At the Mbita Point primary school in western Kenya students click away at a handheld computer with a stylus.
They are doing exercises in their school textbooks which have been digitised.
It is a pilot project run by EduVision, which is looking at ways to use low cost computer systems to get up-to-date information to students who are currently stuck with ancient textbooks.
Matthew Herren from EduVision told the BBC programme Go Digital how the non-governmental organisation uses a combination of satellite radio and handheld computers called E-slates.
"The E-slates connect via a wireless connection to a base station in the school. This in turn is connected to a satellite radio receiver. The data is transmitted alongside audio signals."
The base station processes the information from the satellite transmission and turns it into a form that can be read by the handheld E-slates.
"It downloads from the satellite and every day processes the stream, sorts through content for the material destined for the users connected to it. It also stores this on its hard disc."
Linux link
The system is cheaper than installing and maintaining an internet connection and conventional computer network. But Mr Herren says there are both pros and cons to the project.
"It's very simple to set up, just a satellite antenna on the roof of the school, but it's also a one-way connection, so getting feedback or specific requests from end users is difficult."
The project is still at the pilot stage and EduVision staff are on the ground to attend to teething problems with the Linux-based system.
This makes a lot more sense than Nick Negroponte's cheap laptops, because it uses current technology in a clever way, which renders them basically unstealable, which is no small deal. Also, since it's a handheld, the OS is less relevant. It's also easy to use and control. And a lot easier to maintain, by an order of magnitude.
By Blaine Harden Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 28, 2005; Page A01
HOOD RIVER, Ore. -- The nation's strongest laws against sprawl are beginning to buckle here in Oregon under pressure from an even stronger, voter-approved law that trumps growth restrictions with property rights.
In a collision between two radically different visions of how cities should grow, claims under Oregon's new law are pitting neighbor against neighbor, rattling real estate values, unnerving bankers and spooking politicians.
The property-rights law, which was approved overwhelmingly by voters last fall and is known as Measure 37, is on the brink of wrecking Oregon's best-in-the-nation record of reining in sprawl, according to state officials and national planning experts. They say the new law illustrates a nationwide paradox in public opinion: Although voters tend to favor protection of farmland and open space, they vote down these protections if they perceive them as restrictions on personal rights.
"Measure 37 blew up our land-use system," state Sen. Charlie Ringo, a Democrat from suburban Portland, declared while presiding over a tense, standing-room-only hearing on the law that was held recently here in Hood River, a resort town in the Columbia River Gorge.
The law compels the government to pay cash to longtime property owners when land-use restrictions reduce the value of their property -- or, if the government can't pay, to allow owners to develop their land as they see fit. Because there is virtually no local or state money to pay landowners, Measure 37 is starting to unravel smart-growth laws that have defined living patterns, set land prices and protected open space in this state for more than three decades.
Although the unraveling is being watched with alarm by smart-growth advocates across the country, it is exactly what local backers of the new law say they want as recompense for what they describe as years of arbitrary bossiness in the enforcement of land-use restrictions. Smart-growth laws attempt to direct development to areas served by existing roads and utilities and curtail new housing and business construction that will sprawl out to rural areas.
"If you are going to restrict what someone can do with his land, then you have to pay for it," said Dale Riddle, vice president for legal affairs at Seneca Jones Timber Co., an Oregon firm that was the largest donor to the campaign for Measure 37.
Thanks to Oregon's new law, anti-sprawl legislation has lost political momentum across the country, according to Harvey Jacobs, a professor of urban planning at the University of Wisconsin. "It has really excited the property-rights movement and suggests to its supporters that they can challenge smart-growth laws everywhere," he said.
In the Washington suburbs, where only Maryland has passed smart-growth legislation, momentum for the enforcement of those laws began to wane under Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) well before Oregon voters approved Measure 37. Ehrlich cut funds for acquiring open space, eliminated a smart-growth secretary from his Cabinet and, critics say, supported road projects that encourage sprawl
People hate sprawl but want to do what they want with their land. Selfishness in action.
Look, the real question is not if Bush loses the social security battle, but how. In the end, I think we'll get voluntary accounts, but not funded by Social Security money. Bush will save face, because there will be accounts, most Dems will support government sponsored, but not funded accounts, and Wall Street will be happy with the potential new customers. There is nothing wrong in offering an IRA-type account which is market based.
Which is, of course, vastly different than defunding social security, which is what the Bush plan entails. But since the GOP doesn't even want to touch that, Bush will probably accept his accounts without touching social security. Of course, the particpation rate in these plans, as they have been on the state level, will be so small that we will wonder what the fuss was about. And in the end, the issue will be where the money comes from, and social security will not be the place. But Bush has set it up so that he will have to accept some kind of victory, and this is the most palatable around, encourage investment, while not defunding social security.
However, the issue is not creating government-assisted investments, but stopping Joe Lieberman.
Once again, he's not listening to the party, but his own ideas.
But the fact is that ONLY Connecticut residents can stop him.
The rest of us can send letters to DNC Chair Dean and Senate Minority Leader Reid saying we will support a challenger, but that is an indirect act. ONLY Connecticut residents can hammer home the point that they expect him to oppose Social Security theft. They need to not only flood his office, but hand out flyers at Stop and Shop and Stew Leonards calling on people to ask Lieberman to save social security. You need to go to senior centers and American Legion halls and leaflet them. Catch Lottery players on pay day. Malls on weekends.
You need to organize meetups and use town meetings to hammer home the point. Get town councils to pass resolutions to save social security, and calling on Lieberman to join Reid, Dodd and the other Democrats in doing so.
It is clear that ONLY with Lieberman's help can Social Security be defunded. However, ONLY Connecticut residents can put real pressure on Lieberman. They also need to make sure that his office is flooded with in-state letters and calls. It has to be locally based and done from within the state.
This is cheap to do, maybe $20 for flyers and some time. But it only matters if the people doing the agitating are his constituents. If Santorum can get a nasty shock, Connecticut residents can do the same to Lieberman. Because he doesn't represent the rest of us.
Like this Iraqi car, your social security money will go up in smoke if Bush wins
Misinformed Investors
In late 2003, the NASD surveyed 1,086 people who were known to have made at least one investment in that year. The survey was sent to investors whose portfolios ranged from as little as $10,000 up to a maximum of $500,000. Over two-thirds of the survey respondents (69%) described themselves as being at least “somewhat knowledgeable” about investing. Only 12% admitted to being “not at all knowledgeable.” With that in mind, let’s look at some of the responses.
First, there was considerable misunderstanding as to the basic types of investments. For example, 60% of respondents said they own stocks, yet 21% of survey respondents did not understand the concept of a stock. While most understood that owning a stock means that you own a piece of the company, here was the real shocker: Almost half of the respondents believed that stocks are insured against losses!
To be fair, the question was somewhat “loaded” in that the survey listed several organizations (SIPC, FDIC, etc.) and asked, “Which of the following organizations insures you against your losses in the stock market?” Again, nearly 50% of the survey respondents thought that their stock market losses were insured! The correct answer was NONE of the above. No agency insures against stock market losses.
Likewise, 70% of the survey respondents did not understand that when one buys stock on “margin,” he or she can lose ALL of the investment, even if the value of the shares does not go to zero. When investors buy stocks on margin, using loans from their brokerage firm and putting up the securities they buy as collateral, they can potentially lose all the money they paid for the stocks, but also the amount they borrowed.
Regarding mutual funds, the results weren’t any better. While 60% of respondents said they owned mutual funds, 80% did not know the definition of a “no load” mutual fund. The survey also suggested that many investors do not know the difference between loads (sales charges) and normal operating expenses of mutual funds.
So, how about bonds? 29% of respondents did not understand the concept of a bond. 60% did not understand that if interest rates rise, most bonds lose value. Only about half of the respondents knew the definition of a “junk bond.” Almost 70% of the survey respondents did not understand why municipal bonds offer lower pre-tax yields.
And these are educated, relatively well off investors.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 26 - It was a bright, warm afternoon down by the Tigris River in central Baghdad on Saturday, the kind of day that hints at the end of winter and the beginning of spring.
Then the intimidators came, quickly and murderously, and another of the city's historic institutions was left to mourn its dead and ponder the price that is being paid daily in the effort to build what American officials, and their Iraqi allies, refer to as the "new Iraq."
The killers came at 3 p.m. to the Daniel cloth market in the Naher district, a place that was central to Jewish commercial life in the centuries before the 1950's, when Baghdad was home to a large Jewish population. Entering the covered market, the armed men headed straight for the shops of Arab merchants selling a fabric used to make uniforms for the new Iraqi Army.
Four men were questioned about sales to the military and then shot to death, three of them in their shops and the fourth after being led out into the street, witnesses said. The killers fled.
About 45 minutes later, nearly a mile back from the river in eastern Baghdad, a Shiite cleric visiting the capital from the holy city of Karbala was shot to death in the street by men who leaped from a car without license plates. Again, the killers fled. The cleric was identified by Interior Ministry officials as Muhammad Abdul Razzaq al-Mussawi, secretary general of the Muslim Clerics' Association in Karbala, an influential group that was active in Iraq's assembly elections last month.
In other ways, Saturday was a typical day in Iraq at war.
About 9 a.m., a suicide bomber driving a German-made Opel drove up to an American armored column on a road in western Baghdad that runs past the Mother of All Battles mosque, built by Saddam Hussein to commemorate the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
The suicide bomber detonated his vehicle alongside an American M1 Abrams tank but succeeded in killing only himself and two Iraqi civilians, who later lay slumped in their shrapnel-punctured car at the scene.
The bomber caused "minimal damage," the American command said in a statement.
American military spokesmen say the tactics they have adopted to protect against suicide bombers, including shooting to kill drivers who ignore hand signals and warning shots to stay away from military convoys, have resulted in an increasing number of attacks that kill civilians but spare Americans.
In Anbar Province in western Iraq, a stronghold of the insurgents that accounts for about a third of the country's area, an American marine was killed in action on Friday, according to a Marine statement that, following standard practice, gave no details.
The marine's death raised the number of Americans killed in 48 hours to six, including three Army soldiers who died Friday when a patrol in the town of Tarmiya, 30 miles north of Baghdad, was struck by a roadside bomb.
Another car bomb exploded late Saturday morning in the Musayyib district about 40 miles south of Baghdad, killing an Iraqi soldier and wounding three others. An Interior Ministry spokesman said the bombing was directed toward an Iraqi Army raid against people suspected of being insurgents in the area around Musayyib. The district is one of a string of mixed Sunni and Shiite communities on a major highway south of Baghdad where insurgents have come under heavy pressure from American and Iraqi troops. The ministry said the raid captured 12 suspects, including a leader, whom it did not identify.
In northern Iraq, a major oil pipeline was ablaze for much of Saturday after saboteurs detonated a bomb on Friday night on a line connecting the Dibis oil fields with the city of Kirkuk, about 20 miles to the east. The attack was one of dozens that have disrupted Iraq's oil exports, costing billions of dollars and contributing to backups at gas stations across Iraq.
Well one thing Iraqis did besides die waa protest the influence of the Jews in their country, by demanding Thursday off instead of Saturday.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis are complaining about their first-ever weekend break, and some high-school students even went to class Saturday to protest a decision introducing a second weekly day off that coincides with the Jewish Sabbath.
It's not that the Iraqis do not want time off - they just want the extra day moved to Thursday.
"We don't want Saturday! It's a Jewish holiday!" students chanted as they marched in protest last week to the governor's office in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.
A high-school student pulled out a hand grenade and started waving it, and police fired into the air to disperse the crowd. At least three students reportedly were injured in the ensuing scuffle.
At Baghdad's University of Mustansariyah, a statement issued by a student union believed to be allied with the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr described Saturday as "the Zionist holiday" and said the government order should not be followed.
"We declare a general strike in the University of Mustansariyah to reject this decision and any decision aimed at depriving Iraqis of their identity," the statement said.
In predominantly Sunni Muslim Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, the al-Mutawakal high school opened its doors after insurgents threatened to kill its teachers if they took the day off.
There is no clear-cut rule for weekends in the Middle East and other Muslim countries in the region.
................. "We can't be like Jews. Saturday is a Jewish holiday and I hope the government listens to us," sixth-grader Nada Alwan, said.
The influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, believed to be close to the insurgency, said that by making Saturday a weekend "the invaders, the occupiers are trying to impose their principles" on Iraq.
"This decision is dangerous," it said.
In Samarra, one teacher said on condition of anonymity that he had received death threats from militants warning him not to take Saturdays off.
In Ramadi, the heart of the insurgency in the so-called Sunni Triangle, the head of Anbar University decided to change the weekend on its own.
"The official weekend is Thursday and Friday," the university announced.
Hand grenade.
All kids like to protest with hand grenades.
Iraq-the news democracy, where anti-semitism and overreactive violence goes hand in hand.
I love the smiley-face version of New York City the NYC2012 people showed the International Olympic Committee this week, one that was supposed to look like outtakes from "When Harry Met Sally."
No traffic problems.
No difference of opinion over things like the Summer Olympics.
And the idea that you can order up a new stadium on-demand, like it's a Pay-Per-View movie on cable.
Of course the idea of diversity in a dog-and-pony show like that is a speech from Whoopi Goldberg, who clearly needs more to do.
This all goes on while your governor and Mayor Bloomberg and the hustler Doctoroff still want you to believe that a West Side Stadium for the Jets - which is all they're going to end up with when the 2012 Games go to Paris - is somehow joined at the hip with expansion of the Javits Center the way Bloomberg and Doctoroff have become joined at the hip on this thing.
Of all the places in town the IOC people toured this week, the most fitting was Bloomberg's apartment, actually.
One more room of rich guys, trying to decide the future of New York.
Finally, some realistic commentary on this idiotic Olympic bid and that godwaful stadium. Notice the street next to the railyards. It feeds into the Bus Terminal and Lincoln Tunnel. Anyone who's ever been to the Meadowlands after a game knows what the words traffic congestion means. And Bloomberg wants to make it worse by having the Garden move west. Traffic planning is a reality, not notional.
When MSNBC’s rabidly leftist pit bull Keith Olbermann isn’t obsessing over the phony sexual harassment charges that a CNN mole maliciously leveled against Bill O’Reilly; smearing the Swift Boat Vets; or sticking up for suspected terrorists at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, he always manages to make up a new anti-Bush diatribe to run on his actual fake news show, which mostly involves creating wildly leftist conspiracy theories that are further exaggerated by his pro-Democrat-only guests with their own leftist agendas.
So which victim is Olbermann stalking now? He’s a pro-Bush conservative and former White House reporter who’s being tarred and feathered by pro-Democrat media leftists bent on destroying his personal life because he dared to commit the ultimate press corps sin: Actually doing his job as a reporter by asking tough questions about the very Democrats that Olbermann and his leftist colleagues give free passes to on a daily basis.
Never mind that Olbermann has ignored the real media scandals: The Bush-hating “search and destroy” mission of Dan Rather’s fake memos; the ongoing treason of CNN and its former “news” chief Eason Jordan, whose network parroted Saddam Hussein’s propaganda for 12 years, while refusing to expose Uday Hussein’s assassination plot against two brothers in-law – which Jordan knew about – that was later carried out; and the government-subsidized, neo-Marxist rants of NOW-retired Bill Moyers, whose leftist sidekick, David Brancaccio, continues espousing the so-called “evils” of the Bush administration, conservative judges and Sean Hannity, whose broadcast Moyers brazenly called “a freak show of political pornography” in his final taxpayer-funded rant last fall.
As Olbermann (www.olbermannwatch.com) ignores Rathergate (www.rathergate.com) and Easongate (www.easongate.com), he milks his nonstop segment, “Gannongate.”
While Olbermann has launched endless witch-hunts of conservative columnists Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, his newest obsession is former Talon News reporter Jeff Gannon (a.k.a, James Guckert, but who will be referred to here by his professional name “Gannon”). Gannon was a genuine newsman who Olbermann and other schadenfreudians (as Rush calls them), who have taken extreme pleasure in singling out Gannon for personal destruction simply because he’s a conservative Republican.
Doug Schmitz, who holds a master’s degree in journalism, is a conservative columnist and regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, Michnews.com and has been a frequent guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org), a watchdog group for the liberal media.
Witch hunts? And this from a person who claimed to have a journalism degree? From where? Kremlin U?
My god this guy is an idiot.
Why?
Does this man know he's defending a gay protstitute?
Guckert wasn't found out because he dated men, hell, he's hardly the only gay reporter at the White House, it was because he solicited those dates online and charged for them. This is his PUBLIC, ONLINE life.
The fact was that Guckert smeared people, not doing any reporting, by the way, and WAS A MANWHORE.
Now, maybe at Kremlin U, being sold to the highest bidder isn't a big deal, but "journalists" don't take money from the government.
If I was a conservative, I would land on Guckert with both feet, because this is going to blow up. Guckert is too stupid to avoid a court and keep his mouth shut. One day, someone is going to link him and his patrons and there's going to be a big old homos in the White House scandal.
The problem with the closet is that when the door opens up, all kind of things come to light.
Uh, Doug, Guckert's "professional" name was his MANWHORE name. Journalists use their real name because it's about credibility. But I guess if you're a conservative, credibility is a figment of the imagination. Just like the truth.
I'm not in the business of giving the opposition advice, I don't read them unless I have to and I could give a fuck about their opinions. But this blind loyalty has a familiar ring.
See, the communists used to demand this kind of blind loyalty. Whatever Stalin did was for the greater level of the Soviet Union and world revolution. Well, comes the Russo-German pact of 1939, and the commies have a choice, stay with the party or walk away over an act of conscience. The CPUSA, which had been the heart of the left's activists, died in August 1939. By the time HUAC and McCarthy came around, they were kicking the ashes in an already extinguished fire.
Loyalty has a limit. Sticking up for Manwhore Guckert is suicidal. More is going to come out about him, because he's stupid and greedy. And then the social conservatives will rise up and attack the fiscal conservatives, waving the manwhore around as a sign of their weakness.
Of course, we're dedicated to helping that along, anyway we can, but if I were a conservative, I'd toss Guckert out to the wolves.
Oven beer can basics, can, steaming liquid spice rub, chicken, cast iron pan
OK, after all this talk of beer can chicken, I decided that I hadn't had it in a while, so instead of going to Home Depot, I went food shopping instead.
Since I was making this, I decided to show people how to make it, so I simplified the process. No complex spice rub or anything like that.
I bought a 3-4 lb chicken, with Wick Fowler's 2-Alarm Chili spice mix.
This is the quickest way to get a spice rub without having to buy spices and fumble around. It has a nice mix of spices and optional heat. I tossed the spices together, which have nice, allied flavors. Instead of making my own, or toasting the spices, which I could do, these finely ground spices are designed to be cooked with for hours, so there was no need to do anything more. I also like Fowler's because you can control the salt and it doesn't have tons of MSG in it, but you can use dried salad dressing, fresh herbs, or any mix you like, but for the first go round Fowler's or another premade spice mix cuts down a lot of the effort needed for making a rub. Some of you might add sugar, but I really don't like to add it to rubs because it burns and you don't need black crusts here.
spice rub in plate
placed on lowest rack in oven
Cooking in oven. I was checking it, my oven doesn't have a glass door.:)
I cut the chicken open to get at the can, which is hot and filled with hot, smoking liquid
The barbecue sauce made from the spice mix, mustard, catchup and cider vinegar. I also added in some of the steaming liquid.
So as you can see from the shots, I coated the chicken in the spices, poured some hard cider into the can, with some spices, shoved the can in the chicken, and na hour later, you have the best chicken possible, crispy skin, tender meat, even the breast. I soaked up the greasze and used the drippings as the base of my barbecue sauce. The cast iron pan and drippings make for the base of a trememdous sauce. But you cn also cook potatoes like this, and actually serve a rather nice, fancy baked chicken meal without letting anyone know your secret. It's usually done as a barbecue or grilled dish, but there's no reason that you can't use it for a dinner party with oven roasted potatoes and asparagus. And the beat part is that it cooks really quickly.
Why is this such a great dish? Because it is simple and really hard to screw up. Really, really hard.
Manchester United's Wayne Rooney goes flying over Portsmouth's Dejan Stefanovic during their Premiereship football match at Old Trafford in Manchester.
Ian Whittell at Old Trafford Sunday February 27, 2005 The Observer
As any playground combatant will vouch, if you engage in a name-calling contest, make sure your gang are bigger than your rival's. Wayne Rooney again demonstrated that, as long as Sir Alex Ferguson can depend upon his precocious talents, the veteran manager will always have an important weapon in his increasingly entertaining psychological conflict with Chelsea's José Mourinho.
At the end of a week of spiteful interchange between the two managers, two goals from the England centre-forward rescued a lethargic United from disaster in their attempt to overtake the London club at the top of the Premiership. The winner, nine minutes from time, was vintage Rooney, the strong teenager collecting Ruud van Nistelrooy's pass and shrugging off Dejan Stefanovic before converting from six yards.
Ferguson had pledged to 'freshen things up in a couple of places' as United sought to recover from the disappointment of the midweek home defeat against Milan. Certainly, making five changes in selection definitely constituted a thorough freshening up. Still, it was one of the survivors from the manager's cull, Rooney, who swept United into an early lead
Gee, I guess Tim Howard isn't so dodgy any more. I mean, how long do you stick with Carroll after fuckups galore?
So how much is a real starting goalie going to cost ManU?
Oh yeah, anyone still bitching about Rooney and Ronaldo now?
If it wasn't for the two of them, ManU would be sucking air with Liverpool right now, beacause they don't beat Chelsea or anyone else without them.
My favorite sign from Monday's pre-AC Milan match protest
Americans don't really get the passion most people have for soccer. Except in rare cases, do you really care who owns an American sports team if they win?
Oh yeah, the AC Milan team doctor was busted for whipping out his dick in public. So it wasn't all bad, but it's shame that it took that loss to get Carroll out of goal.
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor Sunday February 27, 2005 The Observer
Tony Blair risks becoming an electoral liability, according to government ministers as the Prime Minister faces fresh accusations that his 'presidential style' is starting to affect Labour's support.
With private Labour polling revealing that one of the most important sections of the electorate - married mothers - are deserting the Prime Minister and the Tories closing the polling gap, Blairite figures are urging a change in Labour's faltering election campaign.
Officials said the Prime Minister would now adopt a less 'presidential' style, appearing in tandem with cabinet colleagues, to head off sniping about his personal unpopularity.
Chancellor Gordon Brown will also return to centre-stage tomorrow, amid calls from senior party figures for him to take a bigger role as the party struggles to refocus its efforts on bread-and-butter economic issues like maternity leave for new mothers, skills and training.
The shift follows the identification of surprising patches of electoral resistance by Philip Gould, the party's polling adviser. MPs were warned by Alan Milburn last week that Labour has fallen by six points among married women with children - despite its commitments on child care.
The news follows concern that Blair's personal ratings are clouding the picture. One loyalist cabinet minister has told friends that Blair is no longer seen as an asset, particularly among traditional working class supporters.
Another Blairite minister admitted he had been taken aback by the hostility to the leader on the doorsteps: 'There are people shouting "if you get rid of Blair we'll vote Labour", although I think a lot of that is bluff.'
No, it isn't. The war is his burden and his support for it and Bush alienates many, many people. These people may stay home on election day, refusing to vote for the Tories or Blair.
The smart move would be for Blair to step down and let Brown run as party leader. People like Labour policies more or less, but hate Blair's war. Especially mothers.
His loyalists have been pretending for two years that this elephant is not in the room. Well, it's in the room and not going anywhere. Either Blair is forced to step down, because the numbers get worse, or he wins and loses most of his majority. Something has to give with the unpopularity of the war in the UK.
It was remarkable to see President Bush lecture Vladimir Putin on the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society.
......................... "I live in a transparent country," Mr. Bush protested to a Russian reporter who implicitly criticized the Patriot Act by noting that the private lives of American citizens "are now being monitored by the state."
Dick Cheney's secret meetings with energy lobbyists were certainly a model of transparency. As was the buildup to the Iraq war, when the Bush hawks did their best to cloak the real reasons they wanted to go to war and trumpet the trumped-up reasons.
The Bush administration wields maximum secrecy with minimal opposition. The White House press is timid. The poor, limp Democrats don't have enough power to convene Congressional hearings on any Republican outrages and are reduced to writing whining letters of protest that are tossed in the Oval Office trash.
When nearly $9 billion allotted for Iraqi reconstruction during Paul Bremer's tenure went up in smoke, Democratic lawmakers vainly pleaded with Republicans to open a Congressional investigation.
Even the near absence of checks and balances is not enough for W. Not content with controlling the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and a good chunk of the Fourth Estate, he goes to even more ludicrous lengths to avoid being challenged.
The White House wants its Republican allies in the Senate to stamp out the filibuster, one of the few weapons the handcuffed Democrats have left. They want to invoke the so-called nuclear option and get rid of the 150-year-old tradition in order to ram through more right-wing judges.
Mr. Bush and Condi Rice strut in their speeches - the secretary of state also strutted in Wiesbaden in her foxy "Matrix"-dominatrix black leather stiletto boots - but they shy away from taking questions from the public unless they get to vet the questions and audiences in advance.
Administration officials went so far as to cancel a town hall meeting during Mr. Bush's visit to Germany last week after deciding an unscripted setting would be too risky, opting for a round-table talk in Mainz with preselected Germans and Americans.
The president loves democracy - as long as democracy means he's always right.
Flyboys of Vietnam, Gray and Grounded in Iraq By KIRK SEMPLE
FORWARD OPERATING BASE DANGER, Iraq, Feb. 20 - The seasoned pilot was recalling a different war in a different place. "Every time we went in, we went in hot," he remembered. "You were fighting your way in and fighting your way out."
The pilot, Chief Warrant Officer James G. Freeman, was 23 when he began flying Huey helicopters in the Vietnam War in 1970. His missions with the 116th Assault Helicopter Company often involved dropping into a battleground to unload soldiers after helicopter gunships had "prepped" the zone with a torrent of rockets and machine-gun fire.
