms Sony, Philips, Matsushita and Samsung are developing a common way to stop people pirating digital music and video.
The firms want to make a system that ensures files play on the hardware they make but also thwarts illegal copying.
The move could mean more confusion for consumers already faced by many different, and conflicting, content control systems, experts warned.
They say there are no guarantees the system will even prevent piracy.
Format wars
Currently many online stores wrap up downloadable files in an own-brand control system that means they can only be played on a small number of media players.
Systems that limit what people can do with the files they download are known as Digital Rights Management systems.
By setting up the alliance to work on a common control system, the firms said they hope to end this current fragmentation of file formats.
In a joint statement the firms said they wanted to let consumers enjoy "appropriately licensed video and music on any device, independent of how they originally obtained that content".
The firms hope that it will also make it harder for consumers to make illegal copies of the music, movies and other digital content they have bought.
Called the Marlin Joint Development Association, the alliance will define basic specifications that every device made by the electronics firms will conform to.
............
Confusingly for consumers, the technology that comes out of the alliance will sit alongside the content control systems of rival firms such as Microsoft and Apple.
"In many ways the different DRM systems are akin to the different physical formats, such as Betamax and VHS, that consumers have seen in the past," said Ian Fogg, personal technology and broadband analyst at Jupiter Research.
"The difference is that it is very fragmented," he said. "It's not a two-horse race, it's a five, six, seven or even eight-horse race"
..............
She said rampant competition between online music services, of which there are now 230 according to recent figures, could drive more openness and freer file formats.
"It always works out that consumer needs win out in the long run," she said, "and the services that win in the long run are the ones that listen to consumers earliest."
Ms Taylor said the limits legal download services place on files could help explain the continuing popularity of file-sharing systems that let people get hold of pirated pop.
"People want portability," she said, "and with peer-to-peer they have 100% portability."
Jen
The only thing this will do is flood the market with off-brand non-"locked" players, like my Daewoo multi-zone DVD player.
It's almost funny watching US technology companies eat their own intestines in shortsighted efforts to keep 12-year-olds from saving $10 on the next Brittney Spears CD.
The problem is simple: as long as Ogg vorbis and MP3 are played back by these machines, this is all wasted motion. And SONY's proprietary format Walkman is a market failure. No one will buy machines which won't play their music or buy it in multiple formats with fewer rights than they have with a CD.
MOSUL, Iraq - When the soldiers of the U.S. Army's Stryker Brigade rolled into the northern Iraqi city of Mosul last year on their new, 38,000-pound machines that look like tanks on wheels, they were coming to an oasis of relative calm amid a spreading insurgency.
Eleven months later, Mosul has become one of the most violent places in Iraq, and some U.S. soldiers there say that's partly because there aren't enough American troops to fight the insurgency.
The rising violence, they say, has taught them a hard lesson: It's often best to fight insurgents the old-fashioned way,
...................
The Stryker brigades are the vanguard of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's vision of a new Army, one transformed into smaller, more agile units with high-tech equipment that can go anywhere, anytime. The brigades' heavily armored vehicles can reach 70 mph, carry advanced computer systems and heavy firepower, and absorb blasts from roadside bombs or rocket-propelled grenades, which can destroy a Humvee or even a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
The approximately 5,000 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division who took control of Mosul last February were the first full-sized Stryker force to go into combat. They replaced some 20,000 soldiers from the 101st Airborne, a division with the ability to drop units in by helicopter, but based mainly on traditional infantry structure.
The men of the 101st moved around Mosul in Humvees but sustained few casualties, even though some of their Humvees lacked armor.
Conditions in Mosul, however, have gotten worse since the Strykers arrived.
Visiting the town of Hammam al Alil, south of the city, Lt. Col. Todd McCaffrey said the area had become a "planning,
..................
"When you don't have enough soldiers, it's a hard thing to do," he said. "We went from a division to a brigade here."
Asked if they thought the intense fighting in Mosul was the result of insurgents leaving Fallujah, a rebel stronghold that the U.S. military retook in November, the two young officers said they thought that was a factor, but not nearly as important as having too few men.
After his conversation with Szilvassy, Mikkelsen and his platoon drove to the town of al Mawali, a few miles west of Mosul. Mikkelsen, a 29-year-old from Vancouver, Wash., was recording the locations of schools, mosques and local leaders because records of them had been lost.
As the soldiers walked through the town, a crowd of children followed, smiling and giving the thumbs-up sign. They made it difficult, at first, to notice a man on a motorcycle who was circling the group and taking pictures.
The American soldiers probably had just been "made" by insurgents.
The local sheik's nephew told Mikkelsen he hadn't spoken with an American soldier since the 101st Airborne was in the area. Mikkelsen looked pained at the news.
He asked the sheik if there was anything he could do for him.
"Please don't shoot us at night," the sheik said.
As they walked past a mosque near the sheik's home, Mikkelsen's translator pointed to a spray-painted message on its wall: "Allah is great. Long live Jihad."
The 101st had good relations, but they had a division. There's now a brigade there, but you need men, real life infantry. A gap the US had covered with Third World armies. But since the people running Pakistan and Nigeria like living, those soldiers are not available. And the war is intensely unpopular in South Korea, which means they won'tbe burning down Iraqi villages and scaring the bejesus out of them like they did to the VC.
But it gets better, as this post from Noah Schachtman points out.
M113. First saw combat in Vietnam, where it's thin armor was an issue there.
For more than a year, Maj. Gen. William Webster, the head of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had been asking his bosses for the money to toughen up his armored personnel carriers. And for more than a year, his requests went nowhere.
Then, in December, Tennessee National Guard Spc. Thomas Wilson scorched Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for not armoring up American vehicles. Within days, Inside the Pentagon notes, Gen. Webster's long-ignored plea was finally answered.
Webster's request for additional armor for his M113 [personnel carriers] had languished at Army headquarters since October 2003, a month after he took command of the "3rd ID," as it is called... The requirement for up-armored M113s was just one of more than 50 "operational needs statements" Webster submitted at the time...
Initially, the 3rd ID flagged other requirements as more critical than the M113 up-armor effort, sources said. The division was requesting hundreds more radios, machine guns and trucks with the first priority being "to shoot, move and communicate" when they returned to Iraq, said one Army insider.
But field commanders became increasingly uneasy last summer as casualties mounted in Iraq from ever more sophisticated insurgent tactics. M113s in Iraq were becoming vulnerable to roadside bombs and mines, Army officials say. Its light armor can stop pistol and rifle fire and shrapnel, "but that's it," said one.
The 3rd ID commander began pushing in earnest last August to up-armor his personnel carriers, according to sources and documents. His quest met considerable opposition at Army headquarters and at the service's Forces Command, where senior deputies argued the M113's existing light armor allowed it agility in urban terrain, and said it should be sufficient against an insurgency that lacks traditional armor of its own, sources said.
The three-quarter-ton armor that gets plated onto the humvees, for example, limits its carrying ability and puts additional strain on the transmission, according to service officials...
In mid-October, Webster officially requested that Army headquarters in Washington approve a $20 million armor upgrade for about 450 M113 troop carriers... In view of the estimated $1 billion being spent for Iraq operations each month, proponents of the up-armoring view it as a relative bargain. The M113 -- essentially a box on top of its tracked chassis -- is easier to armor-plate than the humvee and can be done at one-fifth the cost...
"At this time, the division does not have a viable mix of active and passive add-on armor systems for its combat and combat support vehicles that will help prevent casualties and losses," [Webster] wrote, citing "an increasing sniper, roadside bomb, improvised explosive device, mortar, rocket propelled grenade, anti-tank missile, machine gun and small arms threat in theater..."
Webster sought "delivery of all add-on armor systems [no later than] 15 January 2005," [a] letter states, [when the 3rd ID would be returning to Iraq]...
It was not until a late-December meeting at the Pentagon that the 3rd ID was assured Army support for getting up-armored M113s, sources said. The "can do" attitude of a new head of force development at the Army's "G-8" programs office, Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, may have played a role in the shift, according to some officials.
"This crazy nonsense is because there was an unwillingness to admit three things: the Iraqi insurgency is a rebellion against the U.S. military occupation, it was steadily worsening, and U.S. soldiers were at serious risk in wheeled vehicles," says retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a former armored cavalry officer who led troops in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Macgregor is a bona fide legend in Army Armor. He was a young captain leading a troop of the 2nd Armored Cav crossing the Iraqi frontier when they ran smack into an Iraqi unit. The battle which resulted, 73 Easting, is studied at West Point and Ft. Knox. However, given Macgregor's honesty, it is easy to see why he retired a Colonel. This whole situation is based on not pissing off Rummy and his big talking cowards at DOD when the reality is that Iraq is a nightmare with only an ugly end possible. Every day the resistance grows, the more power they gain.
The US so brutal and inept and racist that they cannot capitalize on the brutality and recklessness of the resistance. Most Iraqis want nothing to do with head chopping innocents. But when faced with daily US brutality, they turn their backs.
Bush talks about freedom as if people don't have TV's. If this is the freedom we're going to offer to Syria and Iran, they will fight us to the last man.
WASHINGTON - Anti-Bush demonstrators waving signs that said "Worst President Ever" and "the American Nightmare" jeered the president's motorcade during the inaugural parade Thursday.
The procession of cars sped up as President Bush (news - web sites) neared the designated location for protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Two rows of police lined the street in front of the main protest site. Officers stationed atop buildings along the route kept close watch on the crowd.
Boos rained down from the crowd and some demonstrators shouted, "No justice, no peace." In some places in the protest area, the crowd was about six rows deep.
Three blocks from the White House, protesters tried to rush a security gate and a flag was burned. Police briefly locked down the area, trapping some 400 to 500 spectators.
Annie Katz, 52, of New York, was at the rear of a group of protesters, but she said the experience was worth it despite the bad view. Katz said she was upset by the 2000 election, but "I'm angrier this time, since I'm angry about the war."
U.S. soldiers in dress uniforms and blue coats were greeted with chants of "no more wars."
Some rallying against the war carried coffin-like cardboard boxes to signify the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites). Some of their chants could be heard as Bush neared the end of his inaugural address. The president continued speaking without interruption and there was no sign that he heard them.
.................
Julie Katz, 39, of Fairbury, Neb., watched from a sidewalk as a ring of police in riot gear kept protesters a few dozen yards from the checkpoint.
"This is what makes America great. It's a little disrespectful, but it's their right to protest," said Katz, who volunteered for Bush's 2004 campaign.
While President Bush was watching the parade from his reviewing stand in front of the White House, a group of anti-war protesters a block away unfurled a banner reading, "George Bush (news - web sites): Your wars shame U.S." Eight protesters lay down in the street pretending to be dead, with flowers strewn over their bodies.
So who said there wouldn't be protests? Bush only thinks he's a king.
There were two sets of heroes in Washington. The military survivors of our colonial wars, and the people protesting the Iraq War. Not included in that is Bush and the gutless military leadership who should have resigned en masse when it was clear that Bush was lying.
These were not the tiny group of leftists who pop up, but thousands of angry, outraged Americans tired of Bush squandering our moral capital like chips in a game in Texas Hold 'Em, where he keeps playing every hand.
While Bush and his oblivious supporters missed was the large number of people who were offended by his revelling in military spectacle while real soldiers were fighting in Iraq.
But yesterday was a good day, because while Bush would never give pause to a contrary opinion, he couldn't hide from it and he couldn't pretend it was a few lone people. A lot of people give in to cynicism, but that's just handing a victory to the idiots trying to return to 1898.
I was so happy to see the idiot TV reporters surprised by the massive, live, on TV protests. Not a lone sign or two, but walls of signs decrying Bush and his war. So many signs and protests, audible boos could be heard on the TV. They just stumbled and mumbled and couldn't really figure out why so many people booed Bush, tossed eggs and fought with the cops. Then went on to go after the Inagural Balls.
These greedy parasites were shocked to see so many people in their face.
But all the whining about police responses amuses me. Why? Because there's a reality of American life middle class white kids, no matter how "radical" they claim to be, are always surprised by the reaction of the police.
Here's a hint: police beat people. They spray pepper spray in people's faces. They shove them around.
Why?
Because that's what the cops do to people who don't listen to them.
I know a lot of you grow up with the idea that the police are friendly, or at least neutral. Well, here's the deal. You protest and question their orders, you get treated just like the negroes they smack around on a daily basis. They will beat you, pepper spray you and lie about why you got arrested.
You better get used to it, and get ready to sue. No point in complaning about it when you can get everyone in discovery and depositions.
It was a good day, challening the coronation. That's the real America, not the freak show Bush put on.
Happy Inaguration Day....don't worry your pretty little mind about the dead
I guess he missed the Inaguration gala
I'm glad it's snowy, shitty weather in Washington. Bush deserves a blizzard, but we'll take what we can get.
Bush and his family live in a fantasy world where spending $40m to celebate his second term is supposed to be some kind of glorious occasion.
There's no glory in Bush or his war.
This ran on the BBC today.
A car shot at by US troops
Inside was a family
This is a four year old child covered in the blood of her parents and siblings
This is her sister being given first aid by a US soldier
Every day in Iraq brings a tragedy like this. The kids who are expected to make life and death decisions. The kids who suffer from them. The kids who don't come back. A cycle of misery which was preventable and may never end. What happens to these people? The soldiers who have to live with a nightmare of a decision, the image of a toddler screaming in pure terror and covered in blood. The children who are orphaned by this.
I don't think for a second that everyone involved wouldn't like to take back that moment, do something different, so they didn't kill a family or get killed. But there are no do overs in life.
Bush cannot say why we are in Iraq, except to bring democracy. Which translated to human means to install a puppet. In reality, that means installing some Shia cleric of variable anti-American rabidity.
Bush is tone deaf to all opposing ideas. Even as his social security plans make even GOP members blink, as they see the AARP mailings and nasty town hall meetings which await them. The fact that his "wife" Condi, unblinking in her utter incompetence, can defend Bush policies is amazing. Let Bush pick his cast of syncophants, Condi, his Igor, Gonzalez, let him hire the second-raters which make him feel smart. So they can all share in the coming failure of his plans.
Celebrate?
Nope, don't mourn, organize.
Bush is a gambler, placing higher stakes as he loses. The house extends his marker again and again. But at some point, he has to pay. He acts as if he's a low-rent monarch and not responsible to a Congress and a public.
Bush is the least popular president since Nixon and we need to use that against him every day. He lied about Iraq, why would he tell the truth about Social Security?
Remember the misery that Bush caused with his wrong, failed war. Remember this: Bush's America legacy is terror and arrogance. It leaves contempt and enemies in his wake, as he goes blandly on, saying that the people love him because he won, no matter what lies he used to win.
So let's wish the protesters the best in the cold of Washington and remind the world that half of us tried to stop our George III.
Use this thread to record your reflections on the corona...inaguration here.
Exclusive pictures of Giulianis' $3.95M retreat in Hamptons
BY MAKI BECKER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
The Daily News has obtained exclusive photos of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and wife Judith's brand-new mansion in an exclusive East End enclave, with a distant view of the Atlantic Ocean.
The selling price for the 6,000-plus-square-foot two-story summer home was a cool $3.95 million.
"The rumor has it that it sold for more than [that] ... because of the additions," said Jay Flagg, managing director of Prudential Douglas Elliman's Southampton office.
Those "additions" include a gym in the finished basement, a full landscaping job and, of course, a cigar room for the stogie-loving politico.
The Giulianis, married since May 2003, apparently closed the deal on the seven-bedroom, 7-1/2-bathroom house within the last couple of weeks
This mansion is possible only because Giuliani uses 9/11 as a profitable resource. His luxurious lifestyle comes on the misery of the victims of 9/11. His false heroism and shamelss marketing of death would haunt most sane people, but not the venal and cruel Giuliani.
I'm so sorry, but this is so irresponsible that to ignore it to compound original sin.
My sister's addicted to heroin Is there anything I can do to help her? Pay her rent? Get her into rehab? Tell her new husband?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Cary Tennis
Jan. 20, 2005 | Dear Cary,
I have a sister who's been abusing drugs for years. The current situation is she is addicted to heroin, alcohol and any prescription drugs she can get her hands on. She has lost her job (no unemployment checks are coming), divorced a husband, sold her home (spent all the proceeds), and is remarried to a man who lives in another city who does not know of her addictions. Of course, finding a new job is impossible -- she is a professional in the healthcare industry and drug tests are required. She tried to sneak it by, buying someone else's urine, but that failed (good thing, really). How did all this happen? You must know the weaves and manipulations that junkies do.
My sisters and I have offered rehab, but she refuses. She says she's been there, done that and won't do it again. She is able to detox herself and has many, many times. But in the end, the addiction activities return.
Did I mention that all her troubles are due to my other siblings and me? We live in the East and she in the West, so of course that would follow (sarcasm intended). Also, she takes no responsibility for any of her actions or her situation. She was fired due to jealousy of her beauty, her ex-husband took advantage and now her dealer is her only friend, as he extended her credit when she was hungry. You'd think a Big Mac would be better for hunger than a hit of heroin, but these are words I hear and I continue to be surprised.
I know neither you nor I can solve the big problem. But maybe you can see a way where I can assist her financially or whether I should. My sisters and I have given her money to pay her bills and have paid bills for her directly. What we saw, however, was that this freed up money on her end for more drugs, so we stopped altogether. I would like to help with her rent so she should not be homeless. Would this only keep her with a roof but always high and closer to oblivion? Then again, maybe she should be homeless, that "hit rock bottom thing," you know? Should we tell the new husband? In some ways, I feel the guiltiest about him and what he walked into blindly.
Sister
Dear Sister,
I have heard many, many addicts and brothers and sisters of addicts tell stories of the lengths they went to deceive and manipulate, the extravagant machinations and contortions of logic designed to keep their malady secret, and the financial sleight of hand and elaborate hoaxes they perpetrate on hospitals, schools, families, friends and businesses. Again and again the same pattern holds true: Addicts will do most anything they feel they have to do to keep their addiction secret. Why? Because secrecy is the key to maintaining access to the drug. The general reaction of John Q public, upon learning that someone is an addict, is to immediately deprive him of his substance. So it's understandable that addicts must keep their addiction secret. Until he or she is ready to try to recover, secrecy is paramount.
..................
So what am I trying to say to you? I am trying to say that you may find some modest comfort in accepting the limits of your own efficacy in this matter. It might give you some respite to know that no matter what you do, it's to some degree out of your hands. But you may also want to know that, as far as I know (again, I'm no expert; I've just listened to a lot of stories), there's little harm in trying. You may meet people along the way who say that your attempts to save your sister are only "enabling" her addiction; you may also meet those who see your reasonable attempts to get on with your own life as nothing short of heartless abandonment. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Your "heartless abandonment" may turn out to be life-saving; your "enabling" of her addiction might also enable her survival.
What we all hope is that eventually, somehow, you get your sister back. Nothing can guarantee that, but nothing can prevent it either if it is going to happen. If you know how to pray, you might consider taking up or increasing the practice; it does seem to help many people get through the day. And if you have not done so already, I would urge you to contact a support group for loved ones and family of addicts, such as Al-Anon or Nar-Anon.
OK, he doesn't answer her question directly, which is grossly irresponsible in and of itself.
Here's the deal: not telling the husband is wrong. Wrong in so many ways, starting with oh, IV use and HIV infection. Then there's the lies, the stolen money, and the dangers which come from being a junkie. A moral person would tell someone that they are marrying a freaking junkie.
Second, she needs to be homeless. She needs to be out in the street, giving blowjobs for cash, losing her teeth and being chased by pimps. Why? Because that's the life she chose for herself. Pay her bills? Why not just shoot her in the head because you're killing her all the same.
One of the things you can do for a junkie, and I've seen this play out with my family and my father's clients when I was a kid, is cut them no slack. Pay no bills, hand out nothing but directions to rehab.
What is really needed is an intervention with the husband in the room. The women here is an emotional teenager. She's a multisubtance abuser, unable to handle anything approaching reality, and expects you to help deceive her husband.
When I was a kid, in the late '70's, we never lacked for junkies. They would start their day with Old English, then get into that junkie stupor where they nod and stand at the same time. By 9-10 AM, they would be shot up and ready to beg and steal car radios. My father worked with junkies for a decade. No junkie ever got help by people paying their bills and lying for them.
You know, we can kick Tennis around for his silly sex advice. He may be wrong, but usually, it's not about life and death matters. This is. The woman is a junkie. Her husband is at risk of HIV infection, Hepatits B, and God knows what else, including anyone she screws over in a drug deal. He fails to convey the serious nature of her acts, the risks involved, the need for serious, immediate action. They need to get her in a position where she gets tired of choosing the drug over her life. But he makes it seem like, well, you might want to talk to someone about this. This isn't about her being "ready" to recover, but forcing her into a space where there are no other options. And if she gets tired of being a junkie, then you can help. But as my father says, no one lies better than a junkie.
I wish Tennis's editors would actually make him talk to addiction professionals when this shit comes up. His "advice" on these subjects here seems dangerously off-key.
Kos has a post about RAND looking for ways to avoid a draft by using even more Halliburton employees. They already use them at the Theater, Corps and Divisional level, they think bringing them down to the battalion level while shoving out soldiers to the infantry will work? Not likely. All that does is kill recruiting among minorities, who join the military for job skills.
So, as usual, people talk about getting their kids out of the draft by claiming CO status as if that's some magic key to avoiding the military. Well, it's anything but.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.
HOW TO APPLY In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.
He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. *
* His written statement might explain:
* how he arrived at his beliefs; and
* the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.
The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.
A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. See also Classifications.
WHO QUALIFIES? Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:
* conservation
* caring for the very young or very old
* education
* health care
Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.
If the parents of America's veal-raised kids think that CO status will be magically granted during a draft better think again. The draft board can say this: "CO status denied. Report for induction" and it doesn't matter what evidence you bring. Some boards will be hard assed about CO status, others cut some slack, but they can all look your precious kid in the face and say "we think you cooked this up and your claim of CO status is bullshit." And all the letters from churches will be tossed aside. Especially when in some areas, a ton of requests like this will be made. Even if the request might be valid, they have to induct so many men over a set period of time. So they will say no, and refusing induction will mean jail time. And no matter how bad Iraq is, jail is a far worse alternative.
Or they will say "we will grant you CO status if you accept induction." Which they can do.
Now, for people who come from a background of peace activism or a Quaker background and don't have close relatives in the military, CO status might be granted. But for people who create a few months of CO activities, many boards will take a very hard look at that and deny it outright, betting that you don't want to have your kid hauled off by the FBI and given a lifelong federal felony conviction. A lot of middle class white people have no concept of the power of the state. They think they can do a few months of bullshit CO stuff or whine really hard and get their way. And in most things that happens, but not during a draft.
Oh yeah, if you claim you're gay, you better be able to prove it. Because they will do medical exams and take statements. Saying you're gay during induction isn't going to work. They will ignore it, ship you to Iraq, then kick you out, denying you benefits.
Because the last place on earth you want to have your kid is as a fish in a federal prison. At least in Iraq, they give you Kevlar vests, rifles and don't sell you for cigarettes. And Bush will be making examples.
You might try to flee the country, but the problem is that your kid might not ever come back. Ever being ever, not three or four years. Or they may well be deported back to the US. Bar fight? Deportation. Traffic accident, deportation. And once they're deported, the FBI will be waiting with a simple question: will you accept induction or will you go to jail?
People need to understand that the fight has to be waged before there's a draft. You will have to march on Washington, sit in Congressional offices, and fight like hell before a draft bill passes. Because once it does, the game is over, they're gonna get your kids or hand them over to the Aryan Brotherhood's federal prison wing. And the Army is the far better of the two outcomes.
2 women deny rape charges Wednesday, January 19, 2005
By NANCY H. GONTER
ngonter@repub.com
http://www.uscg.mil/news/boatsafe/handcuffs.gif
NORTHAMPTON - Two women, one a Smith College student, pleaded innocent to rape and assault charges yesterday in connection with a sexual encounter that a prosecutor said started out consensual and turned into a rape involving handcuffs and knives.
Northampton District Court Judge W. Michael Goggins set bail at $2,500 cash or $25,000 surety for Rachel Ann Klobertanz, 22, and Augusta Claire Kendall, 22, at their arraignments yesterday morning. Kendall was released on bail yesterday morning.
The two appeared in court shackled and handcuffed, wearing jeans and hooded sweat shirts.
................
The three had "several bottles of champagne" and then went to a bedroom where the three engaged in consensual sex, according to Loehn and police reports. During the encounter, the victim was placed in handcuffs, although she did not remember how, police reports state. After Kendall slapped her face, the victim told the two she wanted to stop, police said.
They refused, and Kendall cut her abdomen and other areas of her body with a knife and raped her while Klobertanz held her legs, police said.
Kendall has no criminal record, while Klobertanz has a pending assault and battery charge in Rhode Island, Loehn said.
In an interview, Loehn, who had been with the Northwestern district attorney's office for more than 10 years, said while this case may be unusual, it is not the first time a woman has been charged with raping another woman here. It's unusual because of the level of violence that occurred, Loehn said.
...................
Also yesterday, a roommate of Kendall and Klobertanz obtained a restraining order barring them from entering the apartment they had shared with him. The roommate, Gerard N. Tomasini, said that when the two were arrested at their 104 South St. apartment, police told him that the two had a knife collection.
Tomasini said in an affidavit that he had a long history of conflict with the two, including Klobertanz who had been living there without his consent since mid-October.
One of the great underreported crimes in the US is same-sex rape and abuse. What started out as consensual clearly turned into something quite different.
Part of the problem with rape awareness education is that it's often male directed, even at a college like Smith, where men don't go. This was sent to me by a Smith alum, so she understands the issues there.
Most of the anti-rape activity is about keeping men from forcing you into sex, but obviously, women can also force sex on other women. It gets especially tricky when you have a consensual sexual encounter turn into forced sex, especially in a threesome.
Even in a town like Northampton, which is gay friendly to say the least, I bet there was some snickering. Some for the girl being a LUG over her head, some because it was a threesome, some because of the bondage aspect. It is to the credit of the police and prosecutor that they took it seriously and filed charges. In a lot of towns, it would just be kinky sex and sore feelings, no matter what happened.
But if the story is true, the suspects had real issues with both violence and boundaries and no understanding of how to play safely with bondage. Forcing someone into handcuffs is a great Literotica story, but in real life, it's rape. You have to have a great deal of trust before engaging in any kind of restraints or other physical activity where there is a possibility of danger. Adding alcohol to the mix is even more unwise.
If guilty, the judge should treat them as they would treat any frat rat who did the same thing, with years in jail. The problem with a conviction is the alcohol and the victim's memory, She may not be able to say when consent ended clearly and that create doubt.
US military officials are becoming increasingly vocal in their criticism of the war in Iraq, telling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that more troops are needed to prevail over the insurgents. Moreover, recruitment is down and more reservists and members of the National Guard are being sent to Baghdad.