"There were a lot of bullets flying down there," Mr. Freeman recounted dryly during an interview. He was seated in a trailer on the airfield at Forward Operating Base Speicher, an American military base near here and his home for the next year while he is deployed with the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard, based in Troy, N.Y.
Mr. Freeman is now 58, with wry creases spraying from the corners of his eyes and a penchant for menthol cigarettes. As a member of the Guard, he has been deployed for events including the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, N.Y., and relief and recovery missions after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the crash of T.W.A. Flight 800 in 1996 and the attack of Sept. 11, 2001.
Now, 34 years after his yearlong tour of duty in Vietnam, Mr. Freeman is back in another war.
He is one of five helicopter pilots from the New York National Guard who flew Hueys in the Vietnam War and who have been deployed as Black Hawk pilots in northern Iraq with the 42nd Infantry Division. The five pilots, all together, flew thousands of combat hours in Vietnam and survived being shot down several times. In this war, however, they say their responsibilities have kept them largely earthbound, as younger pilots rack up the flight hours. And they are not very happy about it.
"I'd rather be flying," grumbled Chief Warrant Officer Thomas McGurn, 57, one of the pilots who is at Base Danger helping to coordinate daily aviation schedules for the brigade. "This is kind of a bummer."
Only two of the five veteran pilots have flown since the bulk of the brigade arrived in Iraq last month.
Mr. Freeman, a retired Suffolk County police officer who lives in Stony Brook, N.Y., has flown once. Chief Warrant Officer Steven M. Derry, 53, a New York State correction officer in Wilton, N.Y., has flown twice. The others have not yet been tapped, but expect to fly sometime this year.
All five are members of a headquarters unit for the division's aviation brigade, which includes four aviation units from around the country and a maintenance battalion from Brooklyn.
For now, the five men spend their days at desk jobs or hanging out in their khaki flight suits, like caged, graying lions. Their command and control responsibilities, rather than their comparatively advanced ages, are the reason they are not flying as much as other pilots, the men say.
Mr. Freeman has taken to calling himself "a staff weenie." And Chief Warrant Officer Herbert A. Dargue, 57, of Brookhaven, N.Y., who is serving as a liaison between the division headquarters and the aviation brigade, said, "I'd rather get in the action than sit behind a desk."
About 5,570 American troops who are 50 or older have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly all of them members of the Guard and the Reserves. Although there are mandatory retirement regulations in the military that can apply anywhere from 55 to 62, depending on a soldier's length of service and other circumstances, there are no age limits on the battlefield.
Jonah, think these men have kids, you gutless piece of shit.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 - The battle over Social Security has been joined by an unusual lobbyist, a 9-year-old from Texas who has agreed to travel supporting President Bush's proposal.
The boy, Noah McCullough, made a splash with his encyclopedic command of presidential history, earning five appearances on the "Tonight" show and some unusual experiences in the presidential campaign last year. He beat Howard Dean in a trivia contest at the Democratic National Convention and wrote for his local newspaper about his trip to see the inauguration.
"He's very patriotic and very Republican," said Noah's mother, Donna McCullough, a former teacher and self-described Democrat. "It's the way he was born."
In a sign of how far groups go to carry their message on Social Security, Progress for America has signed up Noah, a fourth grader, as a volunteer spokesman. He starts on spring break from James Williams Elementary School in Katy, Tex.
Progress for America, which spent almost $45 million backing Mr. Bush last year, plans to lay out $20 million on Social Security this year. It has spent $1 million on television commercials and is working to send experts around the country. Among them are Thomas Saving, a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund; Rosario Marin, a former United States treasurer; and one really, really young Republican. Noah will not be eligible to collect Social Security for nearly 60 years.
Noah will travel to a handful of states ahead of visits by the president and will go on radio programs, answer trivia questions and say a few words about Social Security. Though he is obviously not an expert (and not really a lobbyist, either), officials say the effort is a lighthearted way to underline Mr. Bush's message.
"What I want to tell people about Social Security is to not be afraid of the new plan," Noah said. "It may be a change, but it's a good change."
Atrios pointed this out.
A fucking 9 year old? You know I don't ask my nephew for political advice. People are not going to think this kid is cute. They will listen to him for A minute or so and then start asking him questions.The people behind this are evil and stupid. They don't get that this is people's lives here. Sticking a kid into the middle of this is wrong.
Join Tavis Smiley, Tom Joyner and thirty-five fhe o America’s Black thought leaders, educators, public policy makers, religious leaders, opinion makers and community organizers for two in-depth discussions, Road to Health™, and Defining the African American Agenda. The morning discussion, Road to Health™, is the kickoff to Tavis’ health and wellness expo and spotlights health and the health care crisis in America, its disproportionate effects on the African American community and what individual steps we can take towards better health. The afternoon discussion, Defining the African American Agenda, sets the stage to establish a new direction on how the Black community effects social and political change.
Invited speakers include (partial list):
Marian Wright Edelman, The Children’s Defense Fund Julian Bond, NAACP Theodore Shaw, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund The Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Harry Belafonte, Actor & Activist Bishop Eddie L. Long Congresswoman Maxine Waters Senator-Elect Barack Obama Marc Morial, National Urban League The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan Reverend Al Sharpton, National Action Network Dr. David Satcher, Former US Surgeon General Dr. Benjamin Carson, Johns Hopkins Hospital Jackie-Joyner Kersee, Olympic Gold Medalist and Athlete Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Cathy Hughes, Radio One Dr. Cornel West, Princeton University Dr. Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Harvard University
OK, I tripped across this on CSPAN this afternoon and was captivated. The program is available on Real Player and will be broadcast tonight from eight o'clock on.
Bob Johnson's little sucker the negroes meeting was an attempt to forestall the work of his former employee, Tavis Smiley. Smiley decided he could make more money elsewhere and promote a black agenda not tempered by greed.
I know some of you folks are worried that the GOP might make inroads into the black community, but after watching this, the real intellectual heart of black America, you should be ready to listen and help, but worry should be off your agenda.
The people listed there aren't reformed criminals, but some of the best and brightest of America. They aren't speaking in some white think tank, but in a black church, bought, maintained and run by black people. They didn't need to beg their patrons for space and time, and white people didn't fill the tiny audience. This was a conversation between black Americans and it's one which everyone should hear. Unlike a dry symposium, the intellectuals here actually engage each other, respectfully.
The goal of the forum was to create a "Contract with Black America". The sellout ministers have created a suimilar docunment, but relies on GOP sponsorship to do things like renefenchise felons.
Of course, the irony of Kaiser and McDonald's sponsoring a discussion on black health is, of course, humorous.
Several panelists, including both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, condemned the anti-gay bigotry that some ministers have embraced. Jesse Jackson was especially derisive of those who "found more comfort with wite evangelicals than black leadership". They made the point clearly that we had other issues to deal with and that this was a distraction created to hide those issues.
What isn't widely realized is that Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner are the leading media figures in black America. If you live in a city where Joyner is on the air, you would do well to listen to him to understand black politics.
The thing about this forum was that ideas there should cause all politically active democrats to think about what they can offer voters. The two parts of the afternoon are 4 hours long, but it is both funny and intelligent.
At one point, the pastor of the church, Bishop Eddie Long, was chided for going to the White House. While no one was disrespected, the panelists made it clear that they were not happy with him going and sticking to Bush's agenda.
While most whites have long ago written off Louis Farrakhan, in that black audience, he was accorded tremendous respect. Not because of his rantings, but because he is uncompromising in his stand in support of black people. The same applies to Sharpton as well. The lack of appreciation whites have for him only increases his stature. But of course, the main key to his success with audiences, is that he can speak very well.
A lot of ground was covered and you need to see it to get the breath and depth of it.
But let me put it this way, the range of political discussion had Farrakhan on the far left and Former Detriot mayor Dennis Archer on the right. Which is still a room full of liberals.
In the second panel, Cory Booker was included as well as AARP President Marie Smith, as well as Jesse Jackson. Jackson went after the homophobic ministers immediately, ridiculing them. The second panel, hosted by Court TV host Michael Brown, also included Keith Boykin, an openly gay man who's just written a book: Beyond the Down Low.
What is so important about this is that these statements were made, live on TV, in a large Baptist Church to refute the idea that a few bigots can speak for a diverse, educated community. And it was clear that the majority of people would not tolerate these folks being held up as role models, because they don't speak for black America.
If you want to find out who does, watch the show on C-SPAN or hit the link.
The other black billionare, former head of BET, Bob Johnson
Black Commentator came up with this, Bob Johnson's secret meeting to help rich people. Now, Johnson may be rich, but his eyes see no further than his wallet.
In a transparent bid to boost Republican fortunes among Blacks, billionaire Bob Johnson attempted earlier this year to convene a secret meeting of prominent African Americans at BET headquarters in Washington, DC. obtained a copy of the invitation to the “retreat,” scheduled for January 13 and 14 and ostensibly designed “for the purpose of brainstorming ideas as to how we as African Americans can best confront the political and demographic realities of the 21st century.” None of the invitees were told the identity of the others and the press was scrupulously kept in the dark, but we have learned enough to report that the mix was high-powered and politically diverse. (Click here to view the Johnson invitation letter to the retreat. The page may load slowly for dial up users due to the large size of the image.)
The stealth gathering was postponed for lack of a quorum, but Johnson’s intentions were made clear in his eight suggested talking-points, not one of which dealt with issues such as jobs, health care, housing, social security, civil rights or war and peace. Instead, the BET founder, who was an early backer of Social Security privatization and organized fellow wealthy Blacks in support of George Bush’s bid to repeal the Estate Tax, crafted an agenda designed to peel African Americans away from the Democratic Party – his clear assignment in Bush’s second term. “It seems to me he was suggesting more cooperation with Republicans, or at least, less friendship toward Democrats,” said one invitee, who asked for anonymity.
With great cynicism but little guile, Johnson taps into the near-universal desire among Blacks for actions that will lead to greater operational unity and effectiveness – and attempts to channel these aspirations in Republican directions. Of the eight Johnson “questions” listed below, all but three implicitly urge collaboration with the GOP or a boycott of Democrats. The remainder – on forming a Black political party, running “favorite son” candidates, and fundraising over the Internet – are window dressing to create the impression of a broader agenda.
1. Should African Americans continue to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party?
2. Should African Americans, in concert, make overtures to the Republican Party?
3. Should African Americans seek to form an independent party and vote accordingly?
4. Should African American-elected officials be encouraged to run as favorite sons in national elections?
5. Should African Americans holding elected offices be asked to vote according to a multi-party system by using their voting power to leverage the Democrats against the Republicans and the Republicans against the Democrats in the best interest of African Americans?
6. Should African American voters be encouraged to vote for Republican or Democratic officials based upon the negotiated agreement with the respective candidates rather than based on party affiliation?
7. Should African Americans demonstrate our political cohesiveness, and therefore political power, by withholding votes from a particular candidate in a selected election?
8. Should African Americans invest in an Internet-based fundraising effort to form a totally independent source of political financing?
Bob Johnson doubtless kept the invitees in the dark as to each other’s identities, the better to control the direction of the slanted discourse by curtailing opportunities for pre-meeting discussions among invitees, such as, What is this guy up to? and, How was this list put together? or, Why aren’t there any talking points on the issues?
BC obtained, from a third party, a copy of NAACP Chairman Julian Bond’s response to Johnson’s invitation. Bond declined to attend “for scheduling reasons,” congratulated Johnson for his efforts, then offered a valuable, point-by-point critique. On the question of whether Blacks should “continue to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party,” Bond responded:
”This strikes me as the wrong question – the correct one is ‘what party should we vote for, and what standards should we apply to choose the beneficiary of our votes?’ In every election in my lifetime from Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush (with one exception in 1956) we’ve chosen the Democratic Party by large majorities. That choice was rationally made between two competing and general political philosophies – one which promised an aggressive defense of civil rights and the prospect of economic growth and security, the other offering the vicissitudes of the marketplace and less vigorous federal protection of – and in many cases a retreat from – civil rights. Using that general standard, we’ve consistently voted for Democrats, and I expect that pattern to be followed for the foreseeable future. In recent elections, our choice has also been a matter of the Republican Party repulsing us rather than the Democratic Party attracting us.”
Bond agreed that Republicans should be rewarded with votes if they “adopt policies deemed favorable” to Black interests. “It would be the height of idiocy, however, to suggest that having given our votes to one party for so long we ought to give them to the other for no reason except that we could,” said Bond. “The old mantra, ‘taken for granted by one party; ignored by the other’ isn’t remedied by giving our votes to a party that doesn’t make any rational appeal for them.” .......... No wonder Bob Johnson wants to hold narrowly framed meetings about electoral strategies with Black leadership, rather than discuss bread and butter issues – he is so far to the right, he’s off the screen of the Black Political Consensus. ........... A Pioneer privatizer
"We're all on the Titanic as it relates to Social Security and people are telling us it's the safest ship afloat. But we are heading for a disaster.'' – Bob Johnson
Only hard-core GOP Rightists shrilled like that in 2002 – back then, the Republican National Committee specifically forbade its congressional candidates from campaigning on the shaky ground of Social Security privatization. But Bob Johnson was on a Bush-mission to spread hysteria and confusion in Black America, and he performed shamelessly. Johnson was picked for a slot on Bush’s supposedly bi-partisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security – as a Democratic member! Thus, Bush got an African American commissioner who cared nothing for the interests of the masses of Blacks or Democrats. And he got a mouthpiece for the evolving GOP Social Security line for Black consumption. “African Americans who contribute to the Social Security system and payroll taxes also have one of the highest mortality rates, so in the end, they may not receive the full benefits of what they put in Social Security,” said Johnson, a message that would be repeated on hundreds of Black radio stations during the 2002 congressional elections.
Yes, Bob Johnson is a true media pioneer – a veteran polluter of the Black airwaves. His original “Black” rationale for Social Security privatization is now a centerpiece of White House propaganda – the context in which his call for a meeting of Black minds must be viewed.
However, it would be wrong to assume that Johnson is simply playing at right-wing politics because the Republicans control the government. He’s been hanging with the troglodytes since 1979, when he hooked up with John C. Malone, of Tele-Communications Inc. To ease his way into cable franchises in heavily Black cities, Malone needed someone to provide African American programming. He bankrolled Johnson for $500,000 in return for a 35 percent share in their new baby, BET. (Johnson put up just $15,000 in borrowed money.) Malone and Johnson have been joined at the wallet ever since; Malone never gave up his BET stock. When Johnson sold BET to Viacom for $3 billion in 2000, Malone’s company received $800 million in Viacom stock.
Johnson’s partner Malone is on the board of the Cato Institute – in the Right’s division of labor arrangement, the point organization on Social Security privatization. This is the political company Bob Johnson keeps, when he’s not using his wealth to tease cash-starved Black leadership structures into paying him undue attention.
A disruptive bank account
Donna Brazile, head of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute, would have attended Johnson’s meeting had it come off. “Look, on questions of partisanship, I am a strong and faithful Democrat,” she told . “But, I welcome a dialogue with those on the other side to see what, if anything, they are willing to bring to the table. In the past, they have come up empty handed and with a stick to beat Democrats down. Now, if Bob wants to have a conversation with all sides, I am ready, but actions still speak louder than words.”
It’s not clear if Brazile considers Johnson to be on “the other side” or not. Indeed, it’s hard not to be at the center of attention when one comprises half of the total billionaire population of Black America. Johnson, who is leaving BET by the end of the year, will certainly enjoy a well-attended “summit” of his own choosing – whether secret or public – if he reschedules it wisely. But everyone in attendance should know what the real agenda is: to lure Blacks into a relationship with the Republican Party or, failing that, to cause splintering and confusion in the ranks.
Bob Johnson doesn't like criticism, or questions. But he loved being John Malone's bitch when he ran BET.
When he was begged, over and over, to not air all the videos of gyrating, nearly nude women, over and over in the middle of the day, on the channel, he just sneered at his critics. He even went so far as to launch a full-page screed against a young Aaron MacGruder for daring to critize the tits and ass nature of BET's programming. Johnson never liked unions or union wages either. Nor developing talent. All cost too much money. Johnson's opinion of the intellect of black people is a dim one at best. He closed Emerge, which was the only black political magazine, to start Savoy, which would be about men's fashions.
While Johnson was eager to play on blackness to get ahead, he paid the lowest wages for talent in the DC area. When he wanted to do a comedy show, he paid below union scale and when called on it, moved the show to Atlanta, most talented black comics stayed away, rather than make $300. I am hardly surprised that Johnson's assistant sneered about being called on his little sucker the negroes meeting. When BET went public, at a time companies were handing out shares like beers at a frat party, Johnson gave his loyal staff zero shares. When a black reporter for the WaPo wrote about how BET was a non-union shop, paying the worst media wages in DC, the attack was called racist.
Bob Johnson learned how the rich behaved well at Princeton. Too bad he never learned about social responsibility.
But obviously, there is more here. There is a coordinated effort by Rove to drive a wedge between blacks and the democratic party while not chamging the largely Southern-based nature of the GOP. They want blacks to doubt the Democratic Party, and then force the Dems to overreact, becoming the black party, securing the south for them. Johnson doesn't even see how he's being played as long as his wallets are fat. The GOP don't want niggers, they want to look like they want them, and then force the dems to fight for them, saying "See, that's the nigger loving party". While they lie to Hispanics and do nothing for them. They can't deliver on immigration because of the Tom Tancredos, who hate Mexicans like his forefathers did, excepot they don't use the rope and the gun any more.
But the difference is this: Johnson ain't Oprah. People hate Bob Johnson. They resent the hell out of BET, and how he's shoveled crap into people's homes. Few people were upset when he sold out to Viacom, because he had sold out the black community long ago. Think his daughter could have showed up with Petey Pablo or Chingy at a party? Hell no? They'd have shoved his black ass out that mansion at gunpoint. But it's ok for my niece and nephew to watch them after school. Well, it isn't, which is why they watch Nick or Cartoon Network or Disney.
Johnson is rich and clever, but not bright. When he sold BET to massa John Malone, he wanted to open a commuter airline. Which smacked of idiocy at the time and remains only a notion today.
Ironically, BET is most hated among the most conservative elements in the black community. It's programming is so reviled that another network, Black Family Channel, was created as an alternative. BET runs church early and hoochies the rest of the time, I guess to cover their bases. But the reason Johnson had to sneak thief this is simple: if he did it openly, he would have been called out by the community.
Responding to the Call: The New Black Vanguard Conference (The House Negro convention)
Location: The Heritage Foundation's Lehrman Auditorium
Has the establishment black leadership become irrelevant? Conservative black Americans say “yes,” and they're calling for the reinstitution of principled black leadership in the tradition of Booker T. Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Organizations such as the NAACP, Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH, and the Congressional Black Caucus have utterly failed to provide moral leadership in the black community and have become the tools for extremist political agendas.
In response, BOND (the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny) and The Heritage Foundation are co-sponsoring an historic conference – Responding To The Call: The New Black Vanguard Conference – to address this crisis and the spiraling moral and physical decline taking place within America’s inner cities.
Conference participants will also address ways to counter the liberals’ attack on distinguished and accomplished black Americans such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas. Audience members will be able to participate in a Question and Answer session at the conclusion of the program.
The list of Toms and Tomettes
Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson Founder and President, Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny
Roy Innis National Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Congress of Racial Equality
Gloria Jackson President, Booker T. Washington Speakers Network
Mychal Massie Project 21
Niger Innis National Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality
Roy Innis stood by Giuliani as called on the cops to attack City Hall when David Dinkins was mayor.
Most black New Yorkers hate him with a passion.
Look, this coon show was run by and for white people and most black people would have laughed at these people.
Of course, the people hosting this were as white as a CCC meeting. The person doing the introduction looks like she got lost at an Ayran Nation's meeting.
But I'm sick and fucking tired of these fools. They run down the people elected by millions of blacks as ignorant, when they know that their ideology holds no truck with most black people.
Fuck it:
Run, you big talking toms. You think your ideas are so great, run for office.
Jesse Lee Peterson, you don't think Maxine Waters is doing her job, run against her. Get her on a stage in South Central and debate her and her ideas. Drop that rhetoric in a room of black people, away from your white masters.
Alan Keyes got what, four percent of the black vote in Illinois?
If you think you can do better than the currently elected officials, run for their seats.
See how far you get. Bring your house negro message to black America and see where it goes.
The sad part is that for all their talk of independence, they are the bitches of rich, white men.
I think Malcolm X had a message for these people:
To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro -- those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were -- a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.
The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro -- remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant -- and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.
Most black people feel exactly the same way about these folks today.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fernando Ferrer, the leading Democratic challenger in this year’s mayoral race, are tied 43 – 43 percent among New York City voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 45 – 40 percent Ferrer lead in a November 10, 2004, poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, a lead which had been constant through months of polling.
In this latest survey, Mayor Bloomberg tops other Democratic challengers:
• 43 – 38 percent over Council Speaker Gifford Miller;
• 44 – 39 percent over Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields:
• 43 – 36 percent over U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner;
• 46 – 31 percent over Council member Charles Barron.
In the matchup with Ferrer, white voters back the Mayor 57 – 30 percent, as black voters back Ferrer 57 – 25 percent and Hispanic voters back Ferrer 57 – 29 percent.
In the last polling done on the race, before the gay marriage issue came up, Bloomberg, who lacks the racial animus which defined Giuliani's mayorality, is still fairly unpopular with minorities, who oddly enough, vote in equal numbers for Ferrer.
The fact that he polled so poorly against Charles Barron should be considered a warning sign. Barron, who's the city's leading black nationalist, and barely known outside Brooklyn and New York 1, managed to get a third of the city's vote. There is a lot of unresolved anger about the Dorismond and Diallo murders. Bloomberg is viewed warily by many, and if the black pols decide he has to go, read Sharpton, then he's got problems his money can't surmount. The old days where Herman Badillo got screwed by the Harlem pols is over.
Al Sharpton, despite his flaws, is still the kingmaker of city politics. He's got ties to the gay community and hispanics by getting arrested for their causes. He's not going to dick over Ferrer if he thinks he can be mayor. The days of Basil Patterson and Denny Farrell making backroom deals are over. Only one person makes those deals, and it's Sharpton. He strides both the Harlem and Brooklyn black power bases and is the single most popular politician among both blacks and hispanics in the streets. If he backs Ferrer, black voters will too.
The recent media talk about evangelicals and the hispanic vote should be regarded as a joke. First of all, Ruben Diaz talks out of his ass on a daily basis. He was also a Giuliani lackey and was chased off the school board for his homophobia. These people, as far as I can tell, and this comes from living in a Hispanic neighborhood, are apolitical at best. They have NEVER jumped into a local race for as much as district leader.
Look, the last two council members from the lower east side were openly gay and hispanic, and Diaz was as much a homophobe then as now. For all his bluster, he hardly represents the entire evangelical community. Many of those churches are black and Asian as well. And they are still outnumbered by the Catholics and santeria followers. No one polls them, but they have influence as well, enough to keep a lot of Botanicas in business. Puerto Rican nationalism is still a pretty strong force and the idea of having a Puerto Rican mayor is way too appealing to toss away over gay marriage. I would treat Diaz in the same regard as I treat Armstrong Williams.
Second, aliens can't vote, and the immigrants to my neighborhood are Mexican. So he can drag 5,000 people into the street, but the odds of many of them voting are minimal.
Gay marriage will upset the Hassids as well, but the fact is that it isn't going to be enough to trump the union's power. See, you can talk about this mythical, never seen evangelical vote all day long. But it's like vapor. The real vote is the union vote, and DC 37 is going to make sure Bloomberg is defeated. Why people persist in worrying about some factor which has NEVER existed in New York politics over the open hatred the city's unions have for Bloomberg is beyond me. It may be a factor, when we start election Mexican council members. Until then, it's a news story, not a political fact.
Relations between City Hall and the unions is miserable. He will not give up decent contract wage hikes while pimping the Olympics and that infernal stadium. They have the most vested interest in voting him out and getting a friendly mayor and governor. The problem is that I would bet that the unions rally around Ferrer early and loudly, especially the teachers and health care workers, which will clearly trump some ministers in the Bronx.
However, what gay marriage does is this: cuts the support for Bloomberg.
Gays are large political investors. This issue gives them every incentive to support anyone but Bloomberg, and if I had to choose, alienating upwards of a million gays is not worth the risk. Not for the money or the political organization.
Toss on opposition to the stadium, which is a key weakness for Bloomberg now, and there is a race to be run.
One other factor, with a call, Freddie Ferrer has a field operation. The unions will clearly open their doors and send their people into the streets for him. Bloomberg has to buy one and that's always a danger. Especially when he's facing a primary against Queens redneck Tom Ognibene. It would be amusing if he won, but many of the right wingers, like Mike Long, want to push him to the right and that's suicide in a citywide bid.
Remember, the demogrpahics of the city has changed since 1993. The majority of the city's voters are non-white. Which is why it's critical for Bloomberg to get black and hispanic votes, something he isn't doing now.
As always, turnout is going to be key. High turnout, especially driven by minority voting, means Bloomberg loses.
Bloomberg's biggest problem is a tone deafness towards criticism. He tends to go past it.
Also, the RNC was very unpopular here, and the trials against the city could explode during the middle of the campaign.
Bloomberg is far more likely to pay for his stand on gay marriage than Ferrer, because all it will take is a few black and Latino politicians to ridicule the idea of this being important and it dies, even with a court ruling, because given the way Albany is set up, no repeal is possible. No matter how many sexy headlines it causes, the cost of the stadium will be more important as the MTA raises fares. Bloomberg pretty much lost a block of votes with his filing the appeal and the question is how angry are the gay activists. My bet, angry enough to work against him hard.
As far as Gifford Miller goes, inconsequential joke and a weak leader. He's mangled two controveries in the City Council and is timid.
Virginia Fields will be shoved out of the race like Charles Barron was. There are serious black politicians who could have run for mayor and didn't. She is not going to make it.
Anthony Weiner is a man in search of a promotion which isn't coming. He will have to wait his turn, But he sure can campaign.
Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight With Peter Jennings," "Nightline," "This Week," "20/20" and "Primetime Live," has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News ("The Early Show," "The CBS Evening News," "60 Minutes," "60 Minutes Wednesday" and "Face the Nation"). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times. Asked about the lack of coverage, spokeswomen for both ABC and CBS said executives were unavailable to discuss their networks' coverage.
Perhaps nobody is surprised that Republican-friendly Fox News has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid covering the Guckert story and the embarrassing questions it raises for the Bush White House. Since the story began to take shape earlier this month, Fox News has filled more than 500 hours of programming. During that span the name "Jeff Gannon" has been uttered just five times on the air, according to a search of the LexisNexis electronic database of television news transcripts. And at no point have the facts surrounding the story been explained to Fox's viewers. (Dependable Republican ally Matt Drudge, who in the past has gleefully trumpeted media scandals, has also been allergic to Gannongate, posting just one link to date on his Web site.)
But it is surprising that a program like MSBNC's "Hardball," which touts itself as the home of authentic Beltway chatter and which has aired 15 episodes since the Guckert story first emerged, has dedicated just one segment from one show to the Guckert controversy. MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," however, has been much more aggressive in covering the story. Only CNN has covered the story with any kind of consistency among the 24-hour news channels.
I'm watching Jake Tapper talk to celebrity publicist Ken Sunshine, who is whining about his rich clients being reported on. Evil papparazis pestering the rich is FAR more important than a manwhore too stupid to not use his hooker name in the White House Press Corps.
Fuck me, I must be retarded, because I thought journalists were in the fraud detection business. Manwhore people. You worked next to a man criminally offering his sexual services for two years and you sit there like morons wondering if this is a story.
The very logical and levelheaded Ann Coulter has chimed in on the "Jeff Gannon" story. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I think the following quote just about sums it up:
Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president.
What Bush plans to do with our social security money
Bush's bait and switch Liberal author Thomas Frank and conservative opinion maker Richard Viguerie agree that Bush roped in voters with moral issues, only to sell them out with his Social Security plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Farhad Manjoo
He may well succeed, Frank predicts. "If Bush rams it through, and I suspect he will, it could be very costly for Republicans," he adds. "It has the potential to be a huge disaster for them politically."
The disaster could come when social conservatives, people who've been duped into voting for the GOP on the assumption that it was the party of morals (rather than of money), might finally see the truth. If, as some economists predict, Social Security privatization goes badly for working people, with traditional benefits cut and stock market gains diminutive, wouldn't family-values voters realize that the Republican Party has diminished the value of their checking accounts? Couldn't Republicans possibly lose some elections over it?
Possibly. That's why most Republicans in Congress aren't jumping for joy over the Bush plan. But when it comes to Social Security reform, Frank argues, the White House and other Republican leaders may be willing to pay any price. Social Security is, after all, the linchpin of the American welfare state, the most popular and well-regarded entitlement program. By privatizing it, Republicans will achieve a long-standing ideological goal. They'll be fundamentally altering the government's responsibility to its citizens, profoundly realigning the nation in favor of the stock-market-invested rich and against the interests of the poor. As Frank says, they'll be repealing the New Deal -- and such a grand mission, they may feel, might be worth losing a few elections over.
"The leadership and the big thinkers don't care that this is going to be an extremely disastrous issue 10 years from now," Frank says. "They think they can get out of bearing the consequences of anything with some slick talk. After all, nobody blames Reagan for budget deficits anymore. And here, you're talking about such an enormous change, it will be impossible for Democrats to put it back the way it was. It's such a huge change that it will be permanent; they can't put it back once it's done."
Josh Marshall reports that the WSJ has the Bushies talking out of their ass again
PRESSURE RISES on Social Security.
A senior Bush adviser sees "ice breaking" around opposition of some Democrats to the administration plan. Fellow Democrats, chafing at Lieberman's flirtation with Bush, circulate his criticism of "risky private accounts" in the run-up to his 2004 presidential run.
Despite White House courting, Democratic Sen. Nelson of Nebraska is unlikely to embrace Bush's private-account plan, an associate predicts. House Democratic campaign committee seeks donations to fuel "caught-on-tape" drive to weaken Republican members by publicizing alleged flip-flops on the issue.
Plan B? Republicans insist Bush could "win" without legislation by hitting "anti-reform" Democrats.
They ought to have some of that ice break around Congressional Republicans.
What Josh, who spent his formative years in corrupt as the day is long Rhode Island, doesn't realize is that Connecticut is not just Greenwich and Yale. It has some of the poorest towns in the region like Bridgeport. Social Security matters there. I think, in the end, Lieberman can be hammered into line, but only if the stakes are raised considerably, like AARP tossing ad to the state's largest newspapers demanding Lieberman stop with his Third Way politics. He keeps trying to make deals with people who idea of deals is your capitulation.
Let the Bushies go after the Dems who are against theft. They can then point out how many Republicans are also against the theft of Social Security.
I think Thomas Frank is wrong. I don't think there is enough support to make any real changes in Social Security and USA Next could be a legal nightmare. The people in their opening ad are looking to sue. If they get a lawyer, and get into USA Next's financial records, which would be part of discovery, this could blow up on Rove badly.
Rappers and Bloggers Separated at birth! By Josh Levin Posted Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2005, at 3:28 PM PT
P. Diddy gargles Cristal as his yacht sails from San Tropez to Ibiza. Atrios stares at his computer screen and ponders the effect of "increased central bank diversification out of dollar holdings." Nelly takes in the NBA All-Star Game from the first row while gabbing on a cell phone made out of a giant shoe. InstaPundit digests the latest developments in the Dartmouth board of trustees race and takes note of an update to C-SPAN's early morning schedule. What, do I need to draw you a Venn diagram? Rappers and bloggers—they're the same!
Those of you obsessed with external appearances may think I'm kidding. What, you ask, could those champagne-swilling, "bitch"-shouting rappers have in common with those Jolt-pounding, "read the whole thing"-writing bloggers?
For starters, both groups share a love of loose-fitting, pajama-style apparel. Still not satisfied? Bloggers and rappers are equally obsessed with social networking. Every rapper rolls with his entourage; every blogger rolls with his blog roll. Women can't win an audience in either profession without raunching it up like Lil' Kim or Wonkette.
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is set to put his national reputation to work on the city’s political scene by endorsing Fernando Ferrer for Mayor of New York, aides to both politicians told The Observer.
Mr. Spitzer’s public announcement of his support for Mr. Ferrer is planned for this spring, though no date has been set. But whatever the day, time and place, the Attorney General’s embrace of the former Bronx Borough President will likely be the single most important endorsement of the Mayor’s race and a centerpiece of Mr. Ferrer’s campaign. The move will put one of the most popular Democrats in the nation behind Mr. Ferrer, who already holds a solid lead in early polls over his three rivals for the Democratic nomination.
The Attorney General’s decision is unusual for an official of his stature. While Mr. Ferrer and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller have already begun to announce a steady stream of mini-endorsements from local politicians, neither of New York’s Senators is expected to play favorites in the Sept. 13 Democratic primary, and no other national figures have shown any inclination to get involved in the race. Even the Reverend Al Sharpton is standing on the sidelines, at least for the moment. Mr. Spitzer’s status as an icon of reform could prove particularly helpful to Mr. Ferrer, who has long battled the perception that he’s been tarnished by the years spent rising through the ranks of the Bronx Democratic machine.
Though Mr. Spitzer’s open endorsement may come as a surprise, he has long been a quiet supporter of Mr. Ferrer. Mr. Spitzer spoke at two fund-raisers for the Bronx Democrat last year. And last fall, an Observer reporter working on a profile of Mr. Ferrer received a call from Mr. Spitzer’s Columbia County weekend home.
"Freddy has given voice to an important message about the middle class, and what can be done to maintain the middle class," Mr. Spitzer said at the time.
This week Mr. Spitzer, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment on his plans for an endorsement.
But aides to Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Ferrer said the endorsement was agreed on before the Democratic National Convention, at a meeting between the Attorney General and the Bronx politician, then the president of a small Manhattan think tank, the Drum Major Institute. And their political relationship goes back well before that. For one thing, they share pollsters and advisors, and Mr. Spitzer’s campaign office rents space in the Broadway office of the Global Strategy Group, where Mr. Ferrer has spent many recent days making fund-raising calls and plotting strategy.
The fact is that he needs a Democratic mayor to smooth the way to challenge Pataki and Ferrer is likely to win big. Giuliani is unlikely to play a serious role in this race because he's so widely hated by so many people. If he were to win, he would be the first hispanic mayor of a city over a million in the US. It would also leave Joe Bruno isolated in Albany. hwe would be the only republican of stature left in the state. Sharpton got Charles Barron out of the race, but with Virginia Fields still in, he has to wait for her campaign to falter before backing Ferrer. The other candidates have no chance, because they don't have a base of voters or name recognition . And the Stadium deal is unpopular with enough people that it hurts Bloombe
The uncertain fate of the proposed West Side stadium is not the only hurdle facing the city as it bids for the 2012 Olympics. Experts on the Games say New York has yet to satisfy the International Olympic Committee's firm demand that host cities guarantee to pay for all cost overruns and deficits, no matter how high they go.
When the committee announces the host city on July 6, it will require it to sign a contract that day agreeing to underwrite the entire cost of the Games, cover any differences between revenues and expenditures, and indemnify the committee, sponsors and broadcasters against any financial claims that arise.
It is a sizable issue, given that in Athens last year, the Games cost at least $10 billion, twice the original estimate, and the Sydney Olympics in 2000 also cost double the projection.
The other cities in the competition - London, Paris, Madrid and Moscow - have offered open-ended agreements to cover any cost overruns or deficits, in most cases underwritten by their national governments. "The chancellor of the exchequer has guaranteed that the U.K. Government will act as the ultimate financial guarantor should there be a shortfall between Olympic costs and revenues," reads the London bid, which is typical of the others.
New York's organizing committee, on the other hand, has taken a different route. Lacking such a guarantee from the federal, state or city government, it has offered to cover all excess costs up to $492 million, which organizers say should be sufficient, given that no American host city has had any overruns approaching that amount. It is far from clear, however, that that limit will be sufficient for the international committee.
"Somebody's got to step up," said Richard W. Pound, a Canadian member of the committee's unit that deals with legal issues.
"In the U.S., there's never any doubt it can be done, but they've got to produce a guarantee from someone."
Kevin B. Wamsley, director of the International Center for Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, said the issue was generally considered nonnegotiable.
"They have to sign off on that issue, or the bid will not be accepted," Mr. Wamsley said.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki went out of their way on Wednesday to reassure the international committee's evaluation commission that there were sufficient contingency funds in the current budget to cover any overruns.
Jay Kriegel, executive director of NYC2012, the local organizing committee, said yesterday that New York has provided "without question the strongest guarantee that's ever been provided for an American bid."
The guarantee, he said, includes $250 million from the state and a $200 million contingency fund in the host committee's $3 billion budget for the Games. The 2001 state legislation authorizing that appropriation specifically states that "in no event" should the combined liability of the city and the state exceed $250 million. In addition, the federal government has agreed to pay for all security costs.
It is for the international committee "to decide whether the guarantee meets their needs," Mr. Kriegel said.
At a news conference yesterday, the chairwoman of the international committee's evaluation commission, Nawal el-Moutawakel, gave a noncommittal answer to the question of whether the city had met the committee's requirements, though she made it clear she appreciated the city's attempts to deal with the issue.
She added that the assurances the city provided would make it easier for the committee to prepare its report.
This was buried in the Times and it shouldn't be. Not a dime should come from government for this, especially city government. It's bad enough to build the damn stadium somewhere, now we have to cover their costs as well? Where is all this extra money supposed to come from? When we face an overrun of billions, you think Washington is going to pick that up in an election year? This should be a major issue instead of all the cheerleading.
TOPEKA, Kan., Feb. 24 - Attorney General Phill Kline, a Republican who has made fighting abortion a staple of his two years in the post, is demanding the complete medical files of scores of women and girls who had late-term abortions, saying on Thursday that he needs the information to prosecute criminal cases.
Mr. Kline emphasized statutory rape at a news conference here but also spoke obliquely of other crimes that court documents suggest could include doctors' providing illegal late-term abortions and health professionals' failing to heed a state law that requires the reporting of suspected child sexual abuse.
"When a 10-, 11- or 12-year-old child is pregnant, under Kansas law that child has been raped, and as the state's chief law enforcement official it is my obligation to investigate child rape in order to protect Kansas children," Mr. Kline said. "There are two things that child predators want, access to children and secrecy. As attorney general, I'm bound and determined not to give them either."
He declined to answer questions about his investigation.
Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue said the broad investigation, backed by a judge's subpoena, is the first of its kind in pursuit of criminal charges, although the federal Justice Department has unsuccessfully sought similar records in its defense of a ban on a procedure sometimes used to end pregnancies after the first trimester that doctors call intact dilation and extraction and that critics call partial-birth abortion.
Kansas is one of 31 states that have passed laws to ban or restrict the procedure. But Kansas does not ban it outright, allowing such abortions if women's health is endangered.
Mr. Kline's efforts to obtain records from abortion clinics follows his failed attempt last year to require the state's health workers to report any sexual activity of girls younger than 16, the age of legal consent in Kansas.
Health-care providers sued, and a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order.
Mr. Kline's new investigation could yield similar records. His effort became public this week when two clinics whose records are being subpoenaed filed a brief in State Supreme Court to block what they called a "secret inquisition" and "fishing expedition" that threatened the doctor-patient privilege and women's constitutional rights
City Council member Helen Sears said yesterday that Wal-Mart Stores won't have a place in a shopping center being planned by Vornado Realty Trust at Junction Boulevard and 62nd Drive in Rego Park.
"I understand that Vornado has ended negotiations with Wal-Mart to open its doors in my district," the statement said. ....................................
Unions and community activists have promised to fight Wal-Mart's entry. They argue that the company is a bad neighbor, saying it has anti-union policies and a record of labor violations. Many City Council members have also voiced concerns about Wal-Mart's policies.
That opposition has threatened Vornado's plans to build the mixed-use development, since it will need permits and approvals from several layers of city government, from the Department of City Planning to local community boards.
Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, cheered the breakdown of negotiations.
"It's the largest retailer in the world coming together with one of the largest real estate companies in the city, and they were unable to culminate a deal because of a fear that the project as a whole would be sunk if Wal-Mart were a part of it," he said.
"It's a very foreboding situation for Wal-Mart," he added. Wal-Mart, which is based in Bentonville,Ark., has said it is looking at several other locations in the city, though it hasn't named them.
If they couldn't cut a deal with Vornado in Queens, where are they going to cut a deal? There is no place in the city, even Staten Island, where they could negotiate that process. If I ran Target, I would seek to open as many as 10 stores in the city. Because Wal Mart will never negotiate the process as long as the unions oppose them, and this is a free and clear shot for Target and Kohls to expand into the city. The Neighborhood Retail Alliance would be on much shakier ground opposing more Targets, as they were with Home Depot and K Mart.
I hate Roy Carroll. ManU loses to grrrr AC Milan 1-0
First, I'll be reading all the submissions to the Fast Boat Crusade and announcing a winner over the weekend, Sunday to be exact. I didn't forget, and I will be announcing the second Op ed contest then as well.
Second. congradulations to Kos and all the Koufax award winners.
However, I hate awards and think the idea of rating lefty blogs in some kind of contest is absolutely silly and want no part in it. I would never accept an award, and like this year, I pretty much refused to mention it, much less campaign to have people vote for me. If I could refuse to be considered, I would. I thank the people who nominated and voted for me, because I know you think highly of my work, but God, if you could just leave my name out it next year, I'd really be happy. I'm not in competition with anyone but myself, and my Sony 24" TV serves as ample reward.
It's nothing personal against Wampum or the people who work on the awards. I just feel this way about writing in general. I like to think I work in a community, not a bunch of competing websites. Oh, and I fell the same way about the Webbies, but even more so.
Third, I have not forgotten about my series on blogging or condensing the Colonial Warfare series into a .doc file. However, I may instead reformat it and serve it up as a PDF instead because of the size. It's just that the daily press of business has been intense, with my Blogpac conference calls and strategizing and all.
Fourth, Ploeg mentioned this to me yesterday, and I think it's a good idea: what are your top ten songs to listen to on you iPod or other digital player. I will note, unlike Jen, I have no intrinsic hatred of the iPod, but I own a Creative digital MP3 player.
What are mine?
Ben Folds Five: Army Clash: London Calling Liz Phair: Fuck and Run The Beatles:If I needed someone Metallica: Master of Puppets Simon and Garfunkel: Hazy Shade of Winter The Who: Slip Kid Radiohead: True Love Waits Sterophonics: Have a Nice Day XTC: Life at the Hop
Oh yeah, the Horst Wessel Lied and the Imperial March from Star Wars pop up when I get irritated about the Bushies.
Campaign for America's Future -- if you're not keeping track, it's sort of the left's answer to the Swift Boat gang, near as we can tell -- plans to scalp themselves a Republican this afternoon.
Their charges, from a report to be released at noon today: Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA), has taken big money from Wall Street folks who'd benefit from Social Security privatization. Shut up! Get outta here!
This is exactly the sort of scandal we expect will fail to capture the hearts and minds of American voters. Let's go over our checklist: 1. Nude Pictures On Internet? No. 2. Getting Fingered In Oval Office? No. 3. Taking Oxycontin and Dating CNN Anchor? Nope! 4. Lots of Boring Words Strung Together About Topics America Hates To Think About? Sure 'nuff! —C.S
God, you silly twit, your cheap joke misses the point. Of course it's not a shock. It will be a shock when you see how much money he collected. But hey, it's a joke, millions of people being cheated ourt of a secure future, let me laugh my ass off.
I just wanted to give an update to our photo being used in the anti-AARP ad. Here is a copy of the Tribunes response to me. I am only making it public because they seem to be doing the right thing and I want to publicly thank them for getting on this; and to keep the heat up.
I also want to thank all who have joined and contributed to our new DNC fund raising site
http://www.democrats.org/epatriots/give.html?sourcecode=E008356 Together we can make a difference and fight these bigots.
Here's the Tribunes letter...
Hi Rick,
I handle all the photo sales for the Portland Tribune. Dwight Jaynes told me about your call, and the ad you saw on the Spectator web site for the USA Next company that featured our photo of you.
I've been doing a bit of research today, and will absolutely be looking into this, both on your behalf, and ours. I did not sell any image rights or prints to USA Next, so they are using the image illegally. (see extened entry for more)
I have gone through every sale record in my archive, and no "personal" sales (as opposed to commercial sales) were made of that image to anyone. The Portland Tribune would never sell a photo of a person to be used in an ad without a model release. Since we are not in the business of getting routine model releases (like advertising photographers are), the only photos I ever sell for an advertising purposes would have to be a scene without people in it at all.
The logical conclusion is that someone at USA Next stole the image from our web site and placed it in their ad without notifying anyone, or contacting me about legally purchasing the picture for such usage. Our normal charge for that is $200-$1000, and our photo sales policies are posted on the web site on the same page as the image.
I have contacted Katherine Ruddy, who handles advertising for the Spectator, in an effort to find out more about which USA Next employee arranged the ad. As soon as I get more information from her, I will contact that person at USA Next and demand they stop using that ad, pay for the usages they have already made, and speak of legal actions we may take.
I work at the Tribune part-time, Sunday to Wednesday. Since I won't be able to follow up with the Spectator until next week, I wanted to fill you in on my plans and make sure you know that we won't let this go unnoticed.
Please feel free to email me any additional information you have on the ad, or people you may have already spoken with at the Spectator or USA Next. If you see the ad placed on any other web site, please do let me know.
Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention!
See, they used the image in the ad without asking. Considering that the people in the ad are pissed at being used to condemn gay marriage, and the paper which took the shot didn't get paid, these folks could wind up in court over this. Their stupid litte ad could backfire on them pretty badly. Which, I have to admit, amuses the hell out of me.
By Ann Scott Tyson and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page A01
The Pentagon is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there, administration officials familiar with the plan said.
The plan would weaken the long-standing "chief of mission" authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president's top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations.
The Special Operations missions envisioned in the plan would largely be secret, known to only a handful of officials from the foreign country, if any.
The change is included in a highly classified "execute order" -- part of a broad strategy developed since Sept. 11, 2001, to give the U.S. Special Operations Command new flexibility to track down and destroy terrorist networks worldwide, the officials said.
"This is a military order on a global scale, something that hasn't existed since World War II," said a counterterrorism official with lengthy experience in special operations. He and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is classified.
The Pentagon sees the greater leeway as vital to enabling commando forces to launch operations quickly and stealthily against terrorist groups without often time-consuming interagency debate, said administration officials familiar with the plan. In the Pentagon view, the campaign against terrorism is a war and requires similar freedom to prosecute as in Iraq, where the military chain of command coordinates closely with the U.S. Embassy but is not subject to traditional chief-of-mission authority.
The State Department and the CIA have fought the proposal, saying it would be dangerous to dilute the authority of the U.S. ambassador and CIA station chief to oversee U.S. military and intelligence activities in other countries.
Over the past two years, the State Department has repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors' formal approval, current and former administration officials said.
The State Department assigned counterterrorism coordinator J. Cofer Black, who also led the CIA's counterterrorism operations after Sept. 11, as its point person to try to thwart the Pentagon's initiative.
"I gave Cofer specific instructions to dismount, kill the horses and fight on foot -- this is not going to happen," said Richard L. Armitage, describing how as deputy secretary of state -- a job he held until earlier this month -- he and others stopped six or seven Pentagon attempts to weaken chief-of-mission authority.
In one instance, U.S. commanders tried to dispatch Special Forces soldiers into Pakistan without gaining ambassadorial approval but were rebuffed by the State Department, said two sources familiar with the event. The soldiers eventually entered Pakistan with proper clearance but were ordered out again by the ambassador for what was described as reckless behavior. "We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a hotel with grenades in their pockets," said one source involved in the incident, who opposes the Pentagon plan.
Other officials cited another case to illustrate their concern. In the past year, they said, a group of Delta Force soldiers left a bar at night in a Latin American country and shot an alleged assailant but did not inform the U.S. Embassy for several days
Armitage was a SEAL counterintelligence officer in Vietnam, so he doesn't have issues with the SOC community, as in hating them. But he knows their limitations.
The Israelis did this and killed the wrong people. So, let's say a Delta Squadron gets tasked a mission where they have to kill a terrorist in oh, Kenya. What happens when they mess up, kill a white farmer instead, and are surrounded by Kenyan cops and members of a local British battalion training there.? What do you say then? Oops, sorry for the own goal, let us go? When the US Ambassador and CIA chief are being yelled at, these guys will be in jail. Special Ops can and do go wrong.
But as Rummy builds his empire, and Bush and Rice remain mute, just envision this:
July, 2005: as a second day of riots engulfed Central Baghdad, the trial of the US commandos caught inside Iran enters it second week. After being spotted by local farmers, the six man team was tracked and caught in the suburbs of Tehran in April.
The more operations you run, the risk of embarrassment increases exponentially. Yellowfruit comes to mind, Dick Marchinko also comes up. Both involved scandals with the US's most elite units, Delta and SEAL Team Six (Dev Group), where money went missing. Well, you allow these units off the leash, then you expect State and the CIA to clean up and keep the peace.
Apple unveils more iPods New digital music players include models with color screens, a mini with larger storage capacity. February 23, 2005: 12:59 PM EST by Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Apple Computer Inc. introduced new versions of its hugely popular iPod on Wednesday.
The No. 1 seller of portable digital music players introduced a six-gigabyte iPod mini and 30- and 60-gigabyte models of the iPod photo with a color screen.
The new offerings also include a four-gigabyte model for $199 -- down from $249 previously -- and the new six-gigabyte model for $249.
"Clearly, Apple is responding to competition, because they wouldn't make a move like this if there weren't competitors," said Gene Munster, a research analyst with Piper Jaffray.
"This keeps the company a step ahead, and really leaves no room for competitors to successfully grab market share," Munster added
.............. "For whatever reason, $199 tends to be a magical price point," Wolf said.
The new mini models have increased battery life and are available in kicked-up colors, Apple said in a statement; and they aren't the only item Apple is upgrading.
The new 30-gigabyte model of the iPod photo sells for a suggested $349 and holds up to 7,500 songs, while the 60GB model, for $449, holds up to 15,000. Will shuffles sag?
.......................
According to Piper Jaffray, the company can't keep the shuffles in stock. The Apple store in Manhattan recently sold more than 300 of the new, flash-based music players in two to three hours, and all stores are reporting shuffle shortages, Munster said.
Apple specialist resellers have told Piper Jaffray that they have not received any iPod shuffles and that numerous customers are calling daily inquiring about whether there are any in stock.
Apple (up $2.70 to $87.99, Research) has seen shares almost quadruple in value over the last year on the success of its iPod music players, jumping from about $21 to more than $88. The stock was up more than 3 percent in midday Nasdaq trading Wednesday.
Earlier this month, the company announced a 2-for-1 split of its common stock. Top of page
Jen
iRiver ALREADY makes a 5 gig mini with a color screen for $199. Also, note the typical Apple bait n switch--is ANYONE who just got an old iPod gonna run out and get a new one?
Also note the total failure of that unprogrammable "iShuffle" thing. Yeah, you can load a playlist OR do it randomly, but nothing else. Yeah, great.
Note that unlike the Zens, iRivers, and Creatives, the iPod STILL does not have an easily-replaceable battery
That's a common occurance with Apple products. There is always a lag between supply and demand.
Actually, Apple seems to be learning the reality of the consumer electronics marketplace: price matters a great deal.
Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) justified the rumor mills by announcing some new variations on iPod models today. Investors reacted favorably, but the news could easily make one wonder whether iPod mania is beginning to subside... or whether this is just the next step in Steve Jobs' aggressive campaign to hook audiophiles his company hasn't already roped in. .................... You can take away a lot of reactions to this. For example, is Apple getting a bit worried about some of its heavy-handed competitors? We recently explored a rival no less than Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) giving stuff away for free in order to woo some customers. That's just one example. There are all kinds of rivals just dying to steal Apple's thunder, including Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), Napster (Nasdaq: NAPS), and Sony (NYSE: SNE).
Are its new iPod Shuffle and Mac Mini products not doing as well as expected? I just received my own iPod Shuffle (as my Foolish colleague Seth Jayson teased me, the Shuffle had me at hello), and the fact that I ordered one showed that even my own misgivings about the tiny, screenless music player melted away given Apple's clever marketing. Am I one of the few who drank the Apple-flavored Kool-Aid on that one? It remains to be seen.
.................(Recent stats showed that 11% of the American population owns either an iPod or another MP3 player. Apple likely wants to grab as much of the remainder as it possibly can.) With the whole lineup of iPod gadgets, there seems to be a price that's comfortable for just about anyone who's looking for a portable music player.
One of the lessons that I took from my days in New Media is that being a market leader doesn't mean being a market winner. The iPod was first, like the Mac was first, but holding on to that lead could be tricky, especially as more and more of Apple's profits rely on their sale of the iPod.
I'm also curious as to how the new Napster model will affect iTunes, since the .99 price point has only been tolerated because it has been the only legal outlet for online music. When you get a comparable all you can eat model which is much cheaper, and the legal challenge from Apple Corps over the whole concept, you have to wonder how long this will serve as a profit center.
Apple was first because they had the freedom to be first. They didn't have the bureaucracy or the relationships with the record companies to get in the way. But given that Macs are 3.2 percent of the US PC market, the continued success of the iPod could determine a lot for Apple's future. The Motely Fool columinist thought that the iPod would drive Mac sales, but that hasn't been the case.
Why?
My 17 year old nephew got an iPod from his brother for Christmas. He hooked it up to his Sony laptop, loaded his MP3's on it and never looked back. The problem is that the people who drive technology sales, kids like my nephew, want an iPod and a Fragbox, or a overclocked Falcon Northwest box or a fast Dell or the Playstation handheld. The iPod fits perfectly in their digital entertainment world. But nothing else Apple makes does.
Now, there are a lot of other people who use iPods, and for loyal Mac users, it fits right in their world view. But for the people most likely to use an iPod, it's a one off. No matter what iPod model they buy, there isn't a natural progression to the next product.
And before the Apple groupies start in, please show me where Apple's market share has increased. Because that is the goal, to move people from iPods to Macs.
Let me make these points clear: one, the iPod is a success. Two, Apple's profitability relies on the iPod increasingly. Three, people will buy iPods, but not other Apple products.
Any numbers to prove differently are welcome. Oh yeah, we beat the sales numbers last time, and what they showed is that while Mac sales when up slightly, PC sales increases dwarfted them.
You are NOT the father. bringing baby mama drama to America's homes
Who's your baby daddy? A Brooklyn author is sponsoring a contest that offers 10 lucky black couples with children free weddings. But is this really going to strengthen the black family?
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Lynn Harris
Feb. 24, 2005 | "I always imagined having a big wedding," says Kenny Edwards, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. He and his fiancée, Tanya Engram, 30, have been engaged for two years. Supporting their 5-year-old son on her school-secretary salary while he looks for work in computers, they haven't been able to pull together the cash for anything fancier than a trip to City Hall. But if Kenny and Tanya are lucky, their wedding will be lavish -- and free.
Engram and Edwards are one of 300 African-American couples hoping to be among the 10 who'll be chosen for an all-expenses-paid weddingpalooza on Sept. 29 -- an occasion that the competition's inventor, Brooklyn author and journalist Maryann Reid, has dubbed Marry Your Baby Daddy Day.
Reid, 29, says she conceived of the event -- to be sponsored by several local black-run wedding businesses -- as a community service of sorts. "I kept meeting women who said, 'I live with my baby daddy and we're not married but we've been engaged for five or 10 years …,'" she says. "There are so many couples who live together and love each other but for some reason just are not motivated to tie the knot, but when given an opportunity, they jump right at it." She sees the campaign as a way to draw attention to -- and perhaps decrease -- the number of black couples who call each other "baby daddy" and "baby mama" instead of "husband" and "wife."
According to figures from the National Center for Health Statistics, 68 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers (compared with 28 percent of white children and 33 percent of children overall). Also, according to the U.S. Census, 45 percent of black families have single female heads of household (compared with 14 percent overall, and more than any other group). The slang term "baby daddy" was popularized in rap songs, and can be pejorative, denoting the guy who fathered your kid but isn't putting in for Pampers (possibly leading, as Reid notes, to a "baby mama drama"). She says, however, that lots of couples she's spoken to for this project use it as a term of endearment.
.......................
But if the couple is already engaged, what's holding them back? Well, Engram and Edwards are typical of Reid's target demographic: committed, but low on cash -- and, Reid says, entrenched in a culture that doesn't always frown on unmarried parenting. "The stigma in the black community is just not strong enough to motivate people," she says. "For some women, the ring is enough, and they get comfortable. They say they had a wedding date, but someone died or lost a job or the babies kept coming."
.....................
David Popenoe, professor of sociology and co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, agrees in part. "The biggest problem, of course, is not that they can't afford the wedding but that the men don't make enough money to help support a family," he says, citing high unemployment and underemployment rates for black men. The resulting attitude among women, he says, is, "'Why bother marrying them if you're just going to inherit their debts?' So that leads to the whole idea of having more effort put into jobs and job training for black men." He also cautions that cohabitation -- which, in the context of Reid's project, is a good thing, showing that the couples are committed -- may actually be a shaky precursor to marriage; some research suggests that those who live together before marrying are more likely to split up afterward.
Still, he does believe in a fundamental effort to shore up the institution itself. "Promoting marriage in the black community is entirely worthy. There's a very, very striking correlation between problems in the black community -- whether crime or school dropouts or teen pregnancy -- and the percent of children in that community who are growing up outside of a married-parents family," he says. "I'm just not sure about promoting weddings." The key, he says, is marriage education, which is also what's at the core of the government's African American Healthy Marriage Initiative. "The best way is to teach -- especially guys, if you can get them in there -- the importance of marriage and how to treat women. Because a lot of these guys grew up without dads, and they have no idea what a marital relationship is all about -- and it's hard."
Manhattan psychotherapist and couples counselor Sharyn Wolf is more than willing to give Reid's couples the benefit of the doubt, but she also comes out and states something uncomfortably obvious. "To say you're not getting married because you don't have the money is kind of a lame excuse," she says. "Sure, there are couples who just haven't gotten around to getting married yet, and there are couples who for other reasons have been avoiding it — and I hope she knows the difference when she picks them."
Reid, while conceding that there are "no guarantees," says she's confident that she can indeed tell the difference. "I want to bring black love back in style," says Reid. "Ten couples may not be what it takes, but the lives of over 30 children will be affected, plus countless family and friends who will be motivated by their courageous stand to get married. There's a cycle that has to be broken."
What drives me nuts is that black people take societal trends and embrace them as their problems.
Marriage is a declining rite across the west. In the UK, people are partners, regardless of their sexuality, without benefit of marriage. Is money the issue? Well, in a society where cohabitation is common, and marriage expensive, the impulse to marry is growing increasingly uncommon.
One should remember that marriage was a right only given to blacks after the Civil War.
You could easily walk on the Upper West Side or Greenwich Village and meet any number of white couples who would fit this criteria. But that doesn't make the news. It's just part of American life. But when the people are poor and black, it's a crisis which has to be solved.
ROAST chicken used to be a rare treat at American dinner tables, a ceremonial meal fit to honor a visiting preacher or a patriarch's birthday. Today we are eating far more chicken but cooking it less and less.
American consumption of chicken overall has more than doubled since 1970, according to the Agriculture Department, and supermarket rotisserie chickens make up a substantial part of that increase. The Grocery Manufacturers of America, an industry research group, says that Americans now spend more than $2.5 billion on supermarket rotisserie chickens every year. The Costco chain, which sold no roast chickens a decade ago, sold 22 million in 2004 alone.
"I consider the perfect roast chicken my own Holy Grail," said Ly Phan, a Vietnamese-American living in Brentwood, Calif. But, she said: "I don't want to learn to make it. I just want to be able to buy it."
A reliable place to buy a good roast chicken has become an important quality-of-life matter for those too busy to cook. "I buy a chicken here every Sunday, and I eat it all week," Paul Griscom said at the Whole Foods Market at Columbus Circle. "I used to live close to Fairway, and I was nervous about moving away from those chickens. But the ones here are even better." At Whole Foods and elsewhere, the price of a whole roasted organic chicken is almost the same as a raw one.
Roasting a chicken at home may become a domestic throwback, like darning socks or putting up peaches.
Mr. Griscom said that he doesn't know how to roast a chicken. "I know, it's supposed to be so easy," he said. "But how would I know when it was done?"
In New York City buying a great rotisserie chicken means choosing your quest. You can find a great chicken: organic, free-range, antibiotic-free, minimally seasoned and expertly roasted, with a rounded chickeny flavor. Or you can find a great recipe, an explosive convergence of lime and lemon juice, soy sauce, garlic, cumin, apple cider vinegar, chili paste and countless other possibilities that produce highly seasoned meat and skin. Chicken goes global in New York: the city's favorite birds are Peruvian and Dominican, kosher and halal, Chinese and Tuscan and flavored with things like annatto (the Puerto Rican-style ones at Casa Adela on the Lower East Side) and yogurt (the Afghan birds at Kabul Cafe in Brooklyn).
Across the country a passion for roast chicken seems to transcend the normally stubborn ethnic boundaries of American cuisine: chicken chains have cult followings. Los Angelenos worship Zankou's Armenian chicken and its pungent garlic sauce; Brasa Roja's chickens with salsa verde are loved in Chicagoland; and in Dallas, Cowboy Chicken is famous for Tex-Mex enchiladas stuffed with leftover meat from its hickory wood-roasted chickens.
Allegiances can be fierce. Williams Bar-B-Cue, a legendary chicken joint on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, closed last month, and locals took it like a death in the family; it had been roasting chickens at the same spot since 1952. The tangy crisp skin and pleasingly greasy meat of the Williams chicken and its pseudobarbecue flavor were addicting. "The smell of Williams is a neighborhood institution and should be preserved at the Smithsonian," declared Adam Peretz, mourning outside the store last week.
New York's new chicken capital is Jackson Heights, Queens, where Mario's Colombian chickens duke it out with the Peruvian ones at La Casa del Pollo and Pollo Don Alex. Raul Rojas, the owner of Super Pollo on Northern Boulevard, said that Peruvians are the acknowledged masters of pollo brasado. "We are the only ones who use soy sauce, because we have the Japanese population," he said. "Soy and garlic make the best chicken." ...............
Three cookbooks on "cooking" with rotisserie chicken have been published since 2003, and recipes for chicken salad have become an art form on Internet recipe sites.
If you are buying rotisserie chickens with an eye to leftovers, it is a good idea to look for birds with as little seasoning as possible, no twiggy herb crusts or maple glazes to assert their flavors in another recipe.
Places with high turnover have the moistest chicken: once cooked, it dries out quickly. Bigger birds are less likely to be overcooked. And if crisp skin is your goal, unwrap the chicken as soon as you can. Even a few minutes in an airtight container can be enough to steam the skin soft.
OK, when I was a kid, after shopping at Alexanders, we would go to Merit Farms, get a knish, black bread and rotisserie chicken. It wasn't often, but we did do it. Then, later, I would and still do, get the roast chicken from the local Puerto Rican places. But the idea that one can't roast a chicken is just silly. I won't do it during the week, usually, but on a Sunday? Get me a beer can and some chili powder.
I'm surprised she didn't mention BBQ, which has great cole slaw and cheap whole chickens, under $6 for take out. I've been bringing them home since college, and regret like hell I didn't go there instead of belly busting Boston Market.
But to be honest, my favorite chicken was the old-style fried chicken the Chinese used to make, complete with lemon. Now, it's all greasy refried crap from the Chinese fast food places.
The sad fact is that short of fixing eggs over easy, a roast chicken should be something most competent people can do in the kitchen, and the best way to do it is with a beer can in the rear, standing up.
beer can chicken
1 (4-pound) whole chicken 2 tablespoons vegetable oil 2 tablespoons salt 1 teaspoon black pepper 3 tablespoons of your favorite dry spice rub 1 can beer
Remove neck and giblets from chicken and discard. Rinse chicken inside and out, and pat dry with paper towels. Rub chicken lightly with oil then rub inside and out with salt, pepper and dry rub. Set aside.
Open beer can and take several gulps (make them big gulps so that the can is half full). Place beer can on a solid surface. Grabbing a chicken leg in each hand, plunk the bird cavity over the beer can. Transfer the bird-on-a-can to your grill and place in the center of the grate, balancing the bird on its 2 legs and the can like a tripod.
Cook the chicken over medium-high, indirect heat (i.e. no coals or burners on directly under the bird), with the grill cover on, for approximately 1 1/4 hours or until the internal temperature registers 165 degrees F in the breast area and 180 degrees F in the thigh, or until the thigh juice runs clear when stabbed with a sharp knife. Remove from grill and let rest for 10 minutes before carving.
Personally, I cook mine at 350 in the oven on my cast iron frying pan, so I can catch the juices and make a barbecue sauce or cook some potatoes in a hot cast Iron pan.
But no matter how you cook it, the juices stay in the bird, the fat drips down into the pan and leaves a lot of flavor. You know how chicken often sits if not in it's own juices, close enough to steam it. Which is why I like this in the oven. It's a good way to test the recipe before a barbecue.
Also, you can use Coke, white wine or any liquid instead of beer. I used a can of ginger ale because I was out early and you can't buy beer before 12 on Sunday in New York. But the liquid rises, the chicken is cooked upright, like a rotisserie without the skewers and you get the most tender chicken possible.
I am married to the man of my dreams -- except for one thing: He won't touch me. I'm not just talking about sex; I mean he's averse to basic human contact. We're down to a chaste kiss as he leaves for work, an occasional hug when I ask, and sometimes another chaste good-night kiss before he turns his back to me and falls asleep.
We've been together for almost 14 years (we're both 37) and married for 12. We don't have any children, although we married each other in part because we thought we'd have great kids together. We met in graduate school and reasoned that we'd get our careers off the ground before trying to start a family. More than a decade later, we've stopped even trying.
I think passion and romance are the sweetest stuff of life; he finds them completely unnecessary. When we were dating, he was a reluctant lover, always telling me, "We'll do it after exams" or "It will feel more right after we're married." Click here
For the first several years of our marriage, he blamed my weight as the sole reason we were not having sex. Let me clarify that I am an attractive woman with a beautiful face, long blond hair and a curvy, voluptuous body, which many men find very attractive -- just not my husband. He told me about five years into the marriage that he'd felt deceived, that he'd believed I would change and lose weight. Of course, I've always said I wished I were thinner. At one point I lost a lot of weight, and nothing changed. However, at some point he did stop openly criticizing my body.
Several years ago, I went against all of my morals and upbringing and had an affair. I told myself it was my husband's fault that I was forced to get my needs met elsewhere. But I was racked with guilt the whole time, and ultimately I ended it, resolving to try to make things work with my husband. A year later, it was still not working, and I separated from him. Only after the separation did he accidentally find out about the affair, and it was a wrenching experience for us both. ...............................
Some people might ask if maybe my husband is gay. But he denies that he's attracted to men and says that he likes to look at attractive women (implicit in that statement is that I'm not included in that group). He says it boils down to the fact that he doesn't really like to be touched or to touch other people, and that he feels emotionally dead inside. I have a nephew with Asberger's syndrome, a mild form of autism, which among other things makes people ultra-sensitive to touch. I see a lot of similarities between my husband and my nephew, and I wonder if he might be afflicted with that disorder, too. I do know that my husband's first and only other love really devastated him when she ended their relationship when he was 21, and I've wondered if that was the cause of his intimacy issues. But he said he was like this with her, too.
Every once in a while (three times last year), my husband takes pity on me and says that it's time to reset the clock. That means we do the deed. Then I can no longer say, "Come on, honey, it's been three (four, five, six) months since we made love," since the clock is reset to zero. After such a resetting, it is an unspoken rule that I am not supposed to ask again for a really long time.
....................
Mrs. Heartbroken
OK, Cary says ultimately, that they need to consider divorce. Well, they also need to consider serious therapy. Him because of his aversion to acting like a human being, her for tolerating it for 14 years. I mean, she wants to have a kid with a man who can't treat her decently, and will be just as cruel to the kid? Uh, honey, you need help.
So the mystery remains: How did Guckert, with absolutely no journalism background and working for a phony news organization, manage to adopt the day-pass system as his own while sidestepping a thorough background check that might have detected his sordid past? That's the central question the White House refuses to address. And like its initial explanation that Guckert received his press pass the same way other journalists do, the notion first put out by White House officials that they knew little or nothing about GOPUSA/Talon News, its correspondent Guckert or its founder Eberle has also melted away. Instead, we now know, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer personally spoke with Eberle about GOPUSA, so concerned was Fleischer that it was not an independent organization. (Eberle convinced Fleischer that it was.) Additionally, Guckert attended the invitation-only White House press Christmas parties in 2003 and 2004, and last holiday season, in a personal posting on GOPUSA, Eberle thanked Karl Rove for his "assistance, guidance, and friendship."
This, not the lurid issue of his pay-for-sex sites, is at the core of the controversy. The question is simple: how does a manwhore who may have never strung a sentence together on a computer, get into the White House for two years to ask friendly questions. A cursory background check would have turned up that this guy didn't have a regular source of income. much less a credible news organization to work for. But what is truly amazing is that the Press Pool had this fraud in their midst for two years and said nary a word.
Of course, the saddest part is that the right is covering for this guy because they don't have the intellectual strength to actually realize that this whole fiasco is going to blow up on them. Guckert is so stupid that he used his man whore name to work in the White House. I mean, imagine the reaction if a reporter named Amber St. James showed up to the White House one day with long blonde hair and expensive clothes. I mean, people wouldn't take two years to think Amber St. James is a hooker name. But if the woman put that name on websites offering sucky fucky, I mean, come on....If Guckert had even minimal brains, he would have used his real name and kept his man whore name to himself. Stupid is as stupid does and Guckert is a moron.
Since September 11, the U.S. government's bid to promote democracy and improve America's image in the Arab world has consisted largely of countering anti-American pan-Arab media with pro-American pan-Arab media. In 2003, the State Department launched a glossy magazine called Hi, which it distributed in 13 Arab countries. The U.S.-backed Al Hurra television network--which recently celebrated its first anniversary--offers programs resembling those of Al Jazeera in nearly every local market reached by its rival. The former chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Harold Pachios, has written, "Now more than ever, the United States needs it own voice in the Arabic language." And these efforts go beyond government programs. Witness the Global Americana Institute, which seeks "to engage in translation, publication, and distribution of books on the United States in Arabic. The initial volume will be the key works of Thomas Jefferson."
But there's a problem with these initiatives. Just as you won't win over a crowd of Mexican villagers by speaking Latin, the United States can't sell democracy and reform to Arab populations by speaking to them in modern standard Arabic--and ignoring the Middle East's more widely understood vernacular languages. ...............
Most everybody else prefers to speak a version of their country's vernacular. Ninety percent of Moroccans, for example, can only understand their unique brand of Arabic, which is heavily infused with Berber phonics and French vocabulary--testimony to the country's multiethnic and colonial history. The Moroccan language, in turn, is barely comprehensible to, say, Iraqis, whose unique idioms and usages reflect more ancient Mesopotamian tongues as well as the country's proximity to Turkey, Iran, and the Kurdish mountains. These vernaculars, derided by pan-Arab ideologues as "dialects," are in fact the region's major living languages. They are the contemporary Middle Eastern equivalent of Romance languages, which, of course, were all derived from Latin and were also once known as dialects--but now are known as Spanish, Italian, and French.
The Arab world today stands at a crossroads--between an old-fashioned allegiance to the contrived political agenda of a single Arab nation (or a single Islamic nation) and a new twenty-first-century emphasis on distinct, democratic national polities that focus on their own social and political challenges. But the latter will not be possible if a country's majority does not understand the language of government. Thus where countries have grassroots movements calling for mother-tongue media and education--the list includes Egypt, Lebanon, and Morocco--the United States should support their efforts. The renowned Beirut linguist Sa'id A'il plans to publish the first ever "dictionary of Lebanese" this summer for a small group of scholars, but there is no program in place to develop his life's work into a curriculum. An independent newspaper began publishing in "Moroccan" in May 2003 and has won a large following among the working class but requires investment in order to expand.
“American history is longer, larger, more various, more beautiful, and more terrible than anything anyone has ever said about it”
His name was Jesse Washington, a 17-year-old black youth who was born in rural Texas in 1897. He worked on a farm outside Waco which belonged to George and Lucy Fryer. In May, 1916, Washington was convicted in City Court of murdering Lucy Fryer. During the proceedings, he apologized and confessed to the crime. At the end of the trial, Washington was sentenced to death by hanging. Residents, however, were already in an uproar over the crime. A black man who attacked a white woman in any way whatsoever during that era in the South evoked little sympathy from the public. Within five minutes of the sentencing, dozens of court spectators jumped the railing, fought with officials and seized the terrified defendant. He was immediately set upon by a vicious gang using clubs, shovels and bricks. He was stripped naked and dragged kicking and screaming to the lawn directly in front of City Hall. Townspeople had already built a giant bonfire underneath a large tree. The crowd was later estimated to be as large as 15,000 people. Included in the cheering multitude was the Police Chief and the Mayor of Waco. Other police officers also stood by during the sickening ordeal which played out in the symbolic shadow of City Hall (Dallas Morning News, June 2, 1998). Washington was immersed in coal oil, hoisted up onto the tree and slowly lowered into the fire. Some of the spectators cut off fingers and toes from the corpse as souvenirs [1]. His remains were dumped into a burlap bag and hung from a pole while many in the crowd cheered [2]
The Waco lynching focused national attention, once again, in 1916 on the problem of lynching: a systemic, persistent and horrifying practice that was rampant throughout the South for decades
This was a WEEKLY occurance in America for most of the years from 1865 to 1965.
From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched. These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded. Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched. That is only 27.3%. Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes.
In 1919, 60 blacks were lynched. More than one a week.
Why do I mention this? People are whining about control of the media and the courts as a reason to do nothing. You have to remember, these are the reported lynchings. White people used to have the ability to walk into any black home, snatch someone out, like they did Emmitt Till, murder them and walk away like they had just put a dog down.
If you think America is conservative today, imagine being black in the South before 1965. Fascist would not be too harsh a word to describe it. ANY infraction of the social order could lead to exile, imprisonment or death. One man was jailed for walking across the street from a white woman. Jack Greenberg wrote about it in his memoirs. He was Thurgood Marshall's right hand mand until Marshall went to work for Johnson. So when middle class suburbanites talk about how they have to leave America or how this country is SO consertvative, I just laugh. Conservative is when you can go to jail for drinking from the wrong water fountain. And that is not distant history, that is 1965, well within my lifetime.
Look, I think America should have a better social net, encourage unions, and leave gays alone. But I also know that anyone who has spoken to America's fears have ultimately failed. Ultimately doesn't mean tommmorow either. A lot of you who think America is unfair, have NO idea of how unfair it can really be. I would bet your grandmother never told you stories like the medical students who would kidnap and kill black people in Charleston to examine their bodies. Or how they had to jump on a northbound train to escape a mob, or sneak away from a plantation to get to the train station in the dead of night. That's the America black people have had to deal with. So when you whine about how intolerant Americans are, I shake my head. We're debating gay marriage, something most Europeans can't do. Americans used to be so intolerant, Hitler used them as his model.
The question you have to ask is this: do you think Bush is right or not. I don't mean, right about an issue, but right in his idea of the Americans he won't talk to.
I don't and I don't think you should either.
Why?
Because Bush's support outside his hard core is an inch deep. Kerry came close, but he didn't make the case to enough people . It's not about sheep or stupidity, but belief. People want to believe Bush stands with them, even when he doesn't. He's a human Rorschact test. People believe he's for Kyoto and the environment. Wny? Because they assume he likes what they like. They do not want to believe that he would wage a pointless war, that he is as reckless as he is. But that is not my concern. What we have to do is both fight back, and tell people what we believe, and stop fucking whining. No one likes a whiner. Either you want to do something or not, and if it's not, please keep it to yourself.
Look, most of the people who read this blog will do fine regardless of who sits in the White House, they may not like it, but for the most part, their lives will not hang by what is done in Congress. But there are other people who will not. There are people who will starve if Bush has his way. We're not really fighting for ourselves for the most part. We are fighting for both our ideals and those who cannot fight, who are trying to get through the day in one piece.
Bush is a bad president and miserable leader, but he and his cronies can and will be stopped. He barely won reelection and we got Howard Dean past the Washington Dems in a way they had to accept, whether they liked it or not. And if you think it's too hard to struggle, let me remind you that the NAACP was established in 1909, a year when 69 blacks were lynched. It would take 55 years for blacks to be accorded basic civil rights. It took until 1973 before being gay was not the same as being crazy.
So knowing Bush is gone at the end of 2008 should make things a bit easier, if you put it in perspective, that is.
Previously on ThinkProgress we took a look at how other countries faired privatizing government retirement accounts. (Answer: very poorly).
But you don’t have to look abroad for empirical data about privatization. Right here in the USA, several states have given it a whirl - giving public employees the opportunity to switch their government retirement plans to private accounts. The bottom line: people generally aren’t interested. And many of those that do opt-in end up with lower benefits. Here’s a breakdown, culled from this morning’s LA Times:
Nebraska:
When Nebraska’s state and county workers were given do-it-yourself accounts, they made so many investment errors that they ended up making less than colleagues with fixed-benefit pensions – and less than what analysts have said is needed for old age. Their poor performance led the Nebraska Legislature two years ago to junk the accounts for new employees.
West Virginia:
In West Virginia, teachers who shifted from pensions to accounts plowed 40% of their money into investments so conservative that they effectively ensured that they would get a pension-like payment in old age – but at a lower benefit level than in the system they had left behind.