The war is over, at least as far as Darrell Anderson is concerned. Anderson, a 22-year-old GI from Lexington, Kentucky, deserted a week ago, heading across the US' loosely controlled border with Canada. When his fellow soldiers in the First US Tank Division, stationed in Hessen, Germany, ship out to Iraq for their second tour of duty, he'll be in Canada.
Anderson spent seven months in Iraq last year as a part of a unit assigned the dangerous mission of guarding police stations in Baghdad. He was wounded by grenade shrapnel during an insurgent attack, was awarded the Purple Heart and allowed to spend Christmas at home in the United States. But instead of returning to duty, Anderson fled to Toronto.
Now he's a deserter and a warrant has been issued for his arrest. If apprehended, he faces several years in a US military prison. In justifying his desertion, Anderson says: "I can't go back to this war. I don't want to kill innocent people." He talks about the constant pressure soldiers face to make decisions in the daily grind of war. Once, when a car came too close to their Baghdad checkpoint, his commanding officer ordered him to shoot, even though Anderson could only make out a man and children in the vehicle. The soldier refused. "Next time you shoot," his commanding officer barked.
On another occasion, the safety on his automatic weapon was all that prevented Anderson from losing control. "I was holding a heavily injured comrade in my arms, there was blood all over the place, and Iraqis were cheering all around us," he recalls. "I was so furious that all I wanted to do was kill someone, anyone."
Anderson has now applied for political asylum in Canada. His attorney, Jeffry House, was once one of the 50,000 draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Deserters who are now fleeing to Canada to avoid the Iraq war have reawakened memories of an exodus that took place more than thirty years ago. House says: "Every day I get calls from at least two soldiers looking for a way out."
Revolt no longer Rare
Deserting US recruits -- once a rarity -- are not alone in their search. Three months after being reelected and immediately prior to what is expected to be a triumphant inaugural party to mark the start of his second term, US President George W. Bush will be hard-pressed not to reevaluate the strategy for the deployment of US troops in Iraq. He faces massive doubts among the members of his own military, who are becoming increasingly vocal in their opinion that the US war with Iraqi insurgents is being conducted with insufficient manpower and equipment. Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, warns that his troops in Iraq have "deteriorated into a broken force."
People still worry about the draft, but this sounds like a story from 1970, which means a draft would only add logs on a fire. When soldiers are deserting from combat units, that's a bad thing. The indiscipline will only spread to units in Iraq. The Army is falling apart, quietly, but certainly.
Notice how the Times is using Der Spiegel to run a story their own reporters should have had. I think the tide is turning. I think the 30th will be a bad day, for Iraqis, for Bush.
That's a glimpse into the real Iraq. When a US soldier is wounded, they don't run, they don't seek cover, they stand around and cheer. You know what kind of hatred that is? This is not a good thing.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A wave of car bombings shook the Iraqi capital Wednesday, killing at least nine people as rebels stepped up their offensive to block the Jan. 30 national election. Other attacks were reported north and south of the capital, but the U.N. election chief said only a sustained onslaught could stop the ballot.
U.S. military officials put the death toll from the day's violence at 26, based on initial field reports. Iraqi authorities said 10 people were killed — one in a drive-by shooting on a political party office and the other nine in the bombings. The discrepancy could not be immediately resolved.
The violence began about 7 a.m., when a bomb packed into a truck exploded outside the Australian Embassy in Baghdad, killing two people. Two Australian soldiers were injured.
A half hour later, another car bomb killed six at a police station located next to a hospital in eastern Baghdad.
A third car bombing struck at the main gate to an Iraqi military garrison located at a disused airport in central Baghdad. The U.S. military said two Iraqi army soldiers and two Iraqi civilians were killed in that attack.
The U.S. military also said a car bomb detonated southwest of Baghdad International Airport, killing two Iraqi security guards.
Hours later, another car bomb went off in northern Baghdad around noon near a bank and a Shiite Muslim mosque. Police said one person was killed and one killed at that bombing.
Elsewhere in the capital, insurgents in a car fired on a Baghdad office of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, killing one of its members and wounding another, PUK officials said.
Outside the capital, Maj. Gen. Wirya Maarouf, the dean of a police academy in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (news - web sites), escaped an assassination attempt when gunmen opened fire on his convoy in the city of Irbil. One bystander was killed and another injured, said police Col. Tharwat AbdulKarim.
In the northern city of Dahuk, a roadside bomb exploded near the convoy of provincial Gov. Nejrivan Ahmed but he was not injured, AbdulKarim said.
An Iraqi police officer was killed Wednesday in another car bombing in the largely Shiite city of Hillah south of Baghdad, the Polish military said.
............
Also, in the city of Kirkuk, two human rights leaders were killed, officials said. Their bodies were found shot in the head and chest after being kidnapped Tuesday, police said.
Carlos Valenzuela, the chief U.N. election adviser in Iraq, said the intimidation of electoral workers by guerrillas seeking to derail this month's balloting is "high and very serious."
But Valenzuela told reporters Tuesday that only a sustained onslaught by insurgents or the mass resignation of electoral workers will prevent this month's national elections from going ahead
Well, thanks for setting the guerrillas next move. How much you want to bet that the sound of car bombs greets Bush's inaguration?
It's about 12 degrees outside, and icy cold, the kind of cold which starts fires and turns fire trucks into sculpture. I'm watching Before Sunset, which reminded me of the kind of thing you don't see much in American movies, a smart, thoughtful woman without a gun.
It's Tuesday, well Wednesday now, and snow may be a day or two away. Snow is great for the first few hours and sucks the next few days if it warms up.
But, late at night in a long week I'm thinking about things I like. No, not chocolate chips and menstrual blood. The combination makes me shiver, but that's Jen's business, not mine. I like my food clothed and my sex semi-clothed or naked.
However, I am thinking of food that I like.
My niece is, like her mother, a finicky eater. She loves cheese, but hates macaroni and cheese. She doesn't like mayonnaise or mustard, just ketchup. She is also a person who remembers much and always has a complaint. At seven going on eight. That and her fascination with art, not coloring, but art, is amazing. For Christmas, I bought he
r watercolor pads, brushes and a bracelet kit. When she saw the set of brushes, in a purple box I also bought, it was better than a pony. I keep asking her to paint me a picture with the student watercolors I had bought her earlier. She promises, but the promises of seven year olds are filled with intention and short on delivery.
But my nephew is, like most boys, less complex. Buy him a video game and he's happy. He likes food. Not picky at all.
The thing about food is that it shapes our experiences and memories in ways only sex can, the sensual, tactile way. We remember meals, places we eat and places we have eaten.
These aren't my favorite foods, or even memorable meals. Just food I like.
Hellmans (Best Foods) Mayo-Miracle Whip is the spread of Satan, sweet and nasty. Hellmans is what mayo should tastelike, at least to me.
Brown mustard-Plochmans, Guldens, it doesn't really matter. Brown mustard has character and intensity, subtle in ways yellow mustard can never be. Yellow mustard is in your face, brown mustard lies back, gives you better flavor.
Wendy's Chicken Sandwich-Everybody tries, but this is the best. The fries suck, the salads rule, but the chicken sandwich, somehow, tastes real, like real breast. With mayo, lettuce, maybe cheese.
McDonald's fries-This shit is bad for you, but no one else comes close. I've had worse, but for fast food, it doesn't get much better than this.
Cold Bud on an August day-Beer can be better, much better. But when the sweat is pooling down by your balls, the sun is pounding and you think you're actually on the streets of Saigon and not New York. Bud may suck 360 days a year, but on five, that's all you want, cold as ice. It's like showering inside. You can pretend to be English with your Gin and Tonic, I like Vodka myself, but when New York turns nasty and it can get downright swampy, you can't bullshit with some Weissebrau or Lambic, you need Bud. Shitty, mass-produced Bud. Bud is the beer for those days when you need a beer which can stand the cold and doesn't taste like pre-peed water (Coors Light).
Eggs over easy-Yeah, I like scrambled eggs. I like eggs and yet, my cholesterol is 150. But I really like eggs over easy. Sunnyside up, well, they look great but aren't cooked. I love the yoke, the yellow, runny yoke, with some bread, maybe an onion bagel and sausage or turkey, maybe turkey sausage. I usualy eat a sandwich for lunch and chicken and veggies, maybe a salad or corn, this week, zucchini. My breakfasts are heavy, but the meals get lighter as the day goes on. And I drink green tea every morning. Instead of coffee. I saw it on TV and it actually has woken me up more efficiently than coffee.
Bread-I know low carbs are the rage, but it, like all food cults, leaves me unimpressed. Sure, you can lose weight, but I see the meals and it looks like some kind of freakish balancing act. It doesn't feel right, the way a good meal should feel right. Fresh bread, straight from the oven, cannot be beat, will never be beat. There is something perfect and holy about a good loaf of bread. One thing which is different between me and Jen is butter. She only uses unsalted and I tend to like salted. Odd, but to me hot bread and butter has that salty tang.
You know, I like to write about the worst food, burgers, hot dogs, but I find myself loving fresh food. I love the freshness of fruits and veggies, the snap of asparagus, the sweetness of pineapple from a streetside vendor, a ripe pear from the Greenmarket, fresh mushrooms. The bad food makes for great writing and an occasional treat, but it's the fresh stuff which fascinates me. Fresh food is what I mostly eat, most of the time. Because it is the most interesting food. You eat a greasy cheesesteak and you feel full. Eat steamed asparagus with lemon and butter and it's subtle. Toss it in eggs and it's sublime. Cheesesteaks are never sublime. Fresh fruit is. Veggies are. A tangerine and tea, or even with cold water is a perfect late night treat, as I hammer out my posts.
I love to talk about food, but what I like to eat is different. Burgers make great debates, pineapple doesn't. No one cares if you like the fibrous middle of the pineapple, because it is so chewy. But I do.
The RNC is re-uniting the BC04 team for their assault on Social Security. Right-wing groups are raising an estimated $100 million dollars for the campaign, and putting their mammoth ground game and 6 million email addresses behind the campaign. Additionally, the Social Security trust fund itself is being used to advertise for its own destruction - something unprecedented in modern American politics. There has been a war declared upon Social Security and the idea that government can make things better for citizens.
Let's stop this fraud. BlogPAC is joining the battle -- and we hope that all of you join us.
No need for fancy talk here: Bush wants to steal your social security money to prop up the stock market. Every study shows that most people rely on social security for their retirement, even if they make a good income.
What Bush and the GOP want to do is steal your future to prop up their present.
Anyone tells you social security is in crisis, ask them: is the solution really to cut benefits and place the money in the stock market?
And if they say we need higher returns, ask them when was the last time they made a killing in the market.
Now they want people who can barely manage their 401K's to manage their essential retirement money. Then ask them: what happens if I lose my money? Will the government replace it?
Because that is what this is all about. They want you to assume risk with your essential retirement income. Why? So they can make lots of money at your expense. But what happens to you if their plan fails? Will you be choosing between Purina and 9 Lives. Even if you don't believe you will see a dime from SS, what about your mother? Should she be eating Sheba pate for dinner? If your mother guesses wrong, is she supposed to live on cat food and charity?
The people pushing this plan are rich. Do you really think they would push it if you could become rich or even do better. This would be the first time in American histry the rich would share their wealth eagerly.
No, this is about taking your future, exchanging it for vague promises, and spending that money at the nearest car dealiership or Russian mistress apartment. They talk market, but their retirment money is in government T Bills. They talk risk, but with other people's money. In this case, yours.
Don't fall for it.
Because there is only one question they have to answer: if the market goes down and I lose money, will the government replace it?
"Hotel journalism" is the only phrase for it. More and more Western reporters in Baghdad are reporting from their hotels rather than the streets of Iraq's towns and cities. .......
...................
So grave are the threats to Western journalists that some television stations are talking of withdrawing their reporters and crews. .............
........Only six months ago, it was still possible to leave Baghdad in the morning, drive to Mosul or Najaf or other major cities to cover a story, and return by evening. By August, it was taking me two weeks to negotiate my dubious safety for a mere 80-mile journey outside Baghdad.
I found the military checkpoints on the motorways deserted, the roads lined with smashed American trucks and burnt-out police vehicles. Today, it is almost impossible. Drivers and translators working for newspapers and television companies are threatened with death. Several have asked to be relieved of their duties on 30 January lest they be recognised on the streets during Iraq's elections. .........
The police and the Iraqi National Guard - much trumpeted by the Americans as the men who will take over after an American withdrawal - are heavily infiltrated by insurgents. Checkpoints may be manned by policemen, but it is now unclear just who the cops are working for. US troops operating in and around Baghdad are now avoided by Western journalists, unless they are "embedded", as much as they are by Iraqis because of the indiscipline with which they open fire on civilians on the least suspicion.
.......... In many cases, viewers and readers are left with the impression that the journalist is free to travel around Iraq to check out the stories which he or she confidently files each day. Not so.
"The United States military couldn't be happier with this situation," a long-time American correspondent in Baghdad says. "They know that if they bomb a house of innocent people, they can claim it was a 'terrorist' base and get away with it. They don't want us roaming around Iraq and so the 'terrorist' threat is great news for them.
"They can claim they've shot 600 or 1,000 insurgents and we have no way of checking because we can't go to the cemetery or visit the hospitals because we don't want to get kidnapped and have our throats cut."
...................
Yes, it is still possible to report from the street in Baghdad. But fewer and fewer of us are doing this, and there may come a time when we have to balance the worth of our reports against the risk to our lives.
We have not reached that point yet. So far, we still see a little more of Iraq than the people who claim to be running this country.
Is this the kind of news Lt. Col Ryan was talking about?
When Fisk, someone who didn't fear the Taliban, is scared shitless, and he's scared, well, January 30 could be the fiasco everyone imagines it could be. This isn't in American papers, except in dribs and drabs, hints of the anarchy we unleashed in Iraq.
This is far more dangerous than any war I can remember. The US military cannot protect it's own installations and relies on the word of Iraqis who clearly hate every fiber of their being. Even Lebanon and Algeria were safer. The problem is that when the collapse come, there will be no warning. Many Iraqis who worked with the US will be fleeing on jets, we hope, because they will be no kinder than we were to the Tories.
I think January 30 will be a bloody disaster, and then where do we go? I would hope that people can vote, but the rising tide of violence makes that unlikely.
Jan. 18, 2005 | Topeka, Kan. -- The road out of the political wilderness, if there is one for Democrats, could wind through Kansas and 11 other Republican-leaning states that are run by Democratic governors.
These are places where bipartisanship and moderation reign, liberal orthodoxies perish, GOP ideas flourish and the politically charged buzzword "values" means more than gays, guns and God.
As President Bush is sworn in for a second term Thursday, these "red-state" Democratic governors are anything but blue. Perhaps it's the virtue of necessity.
"I always start with the premise that if I get 100 percent of Democrats to vote for me, I still lose big time," said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat trying to squeeze her third-year agenda through a legislature dominated 2-1 by Republicans.
"You never get the luxury of saying, `I'll just mobilize my political base,"' she said. "You always look for ways to connect with people other than through party identification."
Sebelius and 11 other Democratic governors have found ways to appeal to voters in states won by Bush. Some practice down-home populism. Others craft no-nonsense CEO images. They push moderate Democratic policies or borrow GOP ideas and, above all, reject the partisanship of Washington.
They've cracked the code. Knowing how to beat Republicans on their own turf, Democratic governors consider themselves the future of a party adrift, a party with two consecutive presidential defeats, dwindling minorities in Congress and uneven leadership in Washington.
They say a key to their success is convincing voters, through their policies and personalities, that they are "one of them." Democrats in middle America must be viewed as part of a state's cultural fabric, clearly distinguishable from the national party in Washington.
"There are a few Democrats -- you know who they are, Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton -- who Republicans like to tie around our necks, and they are universally disliked in places like Oklahoma," Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry said. "They have a reputation of being ultraliberal, and it filters down on us."
One way Democratic governors avoid the liberal-by-association label is by breaking party conventions.
Tennessee's Phil Bredesen eliminated a program in Al Gore's home state that was supposed to be the first step toward universal health care. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Janet Napolitano of Arizona want to cut taxes.
After Napolitano proposed tax cuts for businesses last week, Republican state Senate President Ken Bennett joked, "We're checking to see if she has re-registered as a Republican yet."
It's not a laughing matter in Washington, where some Democrats say it's easy to throw potshots from state capitals.
"It's certainly true that we have a talented group of democratic governors who have plenty to teach us here in Washington," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan, former campaign manager for Bush rival Sen. John Kerry. "But it's also true that they have the luxury of running their campaigns entirely on domestic issues, avoiding altogether the issues of war and peace and national security that are so difficult for Democrats on the federal level."
The source of Oklahoman Henry's concern, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, argued in a speech last week that Democrats can't succeed "under pale colors and timid voices." Former presidential candidate Howard Dean called talk of values "a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe."
Not so, say the governors. They argue that there are smarter ways to handle the values debate than "appeasing the left-wing fringe," a phrase used by one governor who asked not to be identified.
Their strategy:
-- Adopt the GOP position on social issues whenever possible.
-- Expand the term "values" to include education, health care and other traditionally Democratic issues, along with a candidate's own biography and character traits.
Why? In the end, this approach fails on a national level. Why? Because it doesn't work in large population states. It's Republicans who have to moderate their approaches to succeed. Minority voters reject this approach whole heartedly, and many others find it repllent.
The GOP is wrong on social issues and if Dems won't stand up for them, they can't win. This approach will not work in California or New York. It's easy for them to trahs Ted Kennedy then askfor his help in raising money. And if this was a patented success, why is Tom Coburn a US Senator? They can win Kansas like that, but they will never win the White House by being Republican-lite. It's time to listen to Democrats who aren't ashamed of being Democrats and standing for the party's values.
Ask him where those moderates were last year? Nowhere to be seen. It was us "on the left wing fringe" who helped these candidates with money and resources. You notice the cowardly governor attacking the people he will need to raise money for his next campaign. He'll come grovelling to Kos then, begging for help, running ads, and acting like we're all great people, us easy-to-buy liberal bloggers.
I wonder where these people will stand on social security? Looking to, yet again, accomodate the GOP, in hopes of sneaking past the voters, or doing the right thing.
Look, if you want our help, you better respect our views. Because we can spend money elsewhere in your state for other causes.
There's a perceived power vacuum and everyone wants to fill it. The question is who brings the most votes to the table. And as we have seen, they can't bring much.
By LTC Tim Ryan
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.
All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?
As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.
More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.
..............
From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.
Fallujah? I thought we completed operations there a month ago?
OK, isn't the Cav responsible for security in Baghdad? Well, why were election workers killed at mid-morning, during rush hour, with an audience?
Let me explain something, something people need to understand. If you kill 50 insurgents, and that could include guys selling shwarma or DVD's, you'd want the next group to think real hard about fighting you. Instead, they blow up mess tents and take pictures. They're willing to lose 50, 100 men to kill seven Americans. That's what should scare you. Reporters can't even cover the streets of Iraq without severe risk of life.
That "devestating" blow allowed the guerrillas to move to Mosul, attack US troops and take over the streets for a day or so. Then terrorize 700 election workers and thousands of cops.
The colonel seems to forget why we went to Iraq, to liberate the people. Did US troops routinely shell French towns because they attacked us?
Now, I know the Col. has to put the best face on his job. But the fact is not that the media is not telling the story, it's not telling enough of the story.
I would bet that if you asked Lt. Col Ryan does he have good relationships with the Iraqis that serve with his unit, he would probably say yes. But he would never connect that with the number of ambushes his unit deals with, the lack of intel and the daily attacks. Why? Because, like most Americans, I think he thinks if he's honest, Iraqis will be honest.
And that gets people killed. Killing 50 insurgents can be a step towards stability, if the attacks go down and the local forces start to function. But if they die like the NVA outside Khe Sanh, that only means that the resistance can lose 50, 100 men and keep chugging along. And I would say that is the case.
The military played the same game in Vietnam until they broke the Army. Fraggings, desertions, drug use, race riots. Deny the bad news until your men drop a yellow smoke grenade under your bunk and they place a contract on you.
I would suggest the Col. ask himself this question: if Iraqi troops burst into his home, disrespected his wife, while dragging out her father, and calling him white trash. Then, while shaking her and calling her a bitch, stole their money. How would he feel? Would he need a motive to kill Iraqis after that.
Now, to be fair, Sadr let the Americans pay people to clean up Sadr City, which keeps him firmly in power, and his young men busy, but as a Brigade Commander said, when he gives the word, 2 percent of the neighborhood is in the street. That's 40,000 men, armed and ready to go.
People like Lt. Col Ryan take people at their word, and in Iraq, that's a fatal mistake. Iraq was a country where people were trained to never give an honest answer, but the right answer . When Saddam came to Sadr City, people smiled at him as well. That didn't mean they didn't want him dead. The Cav does what Sadr wants them to do, and if he wants them gone, they're gone. He's just not playing that card yet.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Richard Hatch (news), who became a millionaire when he won the first-ever "Survivor" reality show, has agreed to plead guilty to two counts of tax evasion for failing to report income, including the $1.01 million he won on the show.
Federal prosecutors charged that Hatch, 43, filed false 2000 and 2001 tax returns, omitting his income from the CBS show, as well as another $321,000 he was paid by a Boston radio station.
....................
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Survivor Entertainment Group paid Hatch $10,000 in August 2000 for appearing on the final episode of the reality show and $1 million for being declared the show's winner.Prosecutors allege that in November 2002, Hatch filed a false personal income tax return for the 2000 tax year by failing to report the $1.01 million.
Some times you read a story and it just hits you in the face.
Now, how do you think you can make 1.3 million over two years and fail to pay taxes? Didn't he think his bank and broker would report his income? What did he plan on doing? Sticking it under a mattress? HE WAS ON TV. THEY TOOK PICTURES. Did he not think someone would flag his return? I mean, he made a million dollars.
Mindboggling. What did he do? Forget? What exactly was he thinking? That he could outwit the IRS after being on TV?
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said, after President Bush (news - web sites) said he would not rule out military force against Iran over its nuclear program.
"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying Tuesday.
"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.
In October, Iran announced successful trials of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles, putting parts of Europe, as well as Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, within reach.
Bush said Monday Washington would not rule out military action against Iran -- which he has labeled as part of an "axis of evil" alongside Iraq (news - web sites) and North Korea (news - web sites) -- if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program.
Washington accuses Tehran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is aimed solely at producing electricity.
The United States has toppled regimes in Iran's neighbors Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.
"Iran has no fear of foreign enemies' threats ... as they are very well aware that the Islamic Republic is not a place for adventurism," the ISNA student news agency quoted influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying.
The Sy Hersh article briefly covers this, and goes more extensively into the Pentagon's dominance of humint, but doesn't mention the disaster which is bound to follow.
But let's deal with the matter at hand.
The DOD lives in a world of fantasy and hope. The Iranians live in the real world and can fuck with us in both.....now guess which countries border Iran?.....Anyone.....Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, and let's not forget our friends in Central Asia. They can take direct action in Afghanistan and support Sadr and their SCIRI clients in Iraq.
Iranians can undo our policy with very little interference, and if they help the Russians with the Chechens, Pootie Poot will shake his head and laugh.
The Iranians can do anything from fund guerrillas to cut out supply lines from Basra. And God forbid they catch one of those SpecOps teams, which I'm sure they will plan to do, the embarassment will be intense. We are in no position to poke at the Iranians, none. Unless they want to see Sadr try Negroponte in a football stadium. Because, if they give the word, 100,000 armed men will show up in the Green Zone with eviction papers. What do you do then, call up the BUFF's and Tomahawks?
The potential for catastrophic failure in Iraq, where we lose 10, 20, 30 percent of the Army looms closer every day. We have not triggered a popular uprising...yet. Mess with the Iranians, and that may well happen.
I was sitting at a café when the guy next to me struck up a conversation with me about the book I was reading. It turns out that we work in related fields and have a mutual interest in energy conservation and other environmental issues. To my surprise, less than an hour after we met, he called and asked me out for a drink that evening. I felt really on the spot, because I would like to be friends with the guy, but I have a boyfriend. I hadn’t mentioned being involved when we talked earlier, and it seemed too awkward to come out with it in response to his invitation. Not knowing what to say, I blurted out a lame excuse for why I couldn’t make it. He sounded hurt, and I felt terrible. How can I be honest about the fact that I’m seeing someone -- without being clumsy?
--Eco Worrier
Maybe you’re the Billy Crystal of the compost heap, and a few words from you on orange rind repurposing are enough to take the edge off enviro-boy’s fears that the national parks will be turned into national parking lots. Or maybe you do a gut-busting bit on sustainable agriculture, helping him forget his worries that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will become a giant gas station, and the Grand Canyon will be redeveloped into a mall. (Naturally, there’d be a food court serving Kentucky Fried Spotted Owl.)
Still, a guy generally doesn’t call you less than an hour after meeting you because he can’t make it through the day without more of your environmentally correct witticisms. In fact, if there’s a short list of what men want, it’s extremely short on lengthy, clothed monologues about solar panel installation issues. Sure, this particular guy might share your interest in preserving the planet and its species, but species preservation does begin at home, and chasing you naked around his home was most likely what he had in mind.
Don’t make the mistake of keeping mum about your romantic status until a guy invites you out to throw back the wheat grass-mopolitans. At that point, it’s about as subtle as unleashing a chorus line of strip miners to belt out, “SHE HAS A BOYFRIEND, SHE HAS A BOYFRIEND, CHA CHA CHA!”
Okay, folks, time for a quick break from the Shrub, Iraq, and the generally bad state of the world for a diversionary post. And, since we just did the Iron Chef thread, that leaves only one topic up for grabs: S-E-X!!
Saw this article in another blog that links to an event board that I sometimes hit, and I was appalled...
A woman who obviously mistakes herself for a doormat or a crack ho wrote:
"Hi Moxie,I recently began sleeping with a guy I've known for a few years. We've hooked up only a few times. The sex is great, but he never goes down on me. But I always go down on him. He's always trying to get me to take his penis in my mouth when we fool around, but he never reciprocates.What does this mean?"
The blogadmin wrote underneath:
"I just got this e-mail this morning. The only time I've ever had a guy NOT go down on me is when he's been insecure about his abilities OR he ultimately just didn't care about my pleasure and was totally into himself. Honestly? It's a sign that "he's just not that into you." Or he's intentionally withholding for some reason, which sounds equally fucked up.Your thoughs?"
Well, you can follow the link and read the whole column for her reader's comments, but I'd like to hear yours.
Now, I can understand not going clam-diving only in TWO cases: The lady in question has a veneral disease that may be transmitted in that way and refuses to use a dental dam (or there are other factors about that may risk the health of either party), OR there is a majory hygene issue.