Montana:
When Montana made a similar offer to 30,000 state workers in 2002, it spent $1.5 million to set up the new system, conducted more than 600 seminars and gave people a year to decide. The result, according to Michael J. O’Connor, executive director of the state’s Public Employee Retirement Administration: 900 chose accounts. Michigan:
When Michigan quit offering its traditional pension program to new employees in 1997 and replaced it with defined contribution accounts, it gave existing workers the right to switch to the new plan. Despite the state offering to contribute generously to the accounts, about 3,000 workers out of 57,000 signed on, according to state officials.
Ohio:
When Ohio offered its teachers in 2001 and later its state and local workers the choice of a pension, an account or a hybrid plan (combining a pared-down pension with an account), fewer than 5% picked accounts.
Florida:
Early surveys of Florida’s 600,000-plus public employees suggested that more than half would go for accounts. But since the accounts’ introduction in 2002, 43,000 employees, or about 7%, have enrolled.
A week after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority opened up the bidding for the West Side railyard, where the city wants to build a football stadium, a new bid has come in for the property - one that seems custom-made to stir the anger of Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff.
The bid was submitted yesterday by TransGas, an energy company, which has offered to pay $700 million for the railyard and a platform over the tracks, which is $100 million more than the next highest bid, from Cablevision. But there is a catch: TransGas wants the M.T.A.'s help in getting approval for the company's plans to build an electric power plant on the waterfront in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, along with a contract from the authority to buy power from the company for the next 20 years.
In an interview, Adam Victor, the president of TransGas, did not deny that his offer, a three-page letter that went to the authority yesterday, is a form of revenge. For more than two years, Mr. Doctoroff - the city's point man in winning the 2012 Olympics and building the stadium - has blocked the energy company's attempts to build a natural gas power plant at North 12th Street, on the site of an active fuel oil depot just south of the Bushwick inlet.
The city has proposed rezoning a 1.6-mile stretch of the Brooklyn waterfront, including the fuel depot and the adjacent neighborhood, for housing and open space. In an example of how all land-use decisions seem to lead back to the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics, the TransGas site in Brooklyn is currently designated for an Olympic aquatic center as well as a site for beach volleyball.
Mr. Victor said he was not opposed to the Olympics and would gladly accommodate the aquatic center in Brooklyn. In an effort to quell community opposition to the power plant, Mr. Victor has proposed building it underground and providing $50 million for affordable housing. He also hired Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie Architects to design the above-ground elements and carve out a spot in the New York skyline. A rendering depicts a park, a spaceship-like structure above a small administrative building and three-sided pyramids above the intake vents.
What this is doing is causing the price for the West Side railyards to shoot up to close to it's market value. If the MTA tries to sell the site to the Jets for $100m, I would expect a lawsuit to follow. And the Jets can't afford to pay market value for the site.
The whole idea of the Olympics is fucking stupid anyway. It's an expensive boondoggle which if there was common sense, should be split between New York City and Northern New Jersey. So where exactly is soccer going to be played? Let London lose money on the Olympics instead and we can spend the money on making the city better. Half the venues will wind up being lititgated anyway in the end.
Grand Death Auto Two kids, 13 and 15, killed an innocent highway motorist. Was a violent computer game responsible -- or their sad lives?
- - - - - - - - - - - - By David Kushner
Feb. 22, 2005 | NEWPORT, Tenn. -- The bullets came from nowhere, and there's plenty of nowhere in Newport, Tenn. An hour into the sticks east of Knoxville, this country town of 7,200 is little more than a piss stop on the way to nearby attractions like Dolly Parton's Dollywood theme park or the Life of Christ Experience in 3-D. Like most people who make it to these parts, Aaron Hamel and his cousin Denise "Dee Dee" Deneau were just passing through. Quickly.
It was around 8 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25, 2003, and the sun was still shining on the end of what Hamel called "a perfect day." The two were driving back to Knoxville in his red Toyota truck after hiking in Black Mountain, N.C. Hamel, a 45-year-old registered nurse and nature lover, had recently relocated from Ontario, Canada, dreaming of landing a log cabin in the woods. The day before, he had gotten a call back from a juvenile detention facility where he hoped to work. "I think I could make a difference and help these kids," he told his cousin during their hike.
Driving among the semis on Interstate 40, Hamel admired the rolling hillside. "Oh, Dee Dee," he said, "look at the beautiful flowers..." As Deneau would later recall in an interview with the Knoxville News, Hamel didn't have time to finish the word before the window shattered. Blood and broken glass sprayed Deneau's lap. With blood pouring from Hamel's head, their truck sped out of control over the median into oncoming traffic and smashed into a guardrail.
Coming up behind them in a white Mazda west on I-40, a tourist from Roanoke, Va., 19-year-old Kim Bede, and her boyfriend Marc Hickman heard the crash. They assumed someone had blown out a tire. Another bullet proved them wrong. It pierced the passenger side of their car, shattering Bede's hip. Then the shots stopped, and Newport went quiet again.
When the cops arrived, Hamel was dead. Bede was gushing blood, fragments of bullets in her spine. The woods under the faded billboards along the highway were shrouded in darkness. As word spread around the small town, investigators scoured the brush with spotlights and heat-seeking equipment, looking for a trace of what they feared might be a replay of the Beltway snipers. "We don't know if it was road rage, a sniper, or what," Deputy David Jennings told reporters that night.
It didn't take long to find the answer. Lurking anxiously in the bushes was a lanky, quiet 15-year-old named William Buckner, with his short, hyperactive 13-year-old stepbrother, Josh. The two had been stepbrothers only for a brief while, but had instantly bonded after growing up in unstable families. They had no prior record, a clean slate at school, and seemingly no reason to have fired the deadly shots. But, after breaking down in tears and confessing to the crime, the boys volunteered a reason of their own. A video game made them do it.
Will and Josh said they didn't mean to hurt anyone. They went out to shoot at the sides of trucks after playing "Grand Theft Auto III," the bestselling PlayStation 2 shoot'em-up that has become synonymous with the controversy over violent video games. Their assertion spawned a $246 million lawsuit on behalf of the victims against the game's makers -- Sony Computer Entertainment America and Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive Software. "What's intriguing about this case is that there was a lack of a motive," says Jack Thompson, the lawyer who launched the suit. "They were acting out the game."
This, of course, isn't the first time a video game has been blamed for fueling a violent act. On Feb. 15, another suit citing "Grand Theft Auto" was filed in Alabama, alleging the game led a teenager to shoot two police officers and a dispatcher in 2003. The Columbine massacre in Colorado was blamed, in part, on the killers' obsession with the first-person shooter "Doom." John Lee Malvo, the Beltway teen killer, is said to have trained on "Halo," the Microsoft Xbox alien shooter. Despite many attempts, however, lawsuits against the makers of violent games seldom get very far, and the Buckner suit proved no different. After the Buckners' victims filed the suit in Tennessee state court, the defendants moved it to federal court. The victims' attorneys responded by dismissing the suit altogether, possibly paving the way for another shot at the state level.
As if these kids haven't seen hundreds of violent images besides the game.
The suit will go nowhere because art does not make people, stable healthy people, which these kids were not, commit crimes. And blaming a video game, one where there are direct consequences for violent behavior, is unlikely. After all, the cops shoot back, characters go to jail and can die. It's not killing without retribution. But wouldn't it be easier to blame games than parents.
Lord William Slim was of lower-middle-class origin; without World War I, a career as an officer would have been unthinkable to someone with his background. But in 1914, Slim joined up and went to the Middle East, where he served with distinction throughout the war and earned a commission. Because of his family's lack of wealth, a career as an officer in the British army was out of the question; but the Indian army offered a respectable alternative.
Then war intervened again. After distinguished service as a brigadier in the Abyssinian campaign of 1941, Slim assumed command of a division in Iraq, helping to displace Nazi-leaning rulers and to secure the Iraqi oil fields. The disgraceful British collapse in Southeast Asia in early 1942 brought Slim his great opportunity; he had to lead shattered British forces out of Burma in a nightmarish retreat that ended at Imphal, where the Japanese ran out of steam. Once out of Burma, Slim tackled the job of restoring the fighting capabilities and morale of British and Indian troops. In his memoirs, Slim makes clear the principles on which his army operated:
1. The ultimate intention must be an offensive one. 2. The main idea on which the plan was based must be simple. 3. That idea must be held in view throughout and everything must give way to it. 4. The plan must have an element of surprise. Over the next two years, Slim retrained his forces in Burma to a standard unmatched by other units in the British army.
In early 1944 the British hammered at Japanese positions in an attempt to break through, but the Japanese replied by invading India and in a lightening move surrounded British forces at Imphal. Flying supplies and reinforcements into the garrison, Slim mounted an overland campaign that gradually broke through to his besieged forces. Although the Japanese were able to get away, the prolonged fighting had wrecked their Fifteenth Army.
By early 1945, Slim's Fourteenth Army was poised to regain central Burma. In a swift move, the Anglo-Indian forces shifted well south of Mandalay, while the Japanese expected a crossing to the north of that city. After crossing the Irrawaddy, Slim's troops cut Japanese communications with Rangoon. The Japanese counterattack proved too little and too late; Slim was now in a race to gain Rangoon before the monsoon. His forces accomplished this on May 2, ending the most brilliant British campaign of the war. What is so astonishing about Slim's performance in command of the Fourteenth Army was his success in taking beaten, demoralized troops and, with virtually no support and few resources from Britain, turning them into an army that on both the tactical and operational levels met a standard that only the best of German troops equaled.
Too many people embrace defeat when they have only known defeat. Even the opposition's mistakes are seen as temproary errors nwhich will soon be correected.
Slim is one of the few generals who seemed to have a clue that his men were people, and not just for his personal glory. But more importantly, he understood what it took for defeat to turn into victory. Which is the name of his autobiography and is still in print. Why? Because it is one of the few books on leadership which makes sense. I think people who want to do Democratic politics would do well to buy and read this book.
What people need to do is stop believing the American people are sheep or idiots. They aren't and saying so just makes things harder. Leaders cannot just talk, they have to inspire action. A good leader inspires others to lead. Slim demanded that his officers lead, not just enjoy the privledges of rank. Slim faced a nearly impossible task, with difficult allies and limited support. But he accomplished his goal because he could not fail.
Slim's troops believed the Japanese were supermen, and they were not. They just had to be trained to beat them. And they were .
Which is the way people need to think. Our task is too important to fail at and we will train ourselves to believe in our selves and our ultimate victory. Then we will accomplish it.
But the first battle is not with them, but within ourselves, to banish the doubt and fear and despair inside ourselves. That's a harder battle than the external one.
It's easy to throw up your hands and save yourself, or engage in lurid fantasies of repression. Neither accomplishes much more than idle talk and defeatism. But they are not real. Someone has to fight and win those battles you want won, even if you won't do it yourself. Someone has to fight and fight again and win. Embracing defeatism just delays the day you join the fight.
By LARA JAKES JORDAN Associated Press Writer The Associated PressThe Associated Press
WASHINGTON Feb 21, 2005 — Intent on securing the vulnerable Arizona border from illegal immigrant crossings, U.S. officials are bracing for what they call a potential new threat this spring: the Minutemen. Nearly 500 volunteers have already joined the Minuteman Project, anointing themselves civilian border patrol agents determined to stop the immigration flow that routinely, and easily, seeps past federal authorities.
They plan to patrol a 40-mile stretch of the southeast Arizona border throughout April when the tide of immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border peaks.
"I felt the only way to get something done was to do it yourself," said Jim Gilchrist, a retired accountant and decorated Vietnam War veteran who is helping recruit Minutemen across the country.
"We've been repeatedly accused of being people who are taking the law into our own hands," said Gilchrist, 56, of Aliso Viejo, Calif. "That is an outright bogus statement. We are going down there to assist law enforcement."
Officials concede the 370-mile Arizona border is the most porous stretch on the U.S.-Mexico line. Moreover, recent intelligence show that al-Qaida terrorists are likely to enter the country through the Mexico border, James Loy, the deputy secretary of the Homeland Security Department, said last week.
"Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons," Loy said in written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Of the 1.1 million illegal immigrants caught by the U.S. Border Patrol last year, 52 percent crossed into the country at the Arizona border. The agency increased the number of agents in the Tucson sector, which has its largest staff, from 1,700 to 2,100 over the last 18 months.
But that number is going to grow to try to plug the remaining holes, said Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner. About 10,000 federal agents now patrol the 2,000-mile southern border, he said.
Atrios is concerned that these folks will bring back the bad old days, when whites killed Mexicans for sport, sort of like game hunting.
I'm more concerned that these halfwits will either shoot themeselves or get killed by the drug dealers and coyotes, Like all good dick swinging white men, they think all they need is a gun and white skin to control the border. Well, Mexicsns have their own cowboy myths and a lot more experience at gunplay. So the odds are that these simpletons, when not running into DEA operations, may well stumble on people who would kill them like a deer for dinner.
The odds are a LOT higher that a few of these folks will turn up dead than they will kill immigrants.
BRUSSELS, Belgium - President Bush (news - web sites) scolded Russia for backsliding on democracy Monday and urged Mideast allies to take difficult steps for peace, appealing for Europe's help in both troubled areas to "set history on a hopeful course."
Bush opened his discussions with a gesture of reconciliation toward disgruntled allies, hosting an elegant dinner for French President Jacques Chirac, the harshest critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).
"I'm looking for a good cowboy," Bush joshed when a reporter asked if relations had improved to the point where Chirac might receive an invitation to the president's Texas ranch. Chirac said U.S.-French relations have been excellent for 200 years and the war had not changed that. They dined on lobster risotto and filet of beef.
Despite the cordial meeting, Bush told Chirac the United States adamantly opposes Europe's plans to lift its 15-year arms embargo against China.
Europe seemed eager for Bush's charm offensive after bitter divisions over global climate control, Iraq and other problems. Dozens of world leaders were hurrying to Brussels for twin summits Tuesday at NATO (news - web sites) and the European Union (news - web sites). European officials have complained Bush did not listen to them during his first term, and they wanted to see if he has changed.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 - Taking its cues from the success of last year's Swift boat veterans' campaign in the presidential race, a conservative lobbying organization has hired some of the same consultants to orchestrate attacks on one of President Bush's toughest opponents in the battle to overhaul Social Security.
The lobbying group, USA Next, which has poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles, now says it plans to spend as much as $10 million on commercials and other tactics assailing AARP, the powerhouse lobby opposing the private investment accounts at the center of Mr. Bush's plan.
"They are the boulder in the middle of the highway to personal savings accounts," said Charlie Jarvis, president of USA Next and former deputy under secretary of the interior in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We will be the dynamite that removes them."
Though it is not clear how much money USA Next has in hand for the campaign - Mr. Jarvis will not say, and the group, which claims 1.5 million members, does not have to disclose its donors - officials say that the group's annual budget was more than $28 million last year. The group, a membership organization with no age requirements for joining, has also spent millions in recent years vigorously supporting Bush proposals on tax cuts, energy and the Medicare prescription drug plan.
So far, the groups dueling over Social Security have been relatively tame, but the plans by USA Next foreshadow what could be a steep escalation in the war to sway public opinion and members of Congress in the days ahead.
Already, AARP is holding dozens of forums on the issue, has sent mailings to its 35 million members and has spent roughly $5 million on print advertisements in major newspapers opposing private accounts. "If we feel like gambling," some advertisements said, "we'll play the slots."
AARP is spending another $5 million on a new print advertising campaign beginning this week.
May all my enemies be all this stupid.
Before all the chicken littles run around and say "oh my God, this worked against John Kerry and it will work again" well, it didn't work against Kerry. A poll by Zogby showed how the Swift Boat campaign failed to shift votes and served basically as an excuse for people who wouldn't vote for Kerry to not vote for him.
This is of a magnitude level of stupidity that it is simply astounding. Gay marriage? Anti-troops? Are they kidding?
What the cretins at USA Next don't get is that AARP isn't a campaign. They aren't an adhoc organization which comes together and falls apart in 18 months. They are here today, and will be here tomorrow, with a mailing list in the tens of millions. If this becomes about the survival of the organization, this fight could get much nastier than these folks can imagine. By suggesting that the organazation of widows and veterans can be slandered like a man, well, it's a campaign born of arrogance. They aren't called a powerhouse for no reason.
Ever seen an ad with a dead child and a smoking gun attacking the NRA? No? Not because people haven't been tempted, but because alienating millions of NRA members who aren't gun nuts was not just risky, but stupid. It would backfire, badly.
Well, calling AARP homoloving pacifists is not just insane, but stupid. Because AARP has several Congressmen by the balls and could turn a town meeting into a very nasty affair. Poltics is not for the gentle and easy going. The USA Next guys can pull that shit with politicians, who have limits on their behavior, but there is nothing to stop AARP from unleashing PI's, demanding their allies in Congress investigate them, and all kinds of shit which they cannot imagine. Notice how everyone treats the NRA gently. Well, AARP is spending $10m now, they can up that figure as needed without begging for a dime, and my bet is that they will, because they will see this as a threat to their organizational integrity. AARP has years of chits and favors saved up, and while the Bushies may act like that's no big deal, Congress members from states like Florida and Arizona don't have that luxury.
It goes without saying that the death of Hunter Thompson is a tragedy, but it comes at an odd time for journalism. Thompson and his peers, like Lucian Truscott, Frances Fitzgerald and others who came of age in the 1960's and early 70's were largely ignored inside the newsroom. They were outsiders and remained largely outside the journalism mainstream. Some broke through, like Sy Hersh, but they never stayed for long, or eventually shoved aside for years. Bloggers act as if their treatment in the press and by the press is something new and unique. It isn't.
Thompson had been a newspaperman, had worked for Time and hated it. He didn't fit into the neat box that people wanted to place journalists in. Was it really any wonder that David Halberstam didn't wind up running the Times or that Sy Hersh still has to deal with people who call him a traitor. Journalism wasn't embracing the outcasts, not then, and not now. Thgompson didn't wind up in Rolling Stone because he was in high demand as a political commentator. Just like people aren't falling over themselves to read Bill Grieder finance stories today. He was a refugee from American journalism, just like many bloggers are today. Remember, the people we scorn today were the people who fit the idea of the ideal journalist. Judy Miller is what every editor, secretly dreams about, the sexy, tempestous man-crazy reporter. The fact that she's a tool for those in power doesn't discomfort them.
Bloggers are not some new creation, but the newest set of the barbarians at the gates. They are the people who don't trust the system and it's artifacts. It is to writing, what rap is to music, the coming of democracy to a trade. What Thompson and his peers did in the 60's and 70's, we do today. But free of the constraints of editors and publishers and the need to hustle up work.
Why?
Because of two different trends in writing.
One is the coopting of journalists. The insiders beat back the challenges from the Sheehans, Halberstams and Arnetts. Those who played the game won, those who didn't became heroes and authors, and exiled from the newsroom. Arnett hung on longer than most, but most were gone from the daily papers by 1975. Or they became enamored of celebrity, like Bob Woodward. Some like Sydney Schamberg and Ray Bonner, following in their tradition, were booted from newsrooms the minute their bosses felt uncomfortable. Or exiled to "alternative" papers. The newsroom became the home of the tame dissident and the complient office holder. Carl Hiaasen saves his most brutal critques of Florida life for his crime fiction. Bob Greene wrote drivel for years, finally canned, not for a lack of talent, but an excess of hunting teenaged trim. The best writing in the Washington Post is Tom Boswell's sports columns.
If people are disheartened by this, they shouldn't be. Ernie Pyle died 60 years ago this week, because he loved soldiers and the stories of their lives. Edward R. Murrow was forced out of CBS. Thompson was lucky in that since he was never inside the tent, they could never kick him out. But most of the great heroes of journalism were and will be forced from the newsroom, because that is not a place for uncomfortable truths. There has never been a national columnist like Jack Newfield or Mike Royko or Jimmy Breslin, and never will be. Because they will never play the game, or even recognize it.
The other is the irrevelant nature of modern fiction writing. The worst thing to ever happen to writing was the writing program. Because it allowed people to focus on the trivia in their lives. The greatness of Heller and Mailer escapes these mindless twits nattering about their cheating dads and pill popping moms. It's not even a world of clever craftsmen like Thomas Pynchon, but of navel gazers like Dave Eggers. Eggers, a silly, irrelevant man in a serious time, draws only my contempt and scorn. I mean, his idea of struggle was living off inherentences. Not that his personal story wasn't tragic, but it's not Sophie's Choice. The problem is that Eggers and his little group of confederates are trivial people in a not trivial time.
So you have journalists, Washington journalists, who report but do not question, getting squeamish when people do, like Helen Thomas, seeking to live off the handouts of their "sources", and get the hand-fed "scoop" which will sell papers. And fiction writers more concerned with apartments and cheating mates than the world around them.
Here are some random quotes from current fiction on Amazon. I won't name the authors to spare them embarassment:
Shane McCarthy is a Berkeley-educated chimney sweep, plying his trade in the mercurial atmosphere of dot-com bubble San Francisco circa 1999. His wife, Lou, glides in and out, obsessed with making her own start-up fortune. Outside of home and work, Shane's life revolves around basketball games at the Firehouse, an asphalt refuge where he plays the game with other 30-somethings, reveling in the physicality of crashing bodies. ......... You can't escape him. He swerves in and out of your life as if effortlessly walking through a crowded restaurant. He's a passive-aggressive master. He's as undetectable as a whisper and as effective as a tiny toxic pill. You probably went to school with him, and he knows everything you've done-every foolish secret ambition you've nurtured, everyone you wish you'd never slept with, every lame, fleeting trend you've embraced. The Underminer throws you into a spiral of self-doubt each time you see him. ........... Prep is the story of Lee Fiora, a South Bend, Indiana, teenager who wins a scholarship to the prestigious Ault school, an East Coast institution where "money was everywhere on campus, but it was usually invisible." As we follow Lee through boarding school, we witness firsthand the triumphs and tragedies that shape our heroine's coming-of-age. Yet while Sittenfeld may be a skilled storyteller, her real gift lies in her ability to expertly give voice to what is often described as the most alienating period in a young person's life: high school. ............ The Right Address seeks to expose the cruel and wicked ways of the top echelon of the Park Avenue crowd. Peppered with seemingly unbelievable accounts of social-climbing at its worst, the characters in this novel glide from party to party, relishing every possible chance to destroy each other's reputation while simultaneously air-kissing one another.
Notice the trivial nature of these books. Their self-absorption and lack of interest in the wider world. It is masturbation in print for the most part, and irrelevant. You would hardly know that men are hunting men in the mountains of Afghanistan and dodging roadside bombs in Iraq. The world of the vital has escaped our fiction, to be replaced by the world of the trivial and self-involved. Why? Because that is what drives the writing program, those who write well about themselves, but without the real introspection needed to be honest. The Naked and the Dead is a savage tale of men at war, Catch 22 lacking in any kind of larger heroism. These were not tales which made the authors heroic, but exposed their foibles and their fears. What is usually missing from the description of these modern novels is the condescension the authors feel for their subjects. These books are about revenge on imperfect lives, the failures of their parents and those around them. There is no honesty in them, because the honesty is bred out of them.
Their template is the Catcher in the Rye, but lacks the brutal self-analysis JD Salinger brought to it. But then, like his peers, his anger was driven by the war he had fought. These program-raised authors are angry because their lives were imperfect. They have never missed a meal, felt fear at seeing the police, much less rode in a truck past a bomb. They are angry at the safety and comfort of their lives.
So when you need a brutal, honest fiction to deal with lives in Bush's America, and it's contradictions, you get bitter drivel. Or you get the 'sploitation novels which is best-selling black fiction. They aren't exploitation, because most are barely literate. 'Sploitation plays off the fictional criminal world created by studio gangsters and rim-tricked out cars. It's as self-indulgent and masturbatory as the lamest writing program fiction. Just written without a spell checker and sold in the street next to Message for the Black Man and the Autobiography of Malcolm X. The glorification of criminal life is nothing new, but it isn't reality either.
The outlets to discuss American life are now closed off because one group is afraid and the other indifferent.
Which is why blogs are so popular. There is no other outlet to explain the contradictions in American life cleanly and clearly. The outcasts are more unwelcome now than ever in newsrooms battered by greedy owners and vindictive politics, fiction created to explain the anger at middle class suburbia. Honesty and truth have no place in either forum.
Which is why Hunter Thompson was a hero. He was honest to a fault and mean to a fault. In a world where journalism has become about asking questions politely and fiction about settling grudges with parents and schoolmates, he was about something far more important.
Blogs follow in the tradition of outlaw journalism, but without the flourishes he liked. It's not about just being outrageous, most of the bloggers are little different than their peers in newspapers, clean living young men and women. They don't get drunk and naked for fun, they pay their bills, stay faithful and maybe have a beer too many. However, it is the spirit of what Thompson meant, to be outside the laws of journalism, not the rules, but the laws. The laws of not offending advertisers and friendly pols. The laws of family friendly copy. Those laws. Not the rules about honesty and decency.
When Howard Kurtz whines about "fairness", someone needs to tell him the truth. "Mistah Kurtz, we are not fair. We are honest." Bush uses fairness like a Samurai uses a katana, to slice and dice and win. Fairness will no more stop Bush than a bazooka could stop a Tiger tank (couldn't come close). It is honesty which will stop him. People have to tell the truth. Kurtz and his fellows are people to be derided and mocked, not argued with. To accord him respect and seriousness, in the job most journalists disdain like cops hate internal affairs, is to give him power that his peers would never. The next time he whines about fairness, laugh in his face, wave a shrunken head in front of him, show him a picture of King Leopold. Do anything you want to show him the contempt you hold him in. But his words are meaningless to the people who matter, our readers.
Thompson understood the danger of objective journalism, which was a creature of the post-war period, Roosevelt would have laughed at the concept, battered by Father Coughlin and the Chicago Tribune, which is that the dishonest and the disingenious can have their way with the honest and decent. He called for subjective journalism long ago and our temporary experiment of objective journalism is ending, because it only serves the status quo, which is not most of us.
It's odd to think of the outsider Thompson having won the day about what we call journalism, but blogging allows for a world of outlaw journalists, working cheap and fast ans supporting each other in ways he couldn't imagine. It's not a bad legacy.