However, from the poster's letter, it just sounds like this guy is being a selfish prick.
Apologies in advance to our dedicated gay male readership if you fiind this post boring/repulsive/whatever. You're welcome in advance to our dedicated lesbian readership for a) giving you a subject to potentially elaborate upon and b) giving you a reason to thank your lucky stars that you're not het *grin*
Seriously, the only time in my life that I ever had to deal with a "no muff diving zone" sign from a guy it really was with an insanely selfish, psychotic jerkzoid who later dropped off the face of the earth (thankfully--he only got one visit to my domicile, but he was an obsessive freak) after he was caught breaking into his ex's apartment.
If nothing else, most Smart Boys know that a) giving a lady an orgasm earlier in the night takes a lot of pressure off for "the main event" and b) decent "oral debate" skills make up for any, um, underendowment issues quite a bit.
Okay, I'll stop now and turn over the mike to our audience. Sorry if I have scandalized anyone. Oh yeah, and if there are any hyper-conservatives out there who don't like this post (go back to LGF!!), well...eat me! Heh heh heh...
Here, take some and write nice things about me. It's ethical because I say so
Like so many things, Vietnam, keeping black faculty, Harvard makes a hash of what is a valuable discussion once again. Blogging ethics does matter, but it's pretty much been hijacked by a lawyer looking to make a name off the back of the successful, and wonders why no one will trust her to do anything important.
We've been talking around ethics for a while, and while I'm not eager to tell other people how to run their sites, I do have a few ideas.
First of all, the ambitious lawyer talks about a code of ethics she's obviously never lived under. I've printed the SPJ ethics here and there are others, most notably the AP's, which is standard in most newsrooms or modified. But ethics is more than declaring your interests. Having worked as a freelancer, and regular staff freelancer, I can tell you that things you think are unethical are not and things you wouldn't have a problem with are big ethical problems.
It is perfectly acceptable to have a free, champagne meal at the Plaza or lunch at the UN. Meals you could never pay for on your salary. It is, however, unethical to go to your frat buddies for a quote without explaining they're your buddies.
But from there, it gets murky and personal. Is it OK to hit on the PR rep who wants you to review her company? Or take review books and sell them? There is no code which deals with you writing a good story to get the PR person into bed. It might well be exactly what you would have done anyway. But giving her that call afterwards, is that abusing your position? To some degree, no. But Bob Greene used it to bed 19 year old girls over a number of years and that, finally cost him his job and his lucrative book publishing career. Was what he did unethical in the strict sense? His collegues argued over this bitterly. Morally, he was certainly wrong, but the question became whether it affected the Trib as a whole. Remember, there are no secrets in newsrooms and people knew that Greene was a barely legal casanova. Only when one set of parents complained was he forced to confront his personal life and his job and their conflicts.
Athough this nitwit lawyer is a poor vessel for the idea of ethical codes, I have said her basic idea is right. It's so right that it should be elemental. The only problem is that it's a not one fits all kind of deal. Blogs are not all newspapers or their online derivatives. She obviously has a rigid idea of what ethics should be, and it's not anything like that simple.
Primary Colors, the Joe Klein book, has an affair between two campaign staffers at it's core. The rumor is that it was based on an affair a reporter had with a campaign staffer. Now is it unethical for him to have covered the campaign and sleep with his girlfriend? Or what about Todd Purdum? He fell in love with Dee Dee Myers while she was press secretary. When she was busted for DWI and bailed her out, his bosses were none too pleased about his not mentioning this.
When people talk about ethical codes, it's about a lot more than money.
See, it's easy for an outsider to say everyone should disclose everything, but there are reasons people don't do that. One is job protection. You may not like Bush, but if you work for a company with a DOD contract, should you lose your job because you have to be completely honest on a blog?
Now, let's get to consulting.
I've worked as a consultant and done field work, but this was in the early 90's. This wasn't an issue at the time. The problem is that consultants are paid for confidential advice. It's a breach of their code of ethics to explain all their advice to the media. So does that mean that they shouldn't blog about relevant issues?
See, codes of ethics come from people who don't expect to live under them. The aformentioned lawyer is looking for work, she's not going to set up a blog and work at it seven days a week like us "leading bloggers" do. A title which obviously means little unless you're a right wing hack. The people who actually do the work have ethical standards which they actually try to live by, but they don't toss it in your face.
But if bloggers lived by her ideas of ethics, a lot of stuff would go by the boards. All she cares about is being given credit for something people are already doing and then making a lot of money off of grants or some other crap. Working dilligently at somethng is obviously beyond her. I resent like hell the idea that we're so stupid or so naive that we'd sell our reputations to a pol for a few grand. Blogs are as different as the people who do them, but the people who do it daily take their responsibilities as serious as any reporter I have ever known.
Ok, what are some of the ethical codes I think are important?
First, and it's obvious: no plagerism. Linking to a site or noting where the content comes from is the most important ethical duty of a blogger.
Second, giving due credit when reproducing other people's ideas. Now, I didn't need to say Atrios brought up that currency scam thing, but it's only fair to do so, just as he gives me credit for my work.
Third, trying not to steal photos. Now, I've been guilty of linking to photos from private sites. When people complain, I offer people paynment for their server load. Which is why most of the art I use comes from Yahoo or other news sites.
Fourth, correcting errors when found. It's wrong to let errors stand when they can be corrected. Sometimes, I do in comments or strike out the error in the copy. But as long as it's addressed which is what matters.
Fifth, fairness in content. I can't say oh, I think Andy Sullivan thinks Michael Jackson should spend tine with more little boys. He's never said any such thing, and thus, such a statement, while not libelous, is grossly unfair. Being fair to everyone, regardless of politics is simply critical. If people apologize or admit error, that should get as much attention as the original sin. This means going after them for their actions, not things they haven't done.
Six, responding to comments and or e-mail. While you can't respond to every piece of mail, you should do as much as you can.
Seven, disclosing conflicts of interest or special knowledge. When you've placed on your website your conflicts, you've done the most people can expect. The best way to do that is to be up front.
Notice where this is. Because frankly, by the time this matters, you have had to already have gained the trust of people. If you're a slandering wackjob, no one cares who pays you. The idea that bloggers have some alternative agenda and need to be policed is not only pernicious, but unproven on either side, except for the two clowns which took 30K from John Thune and didn't say a word. How come that got little ink, but Kos's $9K contract for technical consulting is some kind of scandal? It isn't, just grudgework which turned out badly.
Eight, disclosing where your site's funding comes from. This is no small item. People have a right to know who pays your bills. In my case, you and blogads. That's it and that's how it will remain. I will never accept money to consult for a campaign or give them any information I wouldn't give anyone else.
Nine, disclosing what you do with your money. Now, our ambitious lawyer doesn't care about that, because it doesn't further her grudge, but I think if you raise money from the public, they should have some idea where the money goes. If it's for soccer jerseys, then fine. Or computer parts. I won't use it for luxury items like TV's and trips to AC. I will use it to help other bloggers. In fact, I think it's critcally important.
Ten, allowing the free exchange of ideas on your site. I think it is unethical to ban people because you dislike what they say, only when they inhibit what other people can say on your site. Or to kill comments once you have them up. If you have to ban people or pull posts, do that. But allow people to say what they want as long as it's not slander or violates the rules you have established for your site.
Ethics is not some simple grabbag of disclosure of conflicts. It has to do with how you handle conflict, deal with source material, treat your readers, handle confidential materials people share with you. It's a range of issues which is far more complex than knowing if a blogger gets paid by some pol. Not that isn't an issue or isn't important, but it isn't the only issue on the table. Because these issues have to be lived with and common practices developed and that can only be done by the people doing it. Which is why none of us were invited to the circle jerk at Harvard. Because our opinions wouldn't be as simplistic as some simple adoption of journalistic ethics without understanding their limitations or reasons they were created. Unless you understand how they work and the problems they cause, how can you really have a discussion of ethics?
But then, I think the agenda is to climb on our backs, smack us around and tarnish our reputations. People who think ethics are simple and clear cut are bound to be disappointed.
I normally don't like to drag out dealing with the stupid, but since a reader sent me this link, which I WILL NOT link back to the original site, since getting her hits is not my goal. If you must go there, it's from zonkette.blogspot.com
Love that original name, Ana must be so honored. Snarky comments will be interspersed as needed.
If this wasn't so outrageously stupid, I would have ignored it.
The Narrative, A Proposal, and an Apology
There’s an old story that in the middle ages, the youngest conversant child in a community would be brought to witness major land contracts, which were done by the shake of a hand – and beaten severely enough to ensure that they would be able to remember the contract for at least another 40 or 50 years.
Ah yes, child abuse, what a lovely way to start a tale. I like child murder myself, but that's just me.
I remember April 2003 as one of the best months of my life -- the month we saw the magic come of out the Meetup community in full, extraordinary, bottom up glory-- but also in part because Joe Trippi is not a quiet screamer. He makes Dean’s Scream sound like Mary Had a Little Lamb.
“Zephyr!!!!!!!!!” would come tearing out, long before I actually saw his face poke into the small closet the web team at the time called “the cave.” (With a nice poster of “Trogolodytes for Dean”) on the wall).
“MAAAAATTT” was for Matt Gross.
Joe was roiling with visions at the time, and he couldn't waste time explaining himself to us -- very new, very naive. When Joe screamed, we were slow, insane, and "just didn’t get it."
Which is her memory. Which, we are all aware is about as trustworthy as an Iraqi exile.
I remember the first day of his complete anger, because it also coincides with the time he got obsessed with “getting Kos.”
April 1, 2003, was the first enormous nationwide Meetup, and it had gone fabulously. We’d raised $83,000 online in a single day the day before, breaking all expectations and records. We’d stayed for a few drinks after the Meetup, and then went back to the office.
Some time around 10 PM, the scream came. Kos had put up an online poll, comparing the candidates, and Dean was not winning. I think Kerry was, but I’m sure its all on record.
"WHAT THE HELL" he came screaming into the cave.
“Look at Daily Kos” he said.
"How long as that poll been up. How could you miss that poll."
“He’s trying to fuck us.”
Yes, I will take your word for this, just like I trust Judy Miller
“He’s doing his poll right while everyone’s at Meetup. He’s trying to fuck us.”
During the next day, we went to every listserv and contacts we had and asked them to get on that poll.
If you walked by his office the next day, he wouldn’t talk to you, but he’d sit there, with his back to the door (you could see the computer screen from the door), hitting refresh on the Daily Kos poll. You could hear him seething that it wasn't moving.
Matt thought he was testing us. He wanted to see how much muscle we could force into this poll.
After that, he would come tearing into the office every time Kos said something negative about Dean or positive about Clark or another candidate. “Why I am always the first one to catch it?” he said, until Matt was checking Kos (no feed at the time) every 15 minutes or so.
Ok, now, with everything going on in a campaign, this is what happened? OK, however it seems like a waste of time to me.
It was sometime in the next few weeks that we got the contract for Armstrong/Zuniga.
Now who's that? Markos's last name is Moulitas. I mean, it's on his website. It's how he introduces himself. It's on his passport, honorable discharge and degrees. Ok. His last name is not Zuniga. Why is this now a sore point? Because people fuck up my last name all the time.
Jerome wanted to come work for Dean at the office, and I think Joe wanted him to.
So Joe asked Matt to figure out which blog was more important to get for influence in the blogosphere: MyDD or DailyKos. Matt decided DailyKos was more important. I don’t remember the reasoning, but the blogosphere was all entirely new to me – I never read blogs before the campaign – and everything I learned about the heirarchy was new, and mostly from Matt.
OK, Both Kos and Atrios started in 2002, Josh Marshall in 2000. I think Instapundit and Sullivan around then. So now she's totally ignant of blogs, and didn't start reading them until late in the game for a supposed professional.
Okay then, Joe said, its okay if Jerome came to work for us and stopped blogging, we’d still have DailyKos.
“Get Kos on the phone!” Trippi would scream. “Where’s Jerome! He’s not calling me back! Are they going to fuck us?”
OK, assuming this is true, it implies that Trippi didn't know how the site worked. After Clark faltered, and his son was posting on the site, he then looked hard at Dean, this was mid-spring, early summer 2003. Even then, there was a lot of pro-Dean sentiment.
Trippi asked us to look over the consulting contract that Markos/Zuniga proposed and tell him what we thought. We thought it was good, but had a lot of the ideas we’d heard elsewhere (at the time we were getting pitched by a handful of internet consulting firms), and they didn’t provide any unique technical service that we wouldn’t want to hire in house. I told Joe that if he didn’t want them for other reasons, the consulting contract wasn’t worth it. He said we needed Kos for Dean, and, more importantly, not to go work for someone else.
She's the one who suggested buying them. Except Trippi remembers something very different, that they didn't want Kos in house or Jerome to stop blogging because they liked their support.
I think there was also some indications that Armstrong/Zuniga was actively talking to another campaign (Kerry’s?) as consultants, and Joe thought that would be death, but I remember that less clearly.
Clark. It was Clark. You know this is all public record, and not rumor. The problem was that Clark didn't start rolling until September
Joe liked Jerome personally, and trusted him – later that year I would hear Joe call Jerome for political and blog advice, and he respected him a lot. Jerome had access to Joe that most consultants never had. I also heard him, though less frequently, talk to Kos and ask his advice over the year.
Furthermore, I think its right to note that MyDD and Jerome had the most powerful impact on the campaign by introducing Meetup to the campaign, months before any of this came up – and Meetup changed everything.
There were a few days where I think Kos started putting up a Draft Clark effort that Joe went into absolute panic, and we were beaten with screams about talking to Kos, talking to Jerome, getting that contract through. “We NEED Kos” Joe kept screaming.
Needless to say, the contract went through.
Uh, so now, she's laying this off on Trippi. This really bad idea which had no effect on their content. Oh yeah, this account, even if every word is true, and I have no way to trust that, is breathtaking in it's stupidity. And now, we're asked to take her word for this. That despite Kos's and Jerome's obvious success at blogging, a lot of other people could have won their contract? Jesus, how stupid were these people? Even if she's not lawyering her way out of this, she never says that they knew there was a political motive to hiring them.
“How on earth,” Might you say, “can you say this isn’t unethical?” “You were part of a group that was trying to pay prominent bloggers so that they would keep saying nice things about Dean, and so that they would NOT go support Clark. That’s nuts!”
You may think it’s a technical answer, but I think its an important one, and its one on which Trippi and I completely agree: its silly to talk about ethics and blogging in those days, it was all new! We were doing outreach to prominent voices online – applying the habits of politicians for ages to bloggers. Joe was a real visionary in this way – he wanted to canvass the important online voices and get them over to Dean – and whether or not this should happen in the future (I think it shouldn’t, but it definitely will), the revelation that you could take old politics (how to get the village elder in Iowa on your side) and apply it to online politics was absolutely brilliant.
Excuse me, but why are you either conflating your role in the campaign, turning Trippi into a coconspirator or so ignorant of basic rules of conduct. There are no new rules on ethics. A shill is a shill is a shill. No rules my ass. At best, what you admit to doing was sleazy, at worse, downright wrong. And stupid. mindnumbingly stupid. It was OK when I did it, but no one else better try it? Give me a break.
Ethics, to my mind, is where you violate a broadly accepted norm, and there were no broadly accepted norms. There were no norms at all.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. This reminds me of the old Marine saying "excuses are like assholes, everybody has one." I think back in the day, 2003, if a blogger, let's say Glenn Reynolds, who's clearly not a journalist, had taken money from the Bush campaign, people would have been outraged. No rules? Is she out of her fucking mind? Jesus. There may have been no cops in the early old west, but murder was still illegal and punished.
The reason I raised this was because I want there to be broadly accepted norms in the future, and I wanted people to think, in VERY Concrete terms, about the pressures inside a campaign to “get bloggers” who have a following. Of course this is going to happen again, its going to happen times ten. Trippi often said I was very naïve, and it may be a fair criticism – but now I’m a citizen, and not working for anyone, I want to use that naivete – my reckless willingness to believe things can be different in politics -- to try to change things.
No one cares what you want or think. Your ethics suck, and you have absolutely no credibility. None, zero. You tried to buy bloggers and now you want to stop others from doing the same? Arrogance or ignance, I can't decide. I want to use my ability, and I don't think I'm alone, to keep you the hell away from blogging and politics. Just because you have legal ethics doesn't mean we should adopt them. Do you think you can walk into a room full of writers and tell them what to think? You'd be lynched in a newsroom and I don't think a room full of bloggers would be much kinder. You're not a writer, your blog is a joke and your judgment skills should have landed you on Maury with a deadbeat dad years ago. Go away, please, before you're humiliated like Al Franken did to Bill O'Reilly.
I, as a reader, as a citizen, want to make sure that during the next election, I can read prominent bloggers and trust that they are not subtly influenced by candidates they are working for, talking to, and paid by. I heard yesterday that Coca-Cola is spending only a third of its advertising money on television advertisements, and the biggest growth is “peer to peer” advertising. That's smart, but its also spooky. I want to believe that people who read far more than I do, and filter that information, will filter it because of their own judgment.
But when I read you, I see a petty, grudgeholding person willing to distort the truth for personal gain or revenge. You don't get to judge people's ethics. Bob Scheer can have that discussion. You need to just shut the fuck up. Please. I cannot trust a word you say. Nor can my readers or readers of other blogs. Almost singlehandedly, you've turned that Harvard conference into a rather bad joke.
A few people have asked me to propose a positive proposal for the future, a working one, where we can try to build that trust. What I’m thinking right now is that the best pressure points, for the future, are candidates, not bloggers themselves. Its more efficient, and its more likely to be effective. I’m not inclined to think (especially after being called all kinds of lovely things during this debacle), that communities are wont to police themselves.
No one asked you to do shit. Maybe other nitwits, but I don't see the hardworking bloggers I know, asking for your guidance. Who exactly are you to set rules for other people? Especially with your miserable ethics.
Therefore, I think one thing we should do is engage citizen watchdog groups in finding out what bloggers are tied to what consulting companies, and prominently publish any contracts – and ask candidates not to hire any of the truly prominent bloggers unless they, like Jerome did, agree not post while consulting.
Go to hell. You don't get to set these rules. How many hits does your blog get? Less in a week than mine in two hours. So why do you think people will follow you. Most are inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.
People have asked me to apologize, and my first reaction is “hell, no! I’m telling the truth!” but, upon reflection, I do want to make one apology. I think that I did not adequately praise Jerome’s completely scrupulous behavior with shutting down MyDD while consulting – he’s a model for what people should do in the future. Jerome was right when he said that I made it sound like he could be bought and sold, and I don’t think he can. I'm sorry, Jerome
We're not arguing your "truthfulness" but the implications of your words. Which, with an amazing degree of irresponsibility, implied that Kos and Jerome were bought by the Dean campaign. And at no point, even in this meaningless post, did you ever retract that. Instead, you dragged Joe Trippi in and then defend conduct you now think is wrong.
And what is even more outrageous is that she only apologized to Jerome. What the fuck is that? You owe an even more fulsome apology to Kos for what you said. It wasn't Jerome getting his ass kicked on Crossfire and by O'Reilly, was it?
Clearly, and if I was Kos, that lawyer letter would be FedExed today, she has no regrets for slandering Kos and has a massive grudge against him. This is amazing. Maybe he pissed in her yogurt, or kicked her dog, not that she will say, but this is so wrong, and so mean, that anything she has to say is tainted. She won't say why she feels that way, or explain why she obviously doesn't like him, but it drips from that bare apology of hers. I mean, this is personal and that's wrong beyond even my unlimited outrage.
If anyone attends the Harvard circle jerk, someone needs to ask her directly why she hates Kos and wanted to ruin his site. This isn't about Dean or the WSJ, but her personal dislike and grudge against Kos. She tried to hide this with her high minded bullshit, but come on, you apologize to the man's partner in a self-righteous way? And ignore the open disclaimer on Kos's site without expressing any regret over her conduct. Oh, I bought bloggers and boy were they wrong to be bought is her argument. You know offering a bribe is as bad taking one.
What's even worse is her utter cluelessness. The vituperation and anger directed at her is pretty intense, yet she posts this like she didn't do anything wrong. People are really, really pissed at her and what she did, and at no point does she get it. Well, I think some people need to learn more than one lesson.
The most important lesson I learned as a Boy Scout is that a real man can admit error and it should be a source of pride. I guess she never learned that lesson about either moral strength or humility.
Oh yeah, if you're so right, put your comments back up.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - The White House sought on Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backtracking from remarks Mr. Bush made in an interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.
In an interview with The Washington Post published on Sunday, Mr. Bush said many senators did not see the need for the amendment as long as the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Because many senators are waiting to see if that legislation can withstand a constitutional challenge, "nothing will happen" for now with the proposed amendment, Mr. Bush said.
..............
In interviews on Sunday on television news programs, Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, said Mr. Bush was referring in The Post interview only to the reality of legislative vote counting and was not suggesting that his support for the amendment had diminished.
"What the president was speaking to was some of the legislative realities in the United States Senate," Mr. Bartlett said. "As you know, it requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar. What we learned through the debate last year is that many members of the Senate believe that the Defense of Marriage Act first must be overturned or challenged before we take the next step of a constitutional amendment."
The president's statement in the interview with The Post, Mr. Bartlett said, "does not change President Bush's view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment."
Some of Mr. Bush's conservative allies on Capitol Hill said that they would keep pushing the issue and that they believed the president would be with them.
"I can tell you, I'm not going to break faith with social conservatives, and I know the president won't either," said Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, speaking on "Fox News Sunday."
Promoting scams are unethical, oh wise men of Harvard
An investment opportunity?
Astounding currency devaluation. After years of trade sanctions, and rampant counterfeiting, the Iraqi Dinar has plummeted from its pre-Gulf War value of over USD$3, to mere fractions of one US cent.What was once the equivalent of more than $82,500, can now be purchased for around $50.Can Iraq's economy achieve, in a free market, what it once achieved under a brutal dictatorship?We don't know yet.But we know she is not alone in her effort to do so.
Might a free Iraq thrive? Above and beyond the vast oil reserve, agriculture, and highly educated population, there is now liberty in Iraq.We believe that where liberty is sown, prosperity blooms.
We understand that liberty is always challenged.It's challenged regularly in our own country.Why should a fledgling democracy, on the heels of a 30 year dictatorial rule, be immune?
We simply trust that the seed of freedom, implantedmore than a year ago with the fall of Saddam's regime, has germinated in the hearts of the majority of the Iraqi people.We see this as a wondrous thing, with tremendous possibilities.
The free world is behind Iraq.
Thirty-eight nations have reduced the debts owed to them in an effort to bolster Iraq's economy.Billions of dollars are being invested by international firms to create Iraqi markets. 18 billion dollars has been given to Iraq by the US State Department to rebuild the nation's infrastructure.They are receiving aid monetarily, militarily or both, from most of the countries in the free world.
What if? Let's say you decide to err on the side of Iraqi prosperity. You take advantage of the 100 year low value and buy 2 million Iraqi dinars. You look them over, admire them, and show them to some friends as a curiosity. The security features alone will have them enthralled. Then you stick them in a closet and go about your life.
A few years from now, you see a program on A&E portraying the lives of average Iraqis. You see people drinking locally bottled, genuine Pepsi Cola; not the ersatz they'd been consuming for years. They are buying their cars from Baghdad Mitsubishi.
Their highly educated engineers, no longer waiting tables or driving cabs, are engineering. The world's 2nd largest oil reserve is producing more efficiently. Higher quality crops are being harvested, in larger numbers.
You discover that things are going well enough in Iraq to have raised the value of the the dinar to one US cent.
Your $2100 purchase would now be valued at $20,000.
If the dinar were to climb to a dime, you've got two hundred thousand dollars in your closet. What if it were to reach a dollar? Or rebound to it's peak of over $3.00? Do you dare continue to keep your dinars in the closet?
This is no pipe dream.
This is a genuine possibility, with remarkable ramifications. Organizations like Operation Iraqi Children working with the US military, are helping to shape a new generation of freedom loving Iraqis. It won't be long before these kids take their place in society. They will recall their childhood as the time when powerful Americans released them from the grip of a bloodthirsty madman, and gave them the tools and support to build a peaceful, prosperous society to call their own. Evidence suggests they will run with it.
So, who are we?
We are freedom loving Americans that believe a liberated, resource rich Iraq can become a force in the world economy. We believe the efforts of the coalition are noble, and will be effective.
We are not professional financial consultants or Wall Street gurus. We can't predict the future or offer any investment advice.
But we will bet on Iraq
Atrios posted this, mainly because I think when a man with a Ph.D in economics sees something so outrageously dishonest, he'd be laughing his ass off.
But unlike him, I think this is a horrible idea for two reasons.
One, watch the fucking news. Unless I like daily disorder, why would I invest in Iraq period? Uncle Sam won't pay me a few millions to do so. While Atrios chortles at the idea of wingnuts losing their money, well, he's chortling because he knows they will lose their money.
Of course, they want you to take physical custody of Iraqi money.
A number of people have begun touting so-called "investment" opportunities in the Iraq Dinar as a "sure way" to make a lot of money with little or no risk. Many of our clients have asked our opinion on the legitimacy of this.
Is "investing" in the Iraq Dinar a sure way to profit? We don't think so. In our opinion, buying the Iraq Dinar is a high risk investment with a poor outlook.
A Little History
The official rate of the old Iraq Dinar, $3.22 USD (U.S. Dollars), was set in 1982 by Saddam Hussein. The old Iraq Dinar could not be freely traded, so this rate was never tested or upheld on the world market.
The current Iraq Dinar (IQD) was introduced between October 2003 and January 2004 by the Coalition Provisional Authority in close consultation with financial experts from Iraq and the international community. The IQD is currently valued at a little less than seven US cents. (1 USD = 1460 IQD). The old "Saddam" Dinar has no current value and is worth only what a collector is willing to pay for it.
What's Happening Now?
The IQD is not freely traded, and is not being used in any significant international transactions. We are unable to locate any official bank or foreign exchange office outside of Iraq that will exchange the IQD.
......................
If it Sounds Too Good to be True...
Ask yourself one question: if the Iraq Dinar is such a hot commodity, why would anyone in the know be willing to sell it to you? If you thought that the IQD was going to multiply in worth by hundreds of thousands of percent, would you sell it? Of course not -- you'd be too busy buying as much of it as you could.
But if you thought that the IQD was going to go down in value over time, well, then you might start trying to convince people that it was a "great deal" so that you could get rid of all of yours before it nose dives.
Remember the old saying: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Be careful!
Two, the kind of people likely to be swindled in this kind of deal are the least able to afford it. A lot of the middle aged trying to sock away something for retirement and the elderly with spare cash.
FOREX is an acronym for Foreign Exchange. The FOREX is a cash (spot) inter-bank market established in 1971 when floating exchange rates began to materialize. Simply stated, FOREX trading is exchanging one currency for another. To buy one currency you must exchange (sell) it for another.