This came in the mail over the weekend. A bunch of folks from Kos and MyDD are looking to send Joe Lieberman a little message.
Thanks again for the possibility of a forum on this.
Why do I think it's imperative to get through to Joe Lieberman's office ASAP? Lieberman has a tendency to provide rhetorical cover to those Repulicans actively supporting the phase-out of social security. He issued a statement to Friday's Congress daily indicating that
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea."
This damages the party's solidarity on this issue because it gives the Republicans hope they can turn enough Democrats for their votes to phase out social security to seem bipartisan. This kind of weak rhetoric amounts to letting a few of the enemy into our territory, in the hopes that they'll see how reasonable and open-minded we are.
There are other senators who are bad on this. Ben Nelson for example. But they are low profile. Lieberman is the biggest fish the Republicans can catch on this issue, and his office staffers need to know that as soon as he makes a statement like this, as soon as he aids and abets the Republican cause with his rhetoric, he will hear about it from Democrats.
With this in mind, those of us trying to organize this rapid response are calling on the Democratic Web, the lefty blogosphere, and anyone who cares about preserving Social Security to Call Joe Lieberman's offices (in Washington and in Connecticut) Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, starting at 10:00 AM Tuesday. Hopefully we can be heard.
Look, I'll be blunt: Fuck Joe Lieberman. He's loyal, to himself. It's time he's loyal to the party. Bush uses him like a punk and he smiles and goes along. Even before Bush, he was a tool of the GOP. Now, it's time he's called on it. The press loves him, because he's reasonable. But we are not in a reasonable time. We are dealing with thugs and fanatics and their enablers. And those who will not stop them deserved to be stopped themselves.
Here are his numbers:
706 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4041 Voice (202) 224-9750 Fax
One Constitution Plaza 7th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 549-8463 Voice (800) 225-5605 In CT (860) 549-8478 Fax (860) 522-8443 TDD
Oh yeah, it really helps if you're from Connecticut or have some ties to the state, like college or military service. Americans want an opposition party. They don't need any more Vichy Democrats cleasring the way for the destruction of this country. Pass this around, repost it, whatever. Let's flood his phones so he gets the hint.
By Martin Weil and Allan Lengel Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, February 21, 2005; Page A04
Hunter S. Thompson, whose life and writing, vivid and quirky reflections of each other, made him one of the principal symbols of the American counterculture, shot and killed himself yesterday at his home near Aspen.
Thompson, 67, was celebrated as a practitioner of an outraged form of personal journalism, offering off-beat ideas and observations in a style that was wildly and vividly his own and that brought him cult-like status and widespread recognition.
Near Aspen, Colorado, Hunter Thompson, who is the author of the counterculture classic, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", lets the camera have a quick look at his usually sunglass-covered eyes on December 22, 1981. (AP)
His books on politics and society were regarded as groundbreaking among journalists and other students of current affairs in their irreverence and often angry insights.
Among those for which he was famed are "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail." He rode for almost a year with the Hell's Angels motorcycle outfit for research on another book. In all he wrote at least a dozen.
Jonathan Yardley, writing last year in The Washington Post, called him "a genuinely unique figure in American journalism," citing his comic writing and social criticism.
Thompson, often seen wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap and with a cigarette dangling from his lips, showed up frequently as Uncle Duke in "Doonesbury," the Garry Trudeau comic strip.
Part of what created his image of outlaw independence and defiance of norms and conventions was his claim to intimate familiarity with a variety of drugs and mind altering chemicals.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone . . . but they've always worked for me," he once wrote.
Pitkin County, Colo., Sheriff Bob Braudis said in a brief telephone interview that Thompson was alone in his kitchen of his Woody Creek home when he shot himself with a handgun. His wife was at a gym, Braudis said.
The sheriff said Thompson had seemed "still on top of his game."
But Braudis's wife, Louisa Davidson, said "he was not going to age gracefully, he was going to go out with a bang. He was tormented."
Thompson was known for a style that he described as "gonzo journalism," a form of "new journalism." It was based on the idea that fidelity to fact did not always blaze the way to truth.
Instead, "gonzo journalism" and its practitioners suggested that a deeper truth could be found in the ambiguous zones between fact and fiction.
"Objective journalism is one of the main reasons that American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long," Thompson told interviewers in a characteristic pronouncement on both institutions.
Fuck.
There's a lot to say, but let's get the nonsense out of the way:
Thompson loathed Garry Trudeau and hated the Duke character. He felt that Trudeau was stealing both his work and his persona.
He was not some kind of lunatic who constantly got high and barely got his work in.
He made friends easily and left a string of them from Ed Bradley to Johnny Depp.
What was Thompson?
First of all, he was a struggling writer who constantly had to fight to get paid, at least in his most famous years. One of the first gifts Jen ever gave me was the second volume of his letters, and many of them were letters to Rolling Stone about expenses and fees.
Second, he was a journalist. He wrote for a bunch of papers after Rolling Stone and finally ESPN. His sports columns were sufficiently dark and honest as to stand by his best work. While some people never thought he equalled his 70's work, his columns in later years were just as angry, and stripped of the drugs and party gimmicks which influenced his early work. It was less brilliant, but more focused, more controlled, and in some ways, better. Because once the gimmick was stripped away, the true skill of the writer could be seen.
Third, he was an inspiriation to two generations of writers. Everyone with some bent towards journalism reads his work and tries to emulate his style, which is impossible to do, because it was his. But his spirit and his moral sense are something which will draw young journalists in the way Jackson Pollock still pulls young painters and Groucho Marx inspires comics. Thompson knew what was right and wrong in a way that is almost gone from journalism today, he knew who got the sharp end of the stick and who didn't.
I think a lot will be written about Thomspon in the next few days, most of it based on his image, and not his work, which was both brutally honest and brutally true.
What will linger about his work to me is not so much the politics, although his obituary of Richard Nixon which ran in Rolling Stone is a classic of how poiliticians should be talked about, but his love and disgust with sports. Depsite being born in Kentucky, he was cool to the Derby. However, he loved football. It was his passion and the thing he understood, maybe in some ways, better than politics. Not so much the plays, but the darkness beneath it, what made football special and different.
Am I surprised he shot himself? Not really. He always called himself a hillbilly, and his love of guns was both profound and well known. It was said he always kept them around. So whether by accident or purpose, a gunshot death is hardly a suprise.
But it doesn't make his loss any less profound or sad.
Rolling Stone HUNTER S. THOMPSON 'He was a crook' Jun 16, 1994
NOTES ON THE PASSING OF AN AMERICAN MONSTER....HE WAS A LIAR ND A QUITTER, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BURIED AT SEA. ...BUT HE WAS, AFTER ALL, THE PRESIDENT. SUBJECT: THE DEATH OF RICHARD NIXON:
"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is becoming the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."--REVELATION 18:2
Richard Nixon is gone now and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing--a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that I know Iwill go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."
I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, andI am a better person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hatedNixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.
Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said. "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."
It was Richard Nixon who got me into politics, and now that he's gone, I feel lonely. He was a giant in his way. As long as Nixon was politically alive--and he was, all theway to the end--we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instinctsof a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by thehead with all four claws.
That was Nixon's style--and if you forgot, he would kill you as a lesson to the others. Badgers don't fight fair, bubba. That's why God made dachshunds.
............
If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.
These are harsh words for a man only recently canonized by President Clinton and my old friend George McGovern--but I have written worse things about Nixon, many times, and the record will show that I kicked him repeatedly long before he went down. I beat him like a mad dog with mange every time I got a chance, and I am proud of it. He was scum.
Let there be no mistake in the history books about that. Richard Nixon was an evil man--evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him--except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.
............. Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism--which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful. ................
For what? "Political assassination" isn't a cause of action, not to mention, folks did their jobs and discovered the truth about Gannon - a truth that he advertised quite proudly and willingly on the Internet (imagine a jury looking at the pissing photos Gannon willingly advertised on the Net).
If Gannon sues, that means he gets to testify under oath and be deposed under oath. And if he lies or twists his words, like he appears to have done in practically every interview to date, when being asked lots and lots of questions UNDER OATH about his ties to the escort business, asked who his clients are, about his ties to Eberle, about his ties to the White House, it's perjury and he could go to jail. Oh, and I can't wait until we call Senator Thune, Scott McLellan and Ari Fleischer come to the stand.
Not to mention, prostitution is illegal in Washington, DC. If Gannon wants to get the courts involved, he ought to think real hard before he goes there.
Jeff Gannon is considering suing liberal interest groups, bloggers and others for a "political assassination" that drove him from his job as a reporter for a conservative news outfit called Talon News, he told NEWSWEEK. Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, singled out Media Matters -- a "well-funded" liberal group headed by longtime "attack dog" David Brock. ("Everything we wrote about him came from the public record," Brock replied.)
It remains unclear how Gannon got routine White House press access for nearly two years; he acknowledged he first began getting clearance to White House press briefings in early 2003 as a representative of GOPUSA, a group headed by Texas GOP activist Bobby Eberle-months before Eberle even created Talon News. Gannon said he had no access to White House aides outside the press room, nor did he try to interview any. When President Bush called on him at a press conference last month-during which he asked a question with false info about Sen. Harry Reid-"nobody was more surprised than myself," said Gannon
.
Look, I feel sorry for this guy, because he is WAY over his head.
Kos had an interesting diary which suggested that maybe Guckert lied about his manwhoring to his GOP patrons, but this guy is either dumb or clueless. to keep this up. Maybe he thinks this is a warning shot, but it isn't even close. Because I know a lot of people who would kill to get him in a deposition. And I can hardly imagine who Media Matters would dig up as their lawyer. Given the way trial lawyers feel about Bush....
So, let's go with 10 random questions from the deposition:
1) Are you a male prostitute?
2) How many times have you been paid for sex?
3) Exactly why and when did you start using the name Jeff Gannon?
4) What was your main source of income from the years 1998 to 2002? Did this include prostitution?
5) How did you wind up $20,000 in arrears on your taxes?
6) When did you first charge for sexual activity with men?
7) Have you ever encouraged, solicited or invited any members of the United States Armed Forces, including the Marine Corps, to ever act as a prostitute? Did you ever have sex with any members of the United States Armed Forces while either on active or reserve duty?
8) Did you discuss your prostitution with close friends or family members?
9) Did you know anyone on the White House staff before 2003, and when and how did you meet them?
10) Did you use the name Jeff Gannon with your clients? And why did you continue to use that name when you started to work for Talon News?
Now, I know that some people want the big questions right off, but you don't ask about Karl Rove and Plame until deep, deep into the deposition process, like almost the last hour of the last day. You wear him out with niggling , detailed questions about everything from his college record, service in the Corps and Texas contacts, until he's battered. You want him fried like bacon before you get to the big stuff.
I think someone from the RNC will pay our friend JimmyJeff a visit and suggest he can the lawyer talk. Because he does not last two days under deposition, where he has to answer questions under oath.
Kos pointed this out, because I usually neither read nor care about righty blogs, but this? Fuck it, I think we ALL agree this is out of hand behavior.
John Fund highly respected Wall Street Journal columnist did the strangest thing today. He walked right into blogger's corner (he is not a credentialed blogger). He sat right down at a machine that wasn't his...it in fact belonged instead to Adam Doverspike of RedState.
He began typing away and when Adam returned - and in fact needed to return to his blogging duties was told by Fund:
"I'll only be a minute..."
20 minutes later, Adam gave up and left to go get something to drink...as of this typing - as you can see in the picture above - Fund was still using Doverspike's machine.
Never asked permission, never asked forgiveness...
You have to hand it to Adam Doverspike of RedState. The dignity he is showing this minute, at this rather remarkably rude turn of events, speaks loudly of Adam's character.
Remmeber Aunt Jemima LaShawn Barber? I posted some of her wackiness a few weeks ago. Here is her defense of Fund.
John Fund Sat Beside Me And Checked His E-mail
I saw him walking by, and I said, “John Fund!” He came over, said Hi and proceeded to check his e-mail on an open laptop beside me. I was thrilled and having fun, but now there’s a mini blog swarm going on. It turns out that Fund often checks his e-mail at these things on any available computer without asking.
There are public computer terminals in the lobby, but I wasn’t going to tell Wall Street Journal writer John Fund that he couldn’t use the laptop and to go back to the lobby and check his e-mail out there. Starstruck? I think not!
Anyway, so Kevin McCullough, once again, is stirring up trouble (He dragged Michelle Malkin and RedState into it!). He writes:
................
Laptop owner Adam Doverspike returned, and Fund said he’d be done in a minute. Well, the minute turned into 10 (20 minutes? I think not!). But so what? I don’t care what Kevin or the other bloggers say. I’m still glad John Fund sat beside me and checked his e-mail. ;)
And this is the kind of person expected to convince black people to vote Republican? Oy. But of course, it's Missy LaShawn who thinks it's ok for Massa John to take someone's expensive property without asking. And now the poor kiddies are confused as to how to react.
Here's my reaction.
"Please get up. That is my computer."
Nice and calm. I don't let ANYONE use my machine. Not my parents, siblings or Jen, without my direct permission. If he didn't move, I would have shut down the machine and moved it. Why? Because I paid $1000 for my laptop and if he crashes it or pokes in my files, he's not going to fix it. It is an essential piece of my work. I bet Mike Piazza doesn't let people just use his gloves. Ask a mechanic how they feel about their tools. Well I feel that way about my laptop and camera.
And I bet that the kid involved paid more than I did.
I mean, if I walked over to tap on Atrios's laptop without permission, he'd be perfectly free to smack me in the head until I stopped. We all know Fund is an asshole, but it's not a press room, that's people's personal property and some of these kids have a clue that isn't right. Well, they've learned their first real lesson about conservatives, no respect for your property over their needs and desires and even then, some lackey will defend them.
Kos calls them patsies. Well, unlike he and Atrios, who are both married men and real adults, these guys are kids coming in contact with their heroes for the first time. Barber is just an idiot. But people let their heroes do fucked up things which they should stop. If Fund wasn't a dick, and that's what this is about, not some Media/blogger thing, since I wouldn't think Mistah Kurtz would do the same, or MoDo or any reporter, it might have been ok if he asked. He didn't because he knew he didn't have to. He expected they would give way, and instead of taking their machine, he took advantage of them. Oddly enough, he seems to conduct his sex life in the same way.
Of course, the impression of these folks is pretty sad. Pasty-faced white boys who don't get laid.
This year's Conservative Political Action Conference is already in full drunken swing over at the Reagan Building. Thankfully, they've invited bloggers to cover the event, who've taught us many things. First, there's a species called "women," to which they have clearly not previously been exposed:
On the first day of CPAC the "star" of the whole conference is the lovely Namrata Singh Gujral. Robert Cox agrees with me that Namrata is the "hottest looking woman at CPAC." Ann Coulter, eat your heart out! -- The American Mind
Joe knows a little about marketing because he brought along the hottest looking woman at CPAC, Namrata Singh Gujral, and perhaps one of the hottest women I have ever met. Yow! -- National Debate
Oh, it goes on and on, but you get the point. It's sad when nerds leave the internet. But we hope Michelle Malkin shows up soon. You know how she likes to rip off that padded bra to flash the sex-starved right. And her pole-dancing skills are unbeatable! —C.S.
I mean, these guys are so pathetic, you have to wonder why Fund didn't get a blowjob and sell a couple for a carton of smokes.
Here's a hint: the only people allowed to drool over women are soldiers. Not people who should be soldiers. I wonder if the Army had a recruiting booth there? Or if people handed out recruiting literature. After all, I'm sure these guys are just waiting to go to basic training or OCS.
We also got a scalding peek into the locker room mentality in Jose Canseco's new book, "Juiced." In a segment called "Slump Busters," Mr. Canseco writes: "As everyone knows, baseball players are very superstitious. Players who are struggling start talking about how they need to go out and find something to break their slump. And often enough it comes out something like this: 'Oh my God, I'm 0-for-20. I'm going to get the ugliest girl I can find and have sex with her.' "
Mr. Canseco nobly points out that he never stooped to this tactic. "I'd rather go 0-for-40," he protests. But he tattled that many of his fellow athletes did seek out "slump busters." What a lovely term used by our sports heroes, our boys of summer.
"It could mean the woman was big, or ugly, or a combination of both," Mr. Canseco explains. He said that golden boy Mark Grace, the former Chicago Cubs first baseman, who seems like the kind of nice guy and good sport you'd want to bring home to mom, defined a slump buster as making out with the "fattest, gnarliest chick you can uncover."
Mr. Grace has talked about slump busters himself in interviews over the years, telling the sports radio talk show host Jim Rome that if a team was enduring a losing streak, the guys would persuade one player to break the curse by going out and rounding the bases with an ugly woman. Mr. Grace called it "throwing himself on the grenade" for the good of the team.
Mr. Canseco agreed: "However you slice it, it was bound to be unpleasant."
I'll leave it up to our female readers to comment. I'm digusted, personally.
Two women sacked from their jobs caring for a gorilla in the US have sued their ex-employer for allegedly ordering them to show the animal their breasts.
Nancy Alperin and Kendra Keller claim they were told to show their nipples to the gorilla, Koko, as a way of bonding.
Sign language requests from Koko, the "talking" gorilla, were allegedly relayed to the women by the Gorilla Foundation's head, Francine Patterson.
The Gorilla Foundation, based in San Francisco, strongly denies the claims.
Ms Alperin and Ms Keller are seeking more than $1m (£528,000) in damages for alleged sexual discrimination, wrongful dismissal after reporting health and safety violations and outstanding overtime pay. ................ The pair allege Ms Patterson pressured them on several occasions to expose their breasts to the gorilla, at least twice outside where other employees could have seen them.
Their lawsuit said: "Through sign language, as interpreted by Patterson, Koko 'demanded' plaintiffs remove their clothing and show Koko their breasts."
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the Democrats’.
Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson hosted his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture, "The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."
Thumbs up, Wilson exclaimed. The film "is like writing history with lightning," he remarked, adding, "it is all so terribly true."
This vignette — recently recounted in Ken Burns's PBS documentary, Unforgivable Blackness — was neither the first nor last time a prominent Democrat plunged a hot knife in black America's collective back. Each February, Black History Month recalls Democrat Harry Truman's 1948 desegregation of the armed forces and Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson's signature on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the greatest black legislative victory since Republican Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in 1863. This annual commemoration, however, largely overlooks the many milestones Republicans and blacks have achieved together by overcoming reactionary Democrats.
The House Policy Committee's 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar offers 365 examples of GOP support for women, blacks, and other minorities, often over Democratic objections. Among its highlights:
"To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists founded the Republican party, starting with a few dozen men and women in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854," the calendar notes. "Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but well into the 20th century. In the south, those Democrats who most bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which operated as the party's terrorist wing."
Contemporary partisan hyperbole? Consider this 1866 comment from Governor Oliver Morton (R., Ind.), who is immortalized in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall: "Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro school-houses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said. "Every New York rioter in 1863 who burned up little children in colored asylums, who robbed, ravished, and murdered indiscriminately in the midst of a blazing city for three days and nights, calls himself a Democrat."
White supremacists worked club in hand with Democrats for decades:
Now they do the same with Republicans.
I know he takes his pay from his masters, but the Dixiecrats just changed parties. Pretending it didn't happen is insane.
Not worthy of further discussion, any more than holocaust denial.
Well, isn't this interesting. Defenders of Gannon are now phoning people who post comments on AMERICAblog, they pretend to be me, and ask the person to stop posting on the forum. This happened to a good friend of mine who posts here (guys, get a clue, don't call a friend of mine and pretend to be me), and now it's happened to someone else.
First off, when you use a phone, there's an electronic paper trail. Second of all, when you pretend to be someone else, you're very likely bordering on a crime. If this story is so hot that Gannon's, and/or the White House's defenders, are feeling the need to try to sabotage this blog, well all I can say is thanks, and I'm posting this publicly so perhaps we can get another media story out of this.
In the meantime, folks, maybe you shouldn't post your full name to your comments, and be assured I'd never phone any of you.
One more point, this is pure Karl Rove. His MO is to contact people during a campaign and pretend he's representing the other candidate, then do something obnoxious. Good to know we're getting to them, and if any reporter wants the story, give me a holler.
Let's make this clear: John has LOTS of friends. The dirtier you play, the more notice it will get.
When my father was stationed in Okinawa in the mid-50's as a Marine, he went to Iwo Jima, which is still a restricted area and controlled by the Japanese self-defense forces. He told me that he was amazed that people got off the beach, as he sat on top of Mount Suribachi. Most of the men in his unit had fought in Korea, but some of the older men had fought on Iwo Jima or Okinawa. I was stunned by his reaction, because he had never told me that story before, and he was still amazed, decades later, that anyone survived the beach, much less the battle.
The Battle of Iwo Jima was fought between the United States and Japan during February and March of 1945, during the Pacific Campaign of World War II. As a result of the battle, the United States gained control of the island of Iwo Jima and the airfields located there. The battle is famous for the raising of the US flag by U.S. Marines during the battle.
In the opening days of 1945, Japan faced the prospect of invasion by the Allied forces. Daily bomber raids from the Marianas hit the mainland in an operation called Scavenger. Iwo Jima served as an early warning station, which would radio reports of incoming bombers back to mainland Japan. When Allied bombers arrived over Japanese cities, the Japanese air defenses would be ready and waiting for them.
At the end of the battle of Leyte in the Philippines, the Allies were left with a 2-month lull in their operations prior to the planned invasion of Okinawa, which was considered unacceptable. Thus, the decision was made to invade Iwo Jima. The landing was designated Operation Detachment.
The defenders were ready. The island was garrisoned by 22,000 soldiers and fortified with a network of underground bunkers. The aim of the defense of Iwo Jima was to inflict severe casualties on the Allied forces and discourage invasion of the mainland. Each defender was expected to die in defense of the homeland, taking 10 enemy soldiers in the process without engaging in wasteful suicide attacks.
The Allies wanted Iwo Jima not only to neutralize threats to its bombers and shipping, but to use its airfields for fighter escort and emergency bomber landings. On February 16, 1945, they commenced a massive three-day air and naval bombardment of the island.
At 02:00 on the morning of February 19, battleship guns signaled the commencement of D-Day. Soon 100 bombers attacked the island, followed by another volley from the naval guns. At 08:30, the first of an eventual 30,000 marines of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions, under V Amphibious Corps, landed on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima and a battle for the island commenced.
The Marines faced heavy fire from Mount Suribachi at the south of the island, and fought over inhospitable terrain: rough volcanic ash which allowed neither secure footing or the digging of foxholes. Nevertheless, by that evening the mountain had been surrounded and 30,000 Marines had landed. About 40,000 more would follow.
The climb up Suribachi was fought by the yard. Gunfire was ineffective against the Japanese, but flame throwers and grenades cleared the bunkers. Finally, on February 23, the summit was reached. Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal took the famous photograph "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of the United States flag being planted on the mountain's summit.
With the landing area secure, more Marines and heavy equipment came ashore and the invasion proceeded north to capture the airfields and the remainder of the island. With their customary bravery, most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. Of over 21,800 defenders, only 200 were taken prisoner.
The Allied forces suffered 26,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead. Over a quarter of the Medals of Honor awarded to marines in World War II were given for conduct in the invasion of Iwo Jima.
The island of Iwo Jima was declared secure on March 26, 1945.
Bill Gallo, the legendary NY Daily News sports cartoonist (he's the one who depicted Steinbrenner as a Prussian general) fought on Iwo Jima as a Marine.
Today marks the 60th anniversary or our landing on that little black sandy island known as Iwo Jima and it is still an indelible picture in my mind.
It was a bleak and eerie island of 7-1/2 square miles, that looked very much like a charred pork chop. We had to capture this godforsaken land, made up of black dirt and little vegetation, which lay only 758 miles from Tokyo and 3,791 miles from Pearl Harbor. We had been successfully island hopping and now we desperately needed this hunk of dreariness as a fighter base from which escort planes could join our B-29s on their way to bomb Japan. It was a vital acquisition.
This wasn't going to be easy, because we learned from three previous landings that the enemy was a formidable foe, not easily prone to giving up their tightly held islands.
The tenacity of the Japanese was no surprise since we had felt their fight in the landing of Roi-Namur, part of the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. And in the battle of Saipan.
I remember it today, 60 years later. I remember the hell of it and I remember the guys. We were all part of the 4th Marine Division and we were kids carrying rifles and who very soon would grow older.
The names were like any from the neighborhood. There was Ozzie, an affable guy from Brooklyn; Eddie Killian out of Detroit; Joe Landers from Massachusetts; Joe Bruni and Stan Lacey from New York, and Elmer Grant Murphy, a guy with a big Southern drawl from Huntington, W.Va. I remember them all well. You just don't forget people you go to war with.
And I remember Popernack. He was Cpl. George Popernack (I forget where he was from) and he was the man left aboard ship while the rest of us clambered over the side, climbed down the rope ladders and got into the Higgins boats that would take us to the black shores of Iwo.
It's still vivid in my mind how Popernack died all those years ago on Iwo.
We landed on Beach Yellow 1 and 2 and Beach Blue. This, of course means nothing to the new generations, but I recall it automatically.
We landed on this lump of volcanic ash and did not leave until the island was secured in late March. At least the lucky ones did.
Popernack was not one of the lucky ones.
Fighting on Iwo was inch by inch. The entire island was the front line. The enemy didn't stop clobbering the beach with mortar fire for about 14 days.
It was dark when the enemy was starting their mortar fire again. That afternoon, Popernack landed on the beach, days after the rest of us. We kidded him, calling him Bob Hope because he came in so many days after us. That night he died.
A small group of us, members of a demolition team, had hoped somehow the Japanese mortar positions could be located so they might be quieted with 20-pound satchel charges. Also, there was one weapon the enemy surprised us with in this campaign - 1,000-pound rockets, or "buzz bombs" - and they played hell with us. The rockets were launched from well behind the enemy's lines against our installations on the beach and near one of the airfields. There were two finished airfields and one under construction and all three were vital.
The Japanese fire became a steady pattern. They were marksmen and were good at forming perfect squares of craters.
All of us from the demolition team and Popernack jumped into one of the craters as one of those big ones landed. Popernack took it all. And, by some miracle the rest of us, with our ears ringing from the blast, discovered we only had small scratches from sand kicking up. "Pop," as we called him, never knew what hit him.
By the time Iwo was called "ours," 6,820 Marines from three divisions had given their lives.
Why was Iwo fought? Because it was a perfect landing strip for wounded bombers and fighters flying from Saipan to Japan. Having a place to land other than the ocean would save countless lives. And before the battle was over, it did. As soon as a runway was secured, airplanes used it.
This battle was not the bloodiest, Tarawa was, or the most tactically brilliant, that was Saipan, or the most traumatic, that was Okinawa. But it was the battle which saved the Marine Corps.
In 1947, as the services were reorganized, the Army wanted to get rid of the Marine Corps. Tension between the two services had always been high, exploding in 1944 during the Battle of Saipan, when Army General Ralph Smith, commander of the 27th ID, was relieved by Marine General Holland M. Smith
On 25 June, H. Smith decided that the poor performance of the 27th Infantry Division was due to its lack of command and he decided to ask that R. Smith be relived of his command. After he talked this over with Turner the two of them approached Spruance. H. Smith stated that R. Smith had issued orders to units not under his command and contravened H. Smith's orders. H. Smith also stated that the 27th Infantry Division was late in conducting its attack on Mount Tapotchau and therefore it slowed the movement of its flanking marine divisions, causing them to suffer unnecessary losses.
The relief of R. Smith probably did not make any real difference in the aggressiveness of the 27th Infantry Division. However, it did stir up a Marine Corps / Army controversy. On Saipan itself, marines began to look down on the 27th Infantry Division soldiers and the army soldiers resented H. Smith for relieving their commander and the implications made on the fighting capability of the division. Off of the island the controversy grew much greater, with several Army generals going so far as to recommending to Lieutenant General Robert C. Richardson, commander of all Army forces in the Pacific, that H. Smith was extremely prejudiced against army forces and that no Army forces should ever be put under his command again!
Major General Sanderford Jarman, who was on Saipan to take charge of the garrison operation after the Japanese were defeated, assumed temporary command of the 27th Infantry Division from 24 to 28 June. On 28 June, Major General George W. Griner, Jr. assumed command of the 27th Infantry Division. However, when he assumed command of the division, he was surprised to find out that he only had control of four infantry battalions, the rest of the division was under Corps command. Griner was told by H. Smith that he would have to "earn" the rest of the division back. By 5 July, the 27th Infantry Division and the 4th Marine Division had captured Mount Tapotchau and had pushed northward up the narrowing island. Due to this narrowing of the front, the 2nd Marine Division was pulled into reserve. By 6 July, Griner regained the control of all of the 27th Infantry Division's units. On 7 July, three thousand Japanese soldiers conducted a bonzai charge against the 27th Infantry Division. The Japanese soldiers were armed with only grenades and bayonets, yet they broke through the 27th Infantry Division on the western flank near the coast. The Japanese soldiers destroyed two infantry battalions and were only stopped by marines of the 2nd Marine Division after the Japanese had passed through the 27th Infantry Division's sector. By this time, H. Smith had had enough of the 27th infantry Division and various reports state that he ordered the entire division withdrawn from Saipan. In reality, only the decimated battalions were withdrawn from Saipan by destroyers. However, H. Smith did order the 27th Infantry Division into reserve and vowed that he would never use the division again.
The bitterness over Holland Smith's treatment of the 27th Division lasted long beyond World War II and echoes of it can be heard today. The difference between the two services is tactical and philsophical. Army units believe in using massed fire to win objectives, while Marines believe in aggressive action against the enemy. Bradley's move to reduce the size and power of the Marines comes from a variety of factors, but this was clearly one of them.
“I predict that large-scale amphibious operations will never occur again.” General Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff House Armed Services Committee testimony, October 1949
The period from 1946 to early 1950 was marked by strategic uncertainty, the development of new thinking about how future wars would be fought, drastic defense budget reductions, and fierce interservice rivalry. All of this threatened to reduce the Marine Corps - and U.S. amphibious power - to a mere shadow of its World War II capability.
General Bradley's opinion quoted above mirrored that that of the Army's leadership, who argued that America's next military opponent was likely to be the Soviet Union. A conflict with that empire would mainly involve nuclear weapons. Additionally, if any ground operations occurred in such a conflict, they would take place in Europe. Thus, they argued, in the nuclear age the Army and the Army Air Force would do most of the fighting (the leaders of newly independent U.S. Air Force, established in 1947, would concur with this analysis). There would be no naval campaigns, leaving the Navy itself with a greatly reduced national defense role.
With no serious wartime mission, the argument continued, the Marine Corps should be organized into smaller, more lightly armed regiments useful for minor operations in foreign countries. The Army's leadership also saw no need for the Marines to operate fixed-wing combat aircraft, or to conduct integrated air-ground operations that had been the hallmark of the later amphibious assaults during the late war.
This conceptual onslaught, combined with post-war demobilization, made it difficult for the Marine Corps to maintain a strong, sustainable amphibious assault capability. Service planners wanted to maintain a Fleet Marine Force of at least two divisions and two aircraft wings, requiring in all approximately 8,000 officers and 100,000 enlisted. Ideally, one Marine division and Marine air wing would be available for duty in the Mediterranean, while another division, an air wing, a brigade, and an air group would be maintained for Pacific operations. However, by June 1950, the Corps' strength was approximately 75,000 officers and men, down from a wartime high of 485,000.
The Navy's leadership supported Marine Corps force level requests during the period immediately after the war. However, they also had to deal with a massive demobilization of ships and men and fierce interservice attacks. Indeed, in 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Denfield told one admiral that the Navy itself was "on its way out." Elaborating, Denfield observed: General Bradley tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.
The Navy's preoccupation with its own survival led some Marines to believe that the Corps was on its own in the pitched inter-service battles that marked the early postwar period.
The Marine Corps did win a major legislative victory with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, which codified its existence, its combined-arms nature, and its ability to expand in wartime. It also gave the Corps primary responsibility for developing amphibious doctrine. But continuing budget cuts threatened to make the service completely ineffective as a war-fighting force. This effort to gut Marine Corps force structure culminated in the fiscal year 1951 budget, which called for reductions that would leave the service with a peacetime strength of just six battalions and 12 aircraft squadrons.
Before these plans could be implemented, however, the Korean War intervened. By July 1950, North Korean troops, fighting an "old-fashioned" conventional war, threatened to entirely overrun pro-Western South Korea, eject U.S. and allied forces from the peninsula, and inflict a major strategic defeat on the United States. Fortunately, this course of events was averted by a yet another "anachronistic" operation - the Navy-Marine Corps amphibious assault at Inchon.
What is often lacking from this discussion is the Army's successful history of amphibious invasions during WWII. Repeatedly, soldiers landed in the Solomons, New Guinea and the Philippines with no Marines around. While the Marines needed the support of the Army in most of their battles in the Central Pacific. While the Marine story of WWII is legendary, the Army's story has been overshadowed by both Europe and Burma.
However, what saved the Marines was the loyalty of it's former members. How loyal? One day, Ted Williams spotted Mike Barnicle's kid wearing an Army training shirt. He said "you ought to get one that says Marines, best team I was ever on." Williams flew in combat in both WWII and Korea.
But is was the AP picture of Joe Rosenthal, of the flag waving at Mount Suribachi, which influenced many people, People just didn't feel that way about the Army. They may have felt that way about thet 101 ABN or 4th Armored, but not the Army as whole. Marines have a very difference sense of loyalty. A Marine is a Marine, not just a member of the 3rd Division or 5th Regiment. Abolshing the Marine Corps or diminishing it, was downright unamerican. After all, the D-Day memorial is in New Orleans, not Washington DC.
Hail Bush, my minions. Rove speaks at wingnut conference
Among the believers At the Conservative Political Action Conference, where rabid Bush-worshippers learn that liberals hate America and that we really did find WMD in Iraq.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Michelle Goldberg
Feb. 19, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- It's a good thing I went to the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. Otherwise I never would have known that, despite the findings of the authoritative David Kay report and every reputable media outlet on earth, the United States actually discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, vindicating all of George W. Bush's pre-war predictions. The revelation came not from some crank at Free Republic or hustler from Talon News, but from a congressman surrounded by men from the highest echelons of American government. No wonder the attendees all seemed to believe him.
The crowd at CPAC's Thursday night banquet, held at D.C.'s Ronald Reagan Building, was full of right-wing stars. Among those seated at the long presidential table at the head of the room were Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, Dore Gold, foreign policy advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and NRA president Kayne Robinson. Vice President Dick Cheney, a regular CPAC speaker, gave the keynote address. California Rep. Chris Cox had the honor of introducing him, and he took the opportunity to mock the Democrats whose hatred of America led them to get Iraq so horribly wrong.
"America's Operation Iraqi Freedom is still producing shock and awe, this time among the blame-America-first crowd," he crowed. Then he said, "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq." Apparently, most of the hundreds of people in attendance already knew about these remarkable, hitherto-unreported discoveries, because no one gasped at this startling revelation.
And why would they? Like comrades celebrating the success of Mao's Great Leap Forward, attendees at CPAC, the oldest and largest right-wing conference in the country, invest their leaders with the power to defy mere reality through force of insistent rhetoric. The triumphant recent election is all the proof they need that everything George W. Bush says is true. Sure, there's skepticism of the president's wonder-working power among some of the old movement hands -- including the leaders of the American Conservative Union, which puts CPAC on. For much of the rank and file, though, the thousands of blue-blazered students and local activists who come to CPAC each year to celebrate the völkisch virtues of nationalism, capitalism and heterosexuality, Bush is truth. They don rhinestone W brooches and buy mouse pads, posters and T-shirts showing the president as a kind of beefcake Uncle Sam, with flowing white hair and bulging muscles threatening to rend his red, white and blue garments.
It's not only liberals who have noticed that Bush's most committed followers are caught up in the fact-filtering force field of a personality cult. In January, Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury during the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal's far-right editorial page, published a damning column in the progressive Z Magazine about fascist tendencies in the conservative movement. "In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush," he wrote. "Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush … Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."
Which of course, will lead to their ultimate failure.
Part of this is war hysteria, part the last gasp of a dying movement. The extremism of conservatism comes from the lack of ideas. Ending social security is their last great idea. The attack on the new deal is their ultimate and final ideology. There isn't any thing more. And extremism breeds more extremism.
We sometimes forget that they are a minority and in all of the red state bashing, that there are plenty of Republicans who want nothing to do with this Lenninist way of doing politics.
Chris Cox is either a liar or revealing state secrets, since the US doesn't even have the capacity to hunt WMD in Iraq anymore. Those units are now tasked to hunting the resistance, ineptly, but that's their job all the same. My bet is on liar.
But I think liberals have to take a far, far more aggressive stand against these slanders. Some wingnut accused Atrios of hating America, a charge they won't make against Kos because he's a vet. My feeling is that if they make those statements publicly, some of them need to be sued witless. Treason is a crime with a specific criteria, it's not just a cheap way to say they hate Bush.
My stand is clear: if some wingnut accuses me of treason in public, he better have some proof or they get a lawyer letter the next day. The lack of rationality here is scary. When an editor of the WSJ editorial page recoils from their comments, it's something to be concerned about. Not because they're going to form mobs and beat people in the street, but because it makes political discourse that much harder. Much of this is armchair rage. These people organize with words, not beer-drinking clubs who's members march in the streets with flags. A lot of people mistake their words for action, and they are not. When people use cheap words like fascist, it means they have little idea of what a fascist state is. As long as these people keep talking in public, their danger is in the acceptance of their ideas by the larger public. Which is part of a democratic debate. It is when they abandon the political process and embrace extrajudicial violence with no reaction from the government, that it's time to worry and leave. If the CPAC meeting was held in secret, then led to a violent march through Anacostia, then it's time to really worry about the fate of democracy. As long as they play by the rules of the system, they can be challenged and defeated. The one thing we cannot do is laugh at their wingnuttery.
Which is why I laugh when people talk about the values of the US has changed. Compared to what? 1964, when you couldn't marry someone of a different race or go into the Met Musuem if you were black? I mean, Vancouver is a beautiful city, but moving there because of these people is what I consider an overreaction. There is a reason we don't vote on rights. Because at no time would most people vote for them. Once you put it to a vote, expect the status quo to win. Courts protect our rights, not voters.
Too many people took all those votes for Bush to heart as if it was some kind of personal rejection. It wasn't. Some was driven by homophobia and more importantly, the inability to fathom change. I don't think many people oppose gay marriage because they hate gays, but because they find it counterinutative. They've been told their entire lives that marriage was a heterosexual rite, not a political statement, which is what marriage is.
Other people supported Bush because of the illusion he creates of plain speaking. Or because he was president during wartime. Not because they're idolitors who worship the ground he walks on. He's no FDR, that's for sure.
There is a hard core who thinks Bush walks with Jesus. But there are many more people who voted for him because they thought he represented stability during troubled times. Of course, the nasty suprise of Social Security theft is waking people up. The GOP loves to say that the Dems are out of touch, but this plqan, which is also anti-inuative to most people, requires people to assume a level of risk they are clearly uncomfortable with. Bush talks about the glory of the markets, well, most people don't make money in the market and it scares them.
There is a limit to political trust and Bush has walked right into it. While they may trust him about the war, they will not trust him about things they understand. Bush's weaknesses are magnified by this fight. He cannot do this with handpicked audiences and bullying Dems. The stakes are too high and the plan too risky, one even Republicans are trying to avoid supporting.
This February, as we honor Black History Month, we recognize how far the cause of liberty has advanced since the birth of our nation. We also recognize that African Americans have helped lead this progress at every stage. We respect their courage, and we welcome them to join us as we work for a stronger nation for all Americans.
Last week, I spoke at a forum with Maryland's Lt. Governor Michael Steele before a mostly African American crowd at Prince George's Community College. This event was part of an ongoing GOP effort to reach out to Americans from every race, religion and corner of our country to continue to grow our Party. African Americans know, as do all Americans, that success of freedom on the home front is critical to its success in foreign lands. As President Bush said in his inaugural address, we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
It's no wonder that every day more former Democrats or even current Democrats are coming out to praise President George W. Bush.
President Bush said it best at the White House ceremony to commemorate Black History Month:
"We've made progress, and our work is not yet done. At the start of this new century, we will continue to teach habits of respect to each generation. We will continue to enforce laws against racial discrimination in education and housing and public accommodations. We'll continue working to spread hope and opportunity to African Americans with no inheritance but their character -- by giving them greater access to capital and education, and the chance to own and build and dream for the future. In this way, African Americans can pass on a better life and a better nation to their children and their grandchildren, and that's what we want in America."
We still have a lot of work to do in the minority community. Like I've said before, if you give us a chance, we'll give you a choice.
How can I trust them to be against bigotry when they use homophobia like a free gift from a new Target.
Sure, they say blacks have rights, today, butr given their courting of the old Dixiecrats, their word is meaningless. And useless sambos like Michael Steele, soon to be unemployed at the next election, do not inspire confidence.
A news producer for a major network just told me that Gannon told the producer the US was going to attack Iraq four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation.
According to the producer, Gannon specifically told them that in four hours the president was going to be making a speech to the nation announcing that the US was bombing Iraq. The producer told me they were surprised that Gannon, working with such a small news outfit, could have access to such information, but "what did you know, he was right," the producer said today. The producer went on to say that Gannon often had correct scoops on major stories, including information about Mary Mapes and the Dan Rather BUSH/AWOL scandal that this news outlet got from Gannon before any had the information publicly.
This more than a few questions and points:
1. Assuming this news producer is telling the truth, and I have no reason to believe they are not, how did Gannon get access to such highly classified information as to when the US was going to bomb Iraq?
2. Even if Gannon were part of a press gaggle that was told embargoed information about the war by the White House, this producer alleges that Gannon would have broken any such embargo, which is a security risk to the operation, and more generally shows that concerns about Gannon's White House access posing a risk to national security might now be warranted.
3. How would someone on a day pass, who hadn't gotten the requisite 3-4 month FBI background check that other full-time White House employees get, get access to such highly classified information? Certainly the White House didn't include someone with simply a day pass in the highly-classified pre-briefing about details of the war (assuming such a briefing even occurred)? If the White House did a briefing and Gannon were included, this would mean ANYONE could walk in off the street, say they're a reporter, and provided by they don't have a criminal record, the White House will simply tell them at what hour we're launching a major attack? And if there was no briefing for reporters, then how did Gannon allegedly find out?
4. Even if the White House had simply told the press pool that Bush was speaking to the nation in a few hours, and the press had figured out that this meant were were attacking Iraq, was the information about the upcoming speech embargoed? Was the information about the upcoming speech also announced to the public four hours before? Or did Gannon get access to inside information concerning the war simply because of his presence in the White House - a presence that should have required an FBI background check considering how often he was there?
5. How would Gannon get inside information on the Dan Rather scandal BEFORE the rest of the major media? Assuming the producer is correct, did it come from a White House source, and if so, what does this say about possible White House involvement in creating this scandal in the first place?
According to my source, Gannon's insider tidbits were always on the mark. "Gannon's stuff was always golden," the producer says. My source says they kept asking themself, "how does this small news outfit get this info?"
How indeed
Now, it could be gossip, or he could have been leaked to by a "friend".
But the conclusion I draw is that he had a real close friend in the WH, and it wasn;t Ari Fleischer
If you think John has been kicking ass, send him some turkee. Share the love. I'll send him another $20.
February 18, 2005 -- ALBANY — State Republican officials yesterday had egg on their faces after peddling a photo they erroneously said proved that convicted terrorist supporter Lynne Stewart was a Democratic Party activist.
State GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik and party Executive Director Ryan Moses gave The Post a photo taken at a Democratic protest outside last summer's Republican National Convention.
They claimed it showed Stewart, a civil-rights lawyer, pictured with Jesse Jackson, filmmaker Michael Moore, actor Danny Glover and two Democratic councilmembers.
The problem is, the woman in the picture isn't Stewart — it's Leslie Cagan, of United for Peace and Justice, which organized the rally. Cagan and Stewart bear a resemblance.
............................
"The fact is that Lynne Stewart is a registered Democrat who was asked to speak at Democratic functions," he said.
Minarik is an idiot.
But let him keep this up. Please.
Go after Al Sharpton next. We need you to attack him, since that works so well in New York politics.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia Christopher Key knows exactly what he would be giving up if he left Bellingham, Washington.
"It's the sort of place Norman Rockwell would paint, where everyone watches out for everyone else and we have block parties every year," said Key, a 56-year-old Vietnam War veteran and former magazine editor who lists Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner," among his ancestors.
But leave it he intends to do, and as soon as he can. His house is on the market, and he is busily seeking work across the border in Canada. For him, the re-election of George W. Bush was the last straw.
"I love the United States," he said as he stood on the Vancouver waterfront, staring toward the Coastal Range, which was lost in a gray shroud. "I fought for it in Vietnam. It's a wrenching decision to think about leaving. But America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in."
In the Niagara of liberal angst just after Bush's victory on Nov. 2, the Canadian government's immigration Web site reported a surge in inquiries from the United States, to about 115,000 a day from 20,000.
.................................
"We're still not talking about a huge movement of people," said David Cohen, an immigration lawyer in Montreal. "In 2003, the last year where full statistics are available, there were something like 6,000 U.S. citizens who received permanent resident status in Canada. So even if we do go up threefold this year, we're only talking about 18,000 people."
Still, that is more than double the population of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "For every one who reacts to the Bush victory by moving to a new country, how many others are there still in America, feeling similarly disaffected but not quite willing to take such a drastic step?" Cohen asked.
Melanie Redman, 30, assistant director of the Epilepsy Foundation in Seattle, said she had put her Volvo up for sale and hopes to be living in Toronto by the summer. She and her Canadian boyfriend, a Web site designer for Canadian nonprofit companies, had been planning to move to New York, but after Nov.2, they decided on Canada instead.
"I'm doing it," she said. "I don't want to participate in what this administration is doing here and around the world. Under Bush, the U.S. seems to be leading the pack as the world spirals down."
Redman intends to apply for a conjugal visa, which can be easier to get than the skilled worker visa that most Americans require. To do so, she must prove she and her boyfriend have had a relationship for at least a year, so she has collected supporting paperwork, like love letters, to present to the Canadian government.
"I'm originally from a poor, lead-mining town in Missouri, and I know a lot of the people there don't understand why I'm doing this," she said. "Even my family is pretty disappointed. And the fact is, it makes me pretty sad, too. But I just can't bear to pay taxes in the United States right now."
Compared with the other potential immigrants interviewed, Redman was far along in planning.
Mike Aves, 40, a financial planner in Palm Beach, Florida, where he has been active in the Young Democrats, said he was finding it almost impossible from that distance to land a job in Canada. "I've told my wife, I'd be willing to take a step down, socioeconomically, to move from white-collar work to a blue-collar job, if it would get us to Canada," he said.....................
What people don't get is that they are leaving their entire support network behind for basically selfish reasons. Now Canada's a nice country, but the fight is in the US. If you want to beat Bush, you have to do it here. Running is just that.
The fossilised skeleton of a rabbit-like creature that lived 55 million years ago has been found in Mongolia, Science magazine reports.
Gomphos elkema, as it is known, is the oldest member of the rabbit family ever to be found.
Gomphos was surprisingly similar to modern rabbits - and probably hopped around on its elongated hindlimbs.
The fossil adds weight to the idea that rabbit-like creatures first evolved no earlier than 65 million years ago.
"This skeleton is very complete," co-author Robert Asher, of Humboldt Universität, Berlin, Germany, told the BBC News website.
"Gomphos gives us valuable information about the anatomy of early rabbits - it tells us what they looked like.
"Gomphos had a true 'rabbit's foot'; that is, a foot more than twice as long as the hand that could be used for hopping."
But the ancient creature did have some traits that were unlike its modern relative. For example, Gomphos had quite a big tail and some of its teeth were more squirrel-like than rabbit-like.
But....but the earth is only 7,000 years old according to intelligent design theory.
William Cousart holds jackpot check at Honey Bee Lotto on Forest Ave., Staten Island, where he bought subscription to lottery. Debt was doing such a number on retired prison guard William Cousart that he had made a 2:30 p.m. appointment for last Thursday to declare bankruptcy.
Then, like a lightning bolt, the 54-year-old Lotto player from Staten Island got a call that morning that changed his plans.
"I thought it was a bill collector, so I didn't answer the phone," he said yesterday with a laugh. "I'm in debt up to my neck."
Luckily, the lottery leaves messages.
When Cousart called back, the former Arthur Kill Correctional Facility guard learned he was the sole winner of a $30 million jackpot.
"It came just in the nick of time," said the father of four, who was $200,000 in debt. "I'm definitely going to buy another house. And probably a Cadillac Escalade and a Hummer."
................... One investment expert said any stock market dealings should come only after the Cousarts pay off their debts.
The couple should put $1 million in separate trust funds for each of the kids and invest about $5 million in tax-free municipal bonds - a move that could earn $250,000 in annual interest.
"Don't invest in stocks until you have enough safe interest coming in that you can live off it for the rest of your life," advised Muriel Siebert of the Manhattan investment firm Siebert & Co.
Cousart, who worked for the Correction Department for 25 years, said he's glad to be retired and, now, worry free.
"It was very stressful," he said of his prison duties. "My first day on the job, we were doing a cell search, we found a 12-inch shank, a homemade knife.
"I'll take being a multimillionaire any day over that!"
Unfortunately, one third of all lottery winners enter bankruptcy within five years of winning their jackpot.
With his plans to spend wildly, it is likely that he will join that group.
Given that he was thisclose to bankruptcy, he needs serious financial counselling before he spends a dime.
Behind the walls of Ward 54 They're overmedicated, forced to talk about their mothers instead of Iraq, and have to fight for disability pay. Traumatized combat vets say the Army is failing them, and after a year following more than a dozen soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, I believe them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Mark Benjamin
Feb. 18, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Before he hanged himself with his bathrobe sash in the psychiatric ward at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Spc. Alexis Soto-Ramirez complained to friends about his medical treatment. Soto-Ramirez, 43, had been flown out of Iraq five months before then because of chronic back pain that became excruciating during the war. But doctors were really worried about his mind. They thought he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after serving with the 544th Military Police Company, a unit of the Puerto Rico National Guard, the kind of unit that saw dirty, face-to-face combat in Iraq.
A copy of Soto-Ramirez's medical records, reviewed by Salon, show that a doctor who treated him in Puerto Rico upon his return from Iraq believed his mental problems were probably caused by the war and that his future was in the Army's hands. "Clearly, the psychiatric symptoms are combat related," a clinical psychologist at Roosevelt Roads Naval Hospital wrote on Nov. 24, 2003. The entry says, "Outcome will depend on adequacy and appropriateness of treatment." Doctors in Puerto Rico sent Soto-Ramirez to Walter Reed in Washington, D.C., to get the best care the Army had to offer. There, he was put in Ward 54, Walter Reed's "lockdown," or inpatient psychiatric ward, where the most troubled patients are supposed to have constant supervision.
But less than a month after leaving Puerto Rico, on Jan. 12, 2004, Soto-Ramirez was found dead, hanging in Ward 54. Army buddies who visited him in the days before his death said Soto-Ramirez was increasingly angry and despondent. "He was real upset with the treatment he was getting," said René Negron, a former Walter Reed psychiatric patient and a friend of Soto-Ramirez's. "He said: 'These people are giving me the runaround ... These people think I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, Negron. I'm getting more crazy being up here.'
"Those people in Ward 54 were responsible for him. Their responsibility was to have a 24-hour watch on him," Negron said in a telephone interview from his home in Puerto Rico. While Soto-Ramirez's death was by his own hand, Negron and other soldiers say the hospital shares the blame.