The foreign exchange is not a market in the traditional sense. There is no central location for trading as there is in stocks and futures. Around the world trading takes place by utilizing computer terminals, telephone, telex and most recently, the Internet.
The FOREX is also the world's largest market. In fact, it is huge! Daily volume is estimated in excess of US $1.5 trillion. In comparison, the combined daily trading volume of the US Treasury Bond Market and all of the US Stock Markets averages under $350 billion.
The FOREX is the most exciting market in the world today. Because it is so large and controlled by so many participants, no one player, including government, can directly influence its performance. Approximately 4500 central and commercial banks, corporations, commercial brokers and other financial interests all trade the FOREX. Of all the players, commercial brokers conduct the largest largest volume of trading.
Most foreign exchange activity consists of spot/cash transactions between the more popular US dollar and other popular currencies such as the Japanese Yen, British Pound, Swiss Franc and the Euro.
However, the risk of trading currency makes it the most risky of all financial investments. Professional currency traders are among the rarest of commodity dealers.
Margined currency trading is an extremely risky form of investment and is only suitable for individuals and institutions capable of handling the potential losses it entails. An account with Capital Market Services LLC allows you to trade foreign currencies on a highly leveraged basis (up to about 100 times your account equity). The funds in an account that is trading at maximum leverage may be completely lost if the position(s) held in the account experiences even a one percent swing in value. An account could lose more than the equity it contains, e.g. if the account is trading at maximum leverage and positions held in the account swing more than one percent in value. Given the possibility of losing one's entire investment, speculation in the foreign exchange market should only be conducted with risk capital funds that, if lost, will not significantly affect the investor¡¯s financial well-being.
Why is it so risky? Because it is truly dependent on other factors, like governmental policy and world events. When you get stock in Coca-Cola, the value can go up or down, but only in a signifcant way when major events happen. Currency can move much more wildly.
What's even worse about this scam is that most currency trading is electronic. Which means it's traded like other commodities and it's value can go up and down wildly. It's not about perceived value, as with stocks, but real value, like pork bellies.
When a broker says something is exciting, remember, these guys are professional gamblers. This is the Texas Hold 'Em of investments.
What is amazing is that these scamsters will send you a bunch of Iraqi dinars. Instead of trying to hold them in a currency account where3 you could trade them, you're supposed to hold on to these bills until they become worth something. And since 25,000 dinars can be bought for $17 and they sell them for $40, that's a nice $23 profit. And I would bet they can get them for less than that.
Oh yeah, one other thing, most trade is done in the major currencies. Even Iraqis use Euros and dollars when dealing outside the country. Most Iraqi families who have money keep their cash in Euros, dollars or pounds. Not dinars.
The funny thing is that this scam ad appears on powerline, a fact noted the General and Atrios. And guess which blogger has been invited to the Harvard Circle Jerk on ethics?
My Grandmother, at 92, is one of a dwindling number of living Americans who can remember, as an adult, what it was like to live through the Great Depression. I can recall one bucolic summer Sunday afternoon in the mid-1980's sitting with her and my Grandfather talking about what life was like on a family farm in those troubled times.
For folks in the Upper Midwest, they said, things got really bad....but not as bad as elswhere...farmers used a barter system based on raising hogs and chickens and milking dairy cows to stem the tide when they lacked money to pay for essentials. The bad weather and soil erosion of the Dust Bowl nearly pushed many folks over the edge...in response, my grandparents said, women and men worked side by side in the fields trying to save whatever harvest they could. Whole families mobilized to stave off poverty, hunger and the loss of their land.
Hearing all this, and seeing in their eyes that I could not really understand what they went through....ages 17-28 mind you...I tried to break the ice by quipping..."Gosh, it sounds like you didn't have a dime."
My Grandmother smiled...and looked me directly in the eyes...
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - The unifying theme on domestic policy in President Bush's Inaugural Address on Thursday will be the president's vision of an "ownership society" as he tries to galvanize support for fundamental changes he wants in Social Security, tax policy and other areas, administration officials say.
..............
Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tactician, said the ownership society could solidify the Republican Party just as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society were the foundation of a Democratic Party majority for generations.
"If this is successful, this will define the Bush administration for the next 100 years," Mr. Norquist said. "People who are more independent and don't feel dependent on the government are more likely to be available to the Republican Party."
........................
Others question whether most Americans have the ability or the inclination to make complicated financial decisions involving their retirement and their health care.
In their book "Coming Up Short," Alicia H. Munnell and Annika Sundén, economists at Boston College, examined the record of 401(k) plans, the retirement accounts in which workers control their investments and employers often contribute money. Only 25 percent of eligible workers participate in the plans, they found, and 9 of 10 invest less than the maximum, even when that means they are forgoing contributions from their employers. About 60 percent have dangerously undiversified portfolios, and most cash out their accumulations when they change jobs, rather than saving the money for retirement
"With 401(k)'s, we've had an experiment in handing over to families the responsibility of saving and planning for retirement, and what we have found is that they make mistakes at each step along the way," Ms. Munnell, an economic policy official in the Clinton administration, said in an interview.
"It's not because they're stupid," she added. "It's because people live very busy, very complicated lives. They're working. They're getting their kids educated. They really do not have time to become financial experts.
And that is why Bush's plans will make Iraq look like a success.
Because to change social security, Bush will need a consensus, a president elected by 119,000 votes does not have. I know reality is fungiable in the White House, but not for the rest of us. Republican Congressmen will not leap unless Dems join them, and that isn't going to happen with AARP against them.
Norquist forgets that GOP economic theory had zero credibility in 1933. John Kerry almost won the Presidency in a close election. The ownership society is a nice slogan, but in a country where Americans are, on average, $8,000 in debt, this could be a massive disaster. Once people realize what this is, a transfer of risk from the government to the investor, it will become very unpopular, very quickly.
401K's are a looming disaster, with many having lost their value during the crash. Many are vunerable to market fluctuations, losses, at any time. When people hear this, given an ingrained distrust of Wall Street and big business, the risk of the ownership soceity is unappealing, at best.
It sounds great, but when people realize their old age is on the line, they won't be so eager to take the chance. Bush thinks if he acts credible, he'll be credible and that won't work. ABC has a poll which 44 percent of the public thinks this is a scare tactic and people choose the known versus the unknown.
The one trap that the Dems should not fall into is saying everything is OK with Social Security. What they should stress is that the plan is risky and may cost you your retirement. That's the issue. We can debate fixing social security later, but let's not give Bush the ground to say that the Dems have no solution. Let's rip apart his solution by stressing the risk factor involved. Bush likes risk, women with small kids define risk averse. Tell the soccer moms that Bush wants to gamble with their future in a big way. Private accounts are expensive and may lose money.
Losing money is the psychological core here. People hate the idea of losing money. Stress this, and Bush HAS no answer. What is he going to say? The government will cover the costs? He can't. Tell people that Bush's plan may cost them retirement, remind them about what happened to 401K's recently, and you have a winning argument. Most Americans think they may be rich, but they aren't stupid. Most people think, in a survey I saw, 80 percent, that money in the market is insured. Get people like Bob Rubin, Eliot Spitzer and Arthur Levitt to explain the conseqeunces of this plan and how the market works.
You can sum up Bush's plan as : he wants to take your secure Social Security money and have you lose it in the stock market. And you have no way of knowing what the market will do when you need to retire.
(CBS) Playing goal for the world's most famous soccer team means pressure, the kind of stress that can bring on symptoms of Tourette's syndrome, a neurological condition that causes involuntary muscle spasms and movements known as tics.
But Tourette's hasn't stopped Manchester United goalie Tim Howard from excelling at his craft. He tells Steve Kroft he's been controlling the condition by willpower since he was a child.
Kroft's profile of the young American will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 16, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"It's just a battle of the will...your willpower versus what your mind is telling your body to do," says Howard. "It's about suppressing those physical movements...those vocalizations."
Controlling his Tourette's is something Howard has been doing successfully since he was a child. As a large, popular kid who played all sports, he wasn't made fun of, he says, but could control the disorder if he overheard someone noticing his spasms.
"I used to have a game I would play. I'd be ticking or twitching...and I could hear someone whisper, 'Watch Tim.' So right then I would turn it on and I'd make sure I didn't tic," recalls Howard.
The story which aired concentrated on his role as Man U's leading goalie, not his disability. The reason is simple: he's the most famous American athlete outside the US. Other Americans have played in the Premiership and FIFA's rules encourage the best players to play for the best clubs. Howard's play in the Premiership can only help develop US soccer.
Kroft actually got the point which eludes most Americans, that to be a star on a major football team in Europe is to be amazingly famous, far more than most US football players. Remember, soccer has baseball's ability to highlight individual performance, you can see the player's faces like basketball, and the fans make Red Sox fans look like pikers, UT fans look like part-timers.
So if Tim Howard has a Coke in a bar, not only in Manchester, but in Ibiza, he's as famous as a rock star. Famous only the top US athletes could be in the US.
Soccer is not just sport, it is THE sport. It is all four US sports combined and multiplied. When major transfers take place, it's front page news. One of the UK's best rated soaps is called Footballer's Wives. If a Briton cares about sport, he has a side (soccer team).
Americans tend to miss the mania that soccer creates in most of the world. Iraqi Guerillas wear Arsenal jerseys. Real Madrid sells out every year when they make a summer tour of China, David Beckham, the most famous fottballer in the world, couldn't leave his hotel.
So Howard's success is, in many ways, as important as the US's finish in the World Cup in 2002. As American soccer creates more internationals and top club players, and it's only a few years before Freddy Adu is playing for Barca, AC Milan, ManU, Arsenal or Chelsea, and more of them play in the top European clubs, the better the US team will be.
Soccer is the dominant sport among American youth, yet, league play is slow to develop. While the MSL can produce an decent international side, they lack the ability to field top level teams in their own league. US play is growing, slowly. Morons like Jim Rome, who deride soccer, a task he should try in some New York bars I know, miss the point.
I think the era of Americans sneering of soccer is coming to a rather quick end. Fox Sport World airs nothing but soccer most of the time, and it's Spanish language channel does the same. But the main reason is that in an era where even high school sports reek of corruption, is that soccer is possibly the only sport many kids will play in a team. It is also the most egalitaterian in terms of actual play. Both boys and girls can play into college and it lacks the financial corruption which trails the best players in football and basketball. Also, most immigrants come from countries where soccer is the dominant sport. So the audience for it is bound to grow.
I went to a pizzeria one day and the counter guy noticed my ManU baseball cap and asked me if I was from New York, which I am. He was Brazilian, but he was a Liverpool fan. You find that happening more and more as soccer becomes more popular.
So the idea that Howard's success with ManU is worthy of a story represents a sea change in the way the US deals with soccer.
Iraqis have reacted angrily to a 10-year sentence imposed on a US soldier for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad.
Many said Spc Charles Graner deserved a harsher punishment for his part in the prison abuse scandal.
Graner was jailed on Saturday and received a dishonourable discharge from the US army.
He said he was only following orders to "soften" detainees for questioning, but prosecutors said Graner was a sadist.
The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says with elections only two weeks away, violence wracking many areas and daily life for many people a harsh struggle for survival, most Iraqis have not exactly been following the Abu Ghraib prosecutions with bated breath.
But he says, now that the verdict on Graner is out, most of those who are aware of the case believe the sentence should have been tougher.
One Iraqi who saw pictures of the abuse on the internet said Graner should be sent back to Abu Ghraib to serve his sentence among the prisoners still there, our correspondent says.
Another said that many others of higher rank must have been involved in such systematic abuse and should be prosecuted too, our correspondent adds.
Trader Ali Ahmed, 23, said Graner's sentence was "too little, too late. This isn't justice.
"Even capital punishment isn't enough. But since it's forbidden to torture him the way he tortured the prisoners, I would have settled for the death penalty," he was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.
...........
Asked after sentencing if he had any regret, Graner said simply: "There's a war on. Bad things happen.
Of course, Americans will die for this.
What Grainer, who obviously has the morals and accountability of the president, thinks he's some kind of victim in this, at least his parents do.
Let's not forget that Americans are dying because of this. Iraqis would rather see us die than stop the war, largely because Grainer was trying to curry favor with MI.
See, when Iraqis get pissed, they can simply help plant an IED or shoot an American. They don't have to write angry letters to the editor or any such nonsense.
AN ARMY OF ONE? Erick Davis, 24, was the sole enlistee at a ceremony last week at a National Guard recruiting center in Alexandria, Va. His wife Shawnique watched
Where Are the New Recruits? Critical to the war effort in Iraq, the National Guard and Army Reserve are drawing fewer enlistees. Will the troop shortage worsen?
By MARK THOMPSON
Even as the Iraq war has dragged on, offering no foreseeable end, top Pentagon officials have maintained that the nation's Army is fit enough and big enough to fight it. But last week the military's taut tendons--at the breaking point for better than a year--could be heard painfully snapping from the Pentagon to the Sunni triangle. First came a warning from the head of the Army Reserve that those troops are "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." Then Army officials, speaking privately, conceded that a long-standing policy limiting deployments of National Guard and Army Reserve forces is likely to be scrapped. That's going to make the already difficult job of recruiting--and retaining--such part-time soldiers even tougher. Finally, they added, the continuing instability in Iraq will probably force the Army to make permanent what was supposed to be a temporary addition of 30,000 troops to the active-duty force.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--who has long opposed a permanent hike in the Army's 500,000-strong active-duty force--made himself scarce as these troubling indicators surfaced. The Defense chief has argued that retooling the Army--turning cooks and accountants into trigger pullers and hiring contractors to perform such civilian tasks, among other steps--should generate efficiencies that would ease the strain on the Army without having to boost its size. But other Pentagon officials doubt that such measures will suffice. "We're growing increasingly concerned about the health of the force," an Army personnel officer says. "These deployments are really beginning to take a toll."
Outside observers agree. "The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months," Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, said last week. "The data are now beginning to come in to support that." McCaffrey said the service needs to add 80,000 troops to ease the strain brought on by the Iraq war. "We are in a period of considerable strategic peril," he said. "And it's because Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I cannot retreat from my position.'"
Because of other commitments overseas, in Europe and Eastern Asia, and because the Pentagon is trying to limit Iraq tours to a year, the Army increasingly has had to rely on the National Guard and Army Reserve to help fill the roster of 150,000 troops in Iraq. Those part-time forces represent 40% of the current U.S. troop strength in Iraq and will grow to 50% in coming months. There were about 160,000 National Guard and Army reservists on active duty last week, including 60,000 inside Iraq. In a Dec. 20 memo published in the Baltimore Sun last week, Lieut. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, warned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put in "grave danger" his force's ability to fulfill other Pentagon missions or help grapple with domestic emergencies. "I do not wish to sound alarmist," wrote Helmly, who won a Bronze Star for valor in Vietnam. "I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern." Helmly's memo split the Pentagon into two camps--those who praised Helmly's candor and courage, and those who found the memo's tone, and its appearance in a newspaper, a little too self-promoting.
But Army officers also have begun voicing concern that they are soon going to run out of Reserve troops to fight in Iraq, which would place even more strain on active-duty forces. Under Pentagon policy, reservists and Guard troops can serve no more than 24 months total on a single military operation. The military has already released some Reserve troops from deployment because they have hit the 24-month ceiling--or offered them a $1,000 monthly tax-free bonus to waive the rule. That money upsets Helmly. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,'" he wrote in his memo. In light of the force crunch, the Army is weighing a change that could compel repeated deployments, of up to 24 months each, for some part-time soldiers.
That, however, would probably complicate recruitment challenges for the Reserves. As it is, says Paul Rieckerhoff, 29, a New York Guardsman who spent a year in Iraq, the Guard has lost its allure as repeated deployments have made it more like the active-duty force. "People in the Guard never thought they'd make up 40% of the force [in Iraq] and have six months of training and a year of boots-on-the-ground overseas," he says. "It's become a serious commitment that's going to disrupt your civilian life indefinitely."
................
Guard officials are not denying the obvious. "There's no question that when you have a sustained ground-combat operation going that the Guard's participating in, that makes recruiting more difficult," says Lieut. General Steven Blum, the Guard's top officer. Roughly one-fourth of the Guard's members have served in Iraq. General Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff who was plucked from retirement by Rumsfeld in 2003, told Congress in November that he was in danger of running out of troops. "It's going to get harder the longer we go with this, no question about it," he said. He pledged to do his best to meet the demand of commanders in Iraq for fresh bodies, but added, "I can't promise more than I've got ... If the Army National Guard or Army Reserve cannot muster and provide the formations that are required, perhaps we need to increase the size of the regular Army."
Pentagon officials have been watching recruitment and retention rates closely. Until this past fall, the figures were reassuring. All but one branch of the military met recruiting and retention goals for fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30. The lone exception was the Army National Guard, which came in at 98% strength--342,000 instead of 350,000--on that date. The shortfall was largely attributed to the Guard's missing by 5,000 its recruiting goal of 56,000 soldiers. It was the first time in a decade that the Guard fell short. But then came the even worse performance of October and November.
Lieut. Colonel Michael Jones, the Guard's No. 2 recruiting officer, says 70% of the deficit in sign-ups is the result of soldiers' declining to join the Guard when they leave active duty because they don't want to be sent right back to Iraq. In peacetime, many active-duty soldiers go into the Guard for the extra money and camaraderie. Some of the shortage is due to the Army's "stop-loss" orders, which keep soldiers on active duty past their agreed-on commitments and thus make them unable to join the Guard. But there is another factor in the case of young people right out of high school: parents often steer their kids away from the military. "Mom and Dad understand they're going to go right into basic training," Jones says, "and then be eligible to deploy right away." Even if parents don't object, he says, "it's human nature to flee from risk. It takes a special type of person to join during this time."
...................
The war and its impact on personnel are forcing the Pentagon to cut corners in ways that could dull the military's fighting edge. The Guard, for example, can no longer count, as in the past, on half its troops' having had military experience. If current trends persist, soon only one-third will be veterans. "They'll be able to make their numbers, but the question is, How effective is the Guard going to be if its troops don't have much military experience?" says Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan Administration. What's more, the military may have to begin promoting soldiers with inadequate experience if senior sergeants flee. "Promoting more rapidly leads to a less effective military," Korb says. "We're going to end up with a less effective force and, in another year, I think we could break it."
Despite this roster of troubles, many Army officers remain upbeat. Brigadier General Sean Byrne, the Army's director of military-personnel policy, says that while "the going will be tough" in the months to come, the Army has the tools to keep its force properly manned. "The war on terror strikes home with everybody," he says, "and it motivates them to come on board and stay with us." Rumsfeld and Byrne believe that there is enough goodwill among young Americans out there to fill most of the ranks--and enough money to lure in the rest. Mills, the wounded Army reservist, is the kind of American they're counting on. "My buddies are expecting to be deployed again," he says. "And if I weren't injured and they called me to go again, I'd absolutely go." ???
Two things: one, we have never fought a war on this scale with volunteers alone since the Mexican War in 1848. Volunteers and regulars can only go so far when you're facing an enemy of 200,000 people. Two, the miserable treatment of returning soldiers, especially the wounded, who have to beg for phone cards and help for their families makes it clear that joining the Army can ruin your life in ways far short of death.
The RA soldiers are not joining the guard to get sent back for another year of hell, and the Guard needs their expertise and discipline.
Wonder why you haven't seen any polling numbers on resumption of the draft? Because something has to give. Now, there are a lot of armchair national security types who think some form of national service would be hunky dory, but in a country where kids wear helmets to ice skate, how many parents are gonna send their kids for a year of 11B duty in Iraq? I don't care how much you think Bush is a godly man, sending your kid in the class of Duke 2006 for a year or two of national service is as popular as the LAPD in East LA.
Even the poor folks are deciding no one ever got blowed up at Wal-Mart. And considering how desperate some parents are to get their kids away from their shitty neighborhoods, that's a major leap. For a lot of America, the Army is the first step towards college and professional success. And in most cases, it allows kids to find their feet in a supportive environment. But not during wartime. In wartime, it's a series of nightmares and dreaded phonecalls, and the ultimare nightmare, that knock on the door. Then you have the broken marriages, suicides, and PTSD for those who do come home.
What Bryne and Rummy are forgetting are the flip side of the coin. You think those MP's and 11B's are telling their siblings to come over and join the fun? Not hardly. I can imagine a bunch of e-mails which go "fuck the recruiters, they're lying to you. This place is hell. No matter what they say, if you join, they will ship you here and you don't want to come, trust me."
There are a lot of people who come from military families, people with multiple generations who've served, warning their kin off. People are being actively discouraged from serving, not just by parents, but people already on active duty in Iraq. I wonder how they've factored that in.
Bush needs a national concensus for social security and it looks like he'll fall short. And that's nothing to the kind of support he'll need for the draft. In a multimedia age, the Iraqi resistance will make plenty of videos directed towards security moms which will repeatedly be screened by our media. Remember, they can play the game as well.
After the fiasco of the election, we're going to come to a fork in the road, and it will be draft or leave and leave will be the only viable option.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.
The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.
Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites) as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."
One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq (news - web sites) is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."
The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush (news - web sites), told CNN's "Late Edition."
Of The New Yorker report, he said: "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact."
Bartlett said the administration "will continue to work through the diplomatic initiatives" to convince Iran -- which Bush once called part of an "axis of evil" -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.
.......................
Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."
Defining these as military rather than intelligence operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA (news - web sites)'s covert activities overseas
If I was a solider in Iraq, I would shit my pants when I read this. Because the Iranians can only turn the screws a little to make my life hell.
What happens if 100,000 Iranians cross during bad weather, bearing straight for Baghdad? You know, battlefield nukes, or more likely Fuel Air munitions won't stop them. They'll come with armor and artillery and we're spread out across the country. And all our allies, they'll be home on the next boat.
Bush and DOD act like the Army could stop them. We can't stop the guerillas now. The Iranians, can, well short of crossing the border, make it impossible for the US to stay in Iraq. The US acts like we can fight any war, any where and thge Army is falling apart. You know the Iraqi resistance reads our newspapers and websites. They know all about hillbilly armor and low morale.
Iranian campaign? With what Army? You think social security theft is shaky, try introducing a draft? Reality is like gravity, it eventually reminds you that it exists.
By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page A01
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.
In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.
Except the election was about everything but our crazed 800 lbs gorilla of a war in Iraq. The arrogance of that statement is stunning as it is wrong. He better hope that the Shia are subtle in their eviction papers, because no one, no matter how rich their daddy, can ever escape some judgment. Oh yeah, fundies, you got hornswaggled on the homos, like we predicted you would. He may never be wrong is his mind, but he's just a hostage to events like everyone else.
I get the feeling that Bush will come to regret this interview.
However, there are people who might disagree with Bush.
By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page A01
BOSTON -- Another day of trying to recover.
Once again, Carlos Arredondo, whose reaction to the death of his son became one of the iconic images of the Iraq war, is reading the last e-mail he received from him. "I'm in najaf," the e-mail from Marine Lance Cpl. Alexander Scott Arredondo begins, and those three words are enough to make a 44-year-old father once again feel as though he is on fire.
Every bit of Arredondo's skin is coated with antibiotic cream. His left palm has glass in it from when three Marines informed him that Alex was dead and he began smashing the windows of their van. His lower legs, which received the worst of the burns from when he splashed gasoline in the van and ignited it, are stained the color of cranberries. His hair, cut off in the hospital, is only now starting to grow back. His fingernails, ruined when he used his hands to claw holes in Alex's grave for flowers, are all gone.
"do me a favor and check the news online. save pictures articles and videos if you can. i'll stay in contact until i move. let everyone know i love them," the e-mail from Alex goes on, and Arredondo continues to read it, oblivious to everything else, including his wife, Melida, who is in another room urgently typing a letter.
"Our family is in need," she writes on her computer.
"Medical costs are now over $50,000."
"We are inviting you to a very special" event, she continues, a fundraiser, and keeps writing until the phone rings and Arredondo comes in to see who's calling.
Maybe it's the psychologist. Maybe it's the grief counselor. Maybe it's the marriage counselor. Maybe it's his mother, who had a breakdown after pulling off his burning socks when he was on fire. Maybe it's Victoria, his first wife and Alex's mother, who called him a bastard when she heard what he had done. Maybe it's his son Brian, who is so confused by what Arredondo did that he has stopped all contact with his father.
"Hello," Melida says into the phone, and when Arredondo realizes it's not anyone he knows, he returns to a room where the walls are covered with photocopies of Alex's portrait, the windowsill is covered with the medications he needs to get through a day, and the bed is covered with copies of Alex's letters, including the first one he sent as he headed overseas.
"I am not afraid of dying," it says. "I am more afraid of what will happen to all the ones that I love if something happens to me."
"Oh, Alex. Oh, my goodness," Arredondo says as he picks that one up to read.
Defying Explanation
Even now, so many months later, no longer unconscious in a hospital burn unit, no longer restrained to his hospital bed as a precaution against suicide, no longer gasping as his skin is pulled off with tweezers, no longer encased in bandages, forgiven by the Marines, Arredondo says he does not know why he did what he did.
Was he trying to kill himself? Maybe, he says. Was he trying to bring attention to his son's death, the 968th of the war? Maybe it was that. Was it an act of protest against a war he doesn't like? Maybe. Was it out of anguish, or perhaps guilt, over being a less-than-perfect father? Maybe. Was it, as Melida says one afternoon when Arredondo has gone to Alex's grave, "poor impulse control"? Maybe it was that, too, he says when he returns, hands dirty, eyes shiny, retreating again to the room of portraits and e-mails.
He says he understands the meaning of grief now; less clear to him is the meaning of recovery.
"How am I going to feel better?" he says. "I have no idea."
I think this family might think Bush did do something wrong.
As American leaders go, George Marshall's reputation has not dimmed over time. He kept the Army functioning during the war, which required a lot of fending off of Douglas MacArthur, staying in Washington when he wanted to lead Overlord, like Grant led the last year of the Civil War, and then created the Marshall Plan over Congressional opposition.
My point is that reputation matters. A good one will serve you well and a bad one will haunt you and it is hard to change.
Some of you don't understand why Atrios and I have been so vocal in defending Kos, that it's just a tempest in a teapot. A lot of you agree with us that it's more serious than that.
But for those who don't, let me explain how I see it.
Zephyr Teachout has a grudge against Kos, and I think some of the Dean IT people didn't like the way Jerome came in and did things. Why did she have one? I have no idea, but her and the guy Suellentrop spoke to, clearly had hard feelings about that situation. But instead of resolving it, they decided to spin things their way. As far as I know Teachout wouldn't know journalism ethics if it bit her in the ass.
This is the ethics code for the Society of Professional Journalists.
It's not long, but here's the first and third parts:
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
* Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
* Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
* Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
* Never plagiarize.
* Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
.jpg)