In fact, repeated interviews over the course of one year with 14 soldiers who have been treated in Walter Reed's inpatient and outpatient psychiatric wards, and a review of medical records and Army documents, suggest that the Army's top hospital is failing to properly care for many soldiers traumatized by the Iraq war. As the Soto-Ramirez case suggests, inadequate suicide watch is one concern. But the problems run deeper. Psychiatric techniques employed at Walter Reed appear outmoded and ineffective compared with state-of-the-art care as described by civilian doctors. For example, Walter Reed favors group therapy over one-on-one counseling; and the group therapy is mostly administered by a rotating cast of medical students and residents, not full-fledged doctors or veterans. The troops also complain that the Army relies too much on pills; few of the soldiers took all the medication given to them by the hospital.
Perhaps most troubling, the Army seems bent on denying that the stress of war has caused the soldiers' mental trauma in the first place. (There is an economic reason for doing so: Mental problems from combat stress can require the Army to pay disability for years.) Soto-Ramirez's medical records reveal the economical mindset of an Army doctor who evaluated him. "Adequate care and treatment may prevent a claim against the government for PTSD," wrote a psychologist in Puerto Rico before sending him to Walter Reed.
"The Army does not want to get into the mental-health game in a real way to really help people," said Col. Travis Beeson, who was flown to Walter Reed for psychiatric help during a second tour with one of the Army's special operations units in Iraq. "They want to Band-Aid it. They want you out of there as fast as possible, and they don't want to pay for it." Indeed, some psychiatric patients at Walter Reed are given the option of signing a form releasing them from the hospital as long as they give up any future disability payments from the Army. One soldier from Pennsylvania, who was shot five times in the chest and saved by body armor, told me he would do anything to get out of Walter Reed, even relinquish disability pay. "I'll sign anything as soon as I can get my hands on it," he told me several days before being released from the hospital. "I loved the Army. I was obsessed with it. The Army was my life. Fuck them now."
The conditions for traumatized vets at the Army's flagship hospital are particularly disturbing because Walter Reed is supposed to be the best. But leading veterans' advocate and retired Army ranger Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, agrees that when it comes to psychiatric care, Walter Reed doesn't make the grade. "I think that Walter Reed is doing a great job of taking care of those suffering acute battlefield injuries -- the amputees, the burn victims, and those hurt by bullets and bombs," said Robinson, who has spent many hours visiting psychiatric patients at Walter Reed. "But they are failing the psychological needs of the returning veterans." ........................
The hospital also cited a recent survey in which 42 out of 45 psychiatric inpatients surveyed, or 94 percent, felt that their care was either outstanding or good. "We are satisfied that there is a very high level of patient satisfaction with their treatment," the statement read. The hospital gave few details about the inpatient survey, such as whether it was anonymous, or whether the patients surveyed were even soldiers who recently fought in Iraq. (Inpatients can include military dependents or soldiers who fought in wars decades ago.)
The high level of satisfaction among inpatients as reported by Walter Reed is completely opposite what I saw and heard while tracking soldiers there over the last year. ....... It all convinced me that something is seriously amiss at the Army's top hospital.
...................................... Some of the soldiers are fighting decisions by the board at Walter Reed. Out of the 14 soldiers interviewed, five have left Walter Reed. Three ended up getting zero percent of their income as disability pay, despite what they said was serious mental stress that made it more difficult or impossible to work. Even those who got a third of their pay still had trouble making ends meet. (In every case I followed, the Department of Veterans Affairs made a later determination that the soldiers deserved more. The soldiers can choose to take the higher percentage of pay from the V.A., but in some cases if they do so, they must pay back what they have received so far from the Army.)
# After 26 years of service, the Army gave Col. Beeson, from the Army's Civil Affairs Command, zero percent of his income as disability pay for his mental wounds. Luckily, he still gets some retirement pay because of his many years of service, but he says he struggles with his injuries every day. He is appealing Walter Reed's decision.
# Josh Sanders, from the 1st Armored Division, got 30 percent from the Army, but the Army also said his problems did not come from the war. "When I was over there [at Walter Reed] the PEB [Physical Evaluation Board] process was degrading. It is like pulling money from an insurance company. All my paperwork says 'non-service connected.' If it is non-service connected, then why am I getting 30 percent?" he asked. The V.A. recently decided to give him 70 percent disability.
# One Army reservist I spent time with tried to return to his day job as a policeman after the war, but his mental state prohibited him from carrying a gun. The reservist cannot go back to policing, but since the Army decided his mental problems did not come from the war, the small percentage of disability pay he got is not enough to make ends meet, he said. He's hoping the V.A. will give him more.
# René Negron, the former soldier who visited Soto-Ramirez before the suicide, was given 30 percent of his pay until February 2006, when he'll be reevaluated. Negron was a psychiatric patient at Walter Reed after 11 months in Iraq. At one point he checked himself into the emergency room there because he thought he might kill himself. But the Physical Evaluation Board determined that "the soldier's retirement is not based on disability from injury or disease received in the line of duty," according to a copy of Negron's evaluation board proceedings. "This disability did not result from a combat-related injury."
Negron, 48, taught hair care and cosmetology before serving in Iraq as an Army specialist with the Puerto Rico National Guard. Now, he says his debilitated mental state after the war has left him unable to work. He drives two hours each way for mental health treatment at a V.A. medical center. "You think I can live on $700 a month?" Negron asked. "I can't work. My wife is suffering. She can't leave me alone. Sometimes I feel suicidal. Sometimes I hear voices. Sometimes I see lights. I feel like I'm being shot at. They sent me home like that. I've been dealing with this since I got back," Negron said. "I left here in good condition. If I have a mental condition, they have to deal with it ... I did my part. Why can't they do their part?"
- - - - - - - - - - - -
There is also still a cultural bias against mental illness in the Army. People are expected to tough it out. The Army is more than willing to place the burden of benefits and treatment on an overburdened VA.
Namibian President Sam Nujoma has decided to become a student when he steps down after three terms at the helm of his country.
The 75-year-old will study geology within the science faculty at the University of Namibia (Unam).
The university's vice-chancellor, Lazarus Hangula, said Mr Nujoma's decision was a "cause of jubilation" for staff and students alike.
"We welcome him with an open heart," added Mr Hangula.
But in an apparent reference to the president's robust character and no-nonsense style, Mr Hangula also said: "His presence on the campus is certainly a challenge to all of us in many ways."
Mineral wealth
Mr Nujoma has been chancellor of Unam since 1992. He was recently re-appointed for another six-year term.
It is unclear whether the rules were bent to allow him a place on the geology course, as his formal qualifications are reported to be not of the calibre that would secure a university berth under normal circumstances.
Mr Nujoma has several honorary degrees from universities in Nigeria, the US and Russia.
In his 15 years in power, he often said he believed the mountains of Namibia were full of mineral wealth which had yet to be tapped
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday named John Negroponte as America's first national intelligence director, congressional sources said Thursday.
It's a sudden job change for Negroponte, a career diplomat. The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has been serving as U.S. ambassador in Baghdad since June.
.............
Negroponte has also been ambassador to the Philippines, Mexico and Honduras.
All countries where the death squad was quite popular.
Even with his disgusting background in state-sanctioned murder, the simple fact is that his experience is as a diplomat, not in intelligence.
There wasn't much you could do about Gonzalez, he was Bush's boy, but Negroponte? Even the GOP should be pissed about this. They let Porter Goss slide, but this is ridiculous. The man is pretty much a war criminal.
Some days, Bush can just astound you with his choices.
As Eric Pfeiffer notes over at our new "Beltway Buzz" feature, two Republicans are calling on Howard Dean to apologize for saying that the GOP couldn't fill a hotel ballroom with "people of color" unless they brought in the hotel staff. Let me quote the complaint: "In his comments to the Democratic Black Caucus, Dean equates African-Americans who support Republicans to 'hired help.' This kind of backward thinking reminds us of a horrible time in history when blacks were only seen as servants." Give me a break. Dean is saying, hyperbolically, that there aren't many blacks or other nonwhites in the Republican party. He's right. I've been to many, many Republican dinners where most nonwhites present have been serving the food. (Or giving the keynote.) If Republicans are bothered when people make that observation, they should try to make it less true.
Atrios points this one out.
At least there is one honest person at NRO.
As you can see below, those that do show up are well, unsavory sorts with interesting agendas.
Dean is right and even Republicans should admit it.
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Howard Dean, just four days into his job as Democratic National chairman, called Wednesday for New York's state Republican chairman to apologize or resign over remarks linking Democrats to a civil rights lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.
Calling Stephen Minarik's comments "offensive," the former Vermont governor said, "The American people deserve better than this type of political character assassination."
Far from apologizing, Minarik issued a statement deriding the national chairman's comments as "the latest `Dean Scream."'
"We are confident Howard Dean will continue Terry McAuliffe's rich tradition of raising money, losing races, and staying out of touch with mainstream Americans," Minarik said. "It is not the Republican Party's problem that these far-left activists have made their home in the Democratic party."
..................................
"The Democratic Party doesn't have anything to do with Lynne Stewart," Pataki said Tuesday. "Obviously, she was found guilty of a heinous criminal act and that is not something within the realm of appropriate political discourse in New York state."
"I'm pleased that Governor Pataki publicly rebuked Mr. Minarik for his offensive comments," Dean said in a statement issued by the Democratic National Committee. "I agree with Governor Pataki and my fellow New York Democrats that Mr. Minarik was completely out of line."
"But this is not settled. Mr. Minarik has shown neither regret nor remorse for what he said," Dean added, calling on other New York and national Republican leaders to "follow Governor Pataki's lead and rebuke Minarik."
Minarik's comments drew a sharp response from state Democrats.
"Don't accuse the 5.5 million Democrats in this state of treason if you hope to win our votes," said Howard Wolfson, a Democratic consultant and top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "And, if you make that mistake again, you best be prepared to make it to my face, because we love this country much too much to allow you to ever question our patriotism."
The head of the NYGOP is talking about losing races? Remember Rick Lazio and Howard Mills? No? They were the GOP's last two candidates to run for Senate. Pataki is the last GOP office holder to win statewide office. Bloomberg won in a fluke, and is unlike to repeat, unless 50 percent of hispanics vote for him over Freddy Ferrer.
Minarik has already embarassed his boss with his idiotic comment. Look, Mike Long, head of the conservative party, already says stuff to piss people off. He doesn't need a conservative clone in the GOP. It won't work. Then he piles on. He may think bombthrowing works, but he's gonna get hammered over and over. My bet is that he will say something racial about the NYC mayoral race. Dean is not McAuliffe. He will come back at this guy and push others to do so.
He's supposed to be Pataki's man here, but who pushed him into this job? Joe Bruno, head of the State Senate? A sop to Mike Long, who's support Pataki needs? Kieran Mahoney, his top aide? Who is responsible for this idiot and how long will it be before he slips up again.
But my prediction is a guy with this kind of mouth is going to wind up in trouble over race.
Lynne Stewart may have been a radical, but people liked her and tossing her name about as some kind of traitor doesn't cut much with people. Then to go after Dean is even stupider. Wolfson implies that he's about to smack the taste out of this guy's mouth, which is not uncommon in New York politics. What is amazing is that he's got the shell of a party to rescue, about to lose the governor's office and not stop Hillary Clinton, and he's got time to pick fights with Howard Dean? He's got more pressing problems.
He was specifically hired to reform the party, not hurt his boss with stupid comments.
WASHINGTON — I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.
How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?
Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?
It's hard to believe the White House could hit rock bottom on credibility again, but it has, in a bizarre maelstrom that plays like a dark comedy. How does it credential a man with a double life and a secret past? .......................
I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?
At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.
In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.
Mr. McClellan shrugged this off to Editor & Publisher, oddly noting, "People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors." .........................
They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.
Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it.
Finally, someone gets it. We know Mistah Kurtz is clueless, and Wonkette silly and shallow, but between the Daily Show and now MoDo, people are getting the point that this is not "personal". Dowd couldn't get a hard pass for the White House, despite being one of the most famous journalists in Washington. Yet rent boy Guckert could.
Maybe David Corn might take the hint. Maureen Dowd thinks this is a serious story.
And by NOT giving credit to the blogs, she actually moves the story to a different level. It's no longer just as the useless Bob Beckel said "lynchmob bloggers", but the lead columnist in the nation's most important paper asking hard questions about this Guckert guy.
The blogs shouldn't be the issue and MoDo makes it about the facts.
I am a 33-year-old mother with one 5-month-old daughter. I am currently married to a 31-year-old man whom I love deeply.......
Since 2001 my husband has been working with my employer as an insurance adjuster. Our daughter was born on Aug. 27, 2004. When my daughter was 10 weeks old my husband told me he was not happy in our marriage and wanted a divorce. This came as a total shock to me. I have since discovered that he is having an affair and intends to make some kind of life with a 23-year-old girl who works at the motel he was staying at while working in Illinois. He has been unfaithful for about two months.
I do not believe in divorce and especially not when children are involved. I live in Alabama and my husband is living in Illinois. ....... A.
Ok, Cary gently says get a lawyer.
I would say something simple: he doesn't want to be married and he never has. He's been travelling, living his life and being on the road. You think this is his first girlfriend? He chose a life where you would serve as a pit stop. You have never been a priority in his life and now he has some tramp he wants to be with. Sometimes, it's just madness, but in this case, you never really had a marriage.
Divorce is not a belief system, it is a legal proceeding. Your husband lives about 1000 miles away in another state, with another woman, and at least he has the decency to get a divorce. He has been married to you two years, has a new woman, despite you having a newborn, and wants a divorce. Well, he is just signing on paper what he is already living. I think he's going to wind up without a family or a 23 year old mistress, but stupid decisons have a price, and he's about to make one.
Am I pushing the envelope too far to suggest that there is common ground between the politics of slavery and the politics of Social Security?
When moral problems are transformed into politics, we can find surprising similarities in issues that otherwise might seem worlds apart.
This past week I attended a conference at Washington's Cato Institute on Social Security reform. I moderated a panel examining the impact of personal retirement accounts on women, minorities and the poor.
Listening to the case for transforming Social Security to a regime of personal ownership is simple and compelling. The numbers no longer add up in our current system. Personal accounts would allow ownership and wealth creation. If we had to start from scratch, no one would want the system we now have. If the case is so clear, why isn't it simple to change?
This month is Black History month, so my thoughts float back to another time a few hundred years ago when America was bound in another system that had been around for many years and also needed changing. Slavery.
.........................
We are saddled today with a government program, designed many years ago, that diminishes the wealth, benefits of ownership and freedom of every working American.
There have been numerous attempts over the past decades to fix Social Security. These attempts have only prolonged the agony and made the exit more painful and complicated.
When we look back 200 years, we wonder how great men could have turned away their eyes. I wonder today whether the outcome of the great Social Security debate will reflect the ideals of a free nation or calculations of entrenched political interests.
Maybe most to the point, Ellis concludes his essay by saying, "Perhaps it was inevitable, even preferable, that slavery as a national problem be moved from the Congress to the churches, where it could come under scrutiny as a sin requiring national purging, rather than as a social dilemma requiring a political solution."
This, perhaps, gives us a hint of the nature of our problem today
This former welfare cheat would rape the history of slavery to push the ideas of her masters plan to throw millions of black people into penury. Of all the black conservatives, Parker is by far the slimiest and least able.
No. In fact, within three months I was pregnant again. And even though I was living with a guy at the time, I knew somebody else was the father of the baby. But because I'd promised myself I wasn't going to abort again, and I didn't want my boyfriend to know I was messing around, I moved out. I could have moved back home with my parents in New Jersey, but I didn't want to leave California. I was twenty-three when I quit my job in circulation at the Los Angeles Times so I could go on welfare, which I stayed on for three-and-a-half years. By collecting $465 a month from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), plus food stamps, and by getting a part-time job that paid in cash "under the table," I could rent a nice apartment and earn far more money than working an honest forty-hour week. Later, I had no trouble dropping my daughter, Angel, off at a government-funded day care, selling some free medical-care stickers to buy drugs, and hanging out at the beach all afternoon. Now I look back and say, "God, how was I so blind?" Yet through my sinful lifestyle I'd totally lost my understanding of right and wrong.
So this former drug dealing welfare cheat now wants to deny working people the protection of social security. This kind of thing disgusts me. Most people on welfare do not game the system, most are honest, and just because she found Jesus doesn't make her any less of a scumbag. I know a lot of people in exactly that position who did not cheat the system. And now she wants to lecture people on morals?
Look, the GOP lets these hustlers, and I don't believe this is any less of a game, represent them to the black community and they are held in disdain. In the black community, we don't mind people who come from deeply troubled backgrounds. But she brags about gaming the system, stealing from it, even today. She doesn't exactly seem ashamed of her criminal life, one she had every option to avoid. She even had a straight job, a good family, and chose to live like a skell. Look, if you're a foster kid trying not to peddle your ass, getting through the day is a triumph. But if you choose that life when you have options, don't come to me and tell me how good you are.
Since she's uneducated and unread, her facile, and fucking stupid comparison of social security and slavery, is hardly worth comment. Slavery stole labor from people, social security protects people from the vagaries of life and secures their retirement.
And briefly, social security is not an investment tool. It is insurance. I know Parker is way too stupid to figure this out, especially when her masters have given their marching orders, but when you think placing every thing in the market is smart, well, too bad the President disagrees, and places his money in T-Bills.
Did you know liberals aren't appalled by child molestation? Before you send us angry letters about this, let us explain: We're not saying it, Reuters is. From a dispatch about the Michael Jackson trial:
Legal experts say prosecutors will look for jurors who are older, conservative, less taken with celebrity, willing to accept authority and appalled by child molestation.
Jackson's attorneys may look for more liberal jurors who have advanced degrees and are critical thinkers who question authority
.
Is it possible that Reuters has a heretofore undetected conservative bias? After all, not only does this dispatch make liberals look like degenerates; it also omits the scare quotes around the emotive phrase child molestation.
And if you place the drill bit here, you won't find much in my husband's the president's brain
Blogger has been acting funky for the last few hours, as has my stomach. I'm feeling better, but the revenge of Boston Market turned into an ugly yellow flood from my body most of the afternoon and evening, which is why I didn't post anything else. Then, when I did, blogger got funky on me.
It happens from time to time, and we appologize for it.
By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 16, 2005; Page C01
The Jeff Gannon story is still bouncing around the Internet, and now there are pictures
The X-rated twist has made for a lot of clandestine clicking in a town where Deep Throat conjures images not of a porn star but of a man in a parking garage. But it has also deepened the debate over blogging and the tactics used to drive a conservative reporter from his job as White House correspondent for two Web sites owned by a Republican activist.
In most Beltway melodramas, the resignation ends the story. The problem for Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, is that he told The Washington Post and CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that he never launched the Web sites whose provocative names he had registered, such as hotmilitarystud.com. But a Web designer in California said yesterday that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request.
The latest developments were first reported by John Aravosis, a liberal political consultant and gay activist who has a Web site called americablog.org. "What struck me initially was the hypocrisy angle," Aravosis said. He said he was offended by what he called Gannon's "antigay" writing.
Gannon became a target of liberal bloggers after he asked President Bush at a news conference last month a loaded and inaccurate question about how he could deal with Senate Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." They pointed to articles such as one last year in which Gannon wrote that John Kerry "might someday be known as 'the first gay president' " because he "has enjoyed a 100 percent rating from the homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), since 1995 in recognition of his support for the pro-gay agenda." Saying his family was being harassed, the reporter quit last week after online critics began digging into his background.
...............
Ana Marie Cox, who has been joking about the Gannon photos on her satirical site, wonkette.com, said they are creating a buzz because "obviously pictures of naked people are titillating." But, she added, "bloggers are wrong to bring that into the mix of things of why he shouldn't be a White House correspondent. Aren't we bloggers in favor of a lower bar of access, not a higher one?
Arrrgh.
What a fucknozzle.
No, questions about Guckert was raised by E&P in the fall, as he had been regarded as a clown by then. The fact that with two days of digging, that he had been exposed as a manwhore. Which is information thw WH should have had. The fact is NONE of this is personal, none. All of this is public information found online and is public conduct.
Now, Ana:
You treat everything like it's all shits and giggles, which is fine, but when you open your mouth about something serious, you sound absolutely braindead.
You silly twit, it's not about naked pictures, but how a criminal, which is what a prostitute is, got into the White House for two years using a daily pass and got CONFIDENTIAL CIA DOCUMENTS exposing a non official cover agent. The ones the CIA spends nearly a million to train and support. Did you actually read any of the stories about this? Do you get it's not just for cheap jokes? Guckert's access to the White House wasn't only unprecidented, but violated the White House's own rules.
Why shit on other people's work if you don't understand or care what they did. John and the posters at Kos have done some might fine reporting on this, and you blow it off like this was about his dick.
I'm sorry, but a manwhore advertising online who turns himself into a "reporter" for a GOP web site while claaiming to be a conservative Christian, is a story. If he posts naked pictures online, it's not just a cheap joke, but prima facie evidence that he is a criminal soliciting clients for prostitution, which is a crime in DC. And the question is how he got into the White House.
If you were confused about this, e-mailing someone might have cleared it up.
Capital Games The Bizarre Gannon Affair 02/15/2005 @ 3:30pm
There is something about the fuss over the White House reporter formerly known as Jeff Gannon that makes me uneasy. No, it's not the sexually explicit photos of him that accompany what appears to be ads in which he offers himself as a gay prostitute for clients seeking a military type. (These photographs were discovered by blogger John Aravosis. These photos are an issue because the Bush White House granted Gannon--whose real name seems to be James Guckert--entry to press briefings conducted by press secretary Scott McClellan and press conferences with George W. Bush. Gannon/Guckert, who wrote for the conservative Talon News service (which is run by a Republican activist), was awarded such access even though he did not qualify for a congressional press pass--the standard press pass in Washington. It is legitimate to ask why the White House permitted a fellow with a spotty past and questionable credentials to become part of the press corps. Did he get special treatment because he was a conservative? After all, this whole to-do started when Gannon/Guckert at a January 26 press conference aked Bush a softball question in which he characterized Senate Democratic leaders as "people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."
But let me raise a cautionary note or two. The blogosphere in recent months has become the piling-on-osphere. When there is blood in the water--or on the keyboard--bloggers rush in for the kill. (Gannon resigned from Talon News a few days ago.) .............. But with the Gannon/Guckert case, I wonder if there was a touch of blog-hysteria. (Bloggers, don't jump on me. I blog too. Click here. I'm only wondering, not accusing.) I am not suggesting, as I noted above, that the who-is-Gannon story was not appropriate grist for the blog-mill. But is it possible that significance of this odd tale was inflated during the red-hot pursuit of this fellow? I've met Gannon a few times. For some reason, he was eager to say hello to me when I last visited the White House press room and was handing out invitations to the party for my book, The Lies of George W. Bush. He struck me as mostly innocuous.
.
And thank you for being a tool David.
I'm going to jump all in your ass here.
Here's the deal: just because he seemed innocuous doesn't mean his presence in the White House is not worthy of serious questioning. The fact that he got the Plame document is even more of a reason to question why he was there. As was his behavior in the press room. I saw the gaggle the day he asked his question, and wondered why a reporter would ask such a leading, pro-administration question. Then to find out he was NOT a reporter, but a manwhore was quite a shock.
Here is a prime example of why liberals have gotten their asses kicked. Let's question the motives of people asking questions. Was Corn asleep in the 1990's? Remember the White House Travel Office? Henry Cisneros? Mike Espy? Where was your outrage then? Did you loudly question the motives of the people making these charges? I remember the empassioned defense by liberals of Julie Hiatt Steele and Susan McDougal. How the Nation was filled with article after article defending these women and the injustice foisted upon then. The searing investigations of Ken Starr's ties to the hard right and tobacco.
Oh, you mean that didn't happen? Silly me. They were still too busy paying the drunk Chris "Kim Philby" Hitchens to tell us how evil Clinton was.
How come you don't find any hysteria in Reynolds's backing of internment for the Japanese, based on Michelle Malkin's racist book. Or the Powerline accusation of Jimmy Carter committing treason. LGF's daily racism.
David, the right daily puts things out which are straight up fiction or grossly offesnive, and you worry about the piling on of a criminal working in the White House? Is that the kind of logic which makes the Nation easy to skip on a weekly basis? No one said he wasn't a nice guy, or was evil incarnate. Most of us don't care about his sexuality either. But we do want to know why someone connected to one of Bush's main supporters gets a press pass he doesn't even come close to qualifying for. Especially when he has illegally offered sex for sale on the Internet. Much of the information about him was found through Google.
Why are you being so clueless here? It's quite simple: someone working for a Republican backer of Bush, who had engaged in criminal activity, was admitted to the White House for TWO YEARS without a proper background check. David, just imagine the outrage if this was happening in 1999 or 2000. Congress would have dragged people to the relevant committees, lawyers hired, prosecutors in action.
Instead, you sit back like the kind of useless liberal which allowed the GOP to ruin this country and vilify us, and wonder if the people asking the questions are the guilty ones of doing something wrong. Just because the gay sex angle makes you queasy, the Plame angle should make you intensely curious as to what his true role was. But since he was "innocuous", let's just whip out the Washington manners book and excuse him. Well, you know the difference between you and most bloggers? We don't live in DC and aren't bound by Washington manners. If a manwhore is in the White House, acting as a reporter, I want to know why.
The football authorities in Tanzania are warning that the sport could be in danger of collapse because of the influence of the English Premiership.
More and more Tanzanians have access to England's top league following the introduction of live satellite transmission and it seems that many of them prefer to watch the world's top players perform in England from the comfort of their neighbourhood bar, rather than go to watch Tanzanian footballers at the local stadium.
The qbar in Dar es Salaam is one of many bars across the country where you can watch English Premiership teams.
It may be midnight on a weekday night, but I recently found it packed with Tanzanians watching Manchester United take on Chelsea.
On a hot and steamy tropical night, the temperatures were even hotter among the partisan crowd of both Chelsea and United supporters.
Phares Magesa, a Manchester United fan, says the Premiership is a draw because they play good football and have exceptional talent.
"We now have access to television, radio and internet, so we get more information about players, clubs," he says.
"We know more about English football even though we have a local league here, we don't have much information about our own teams here."
.................... And that support is highly visible on the streets of Dar es Salaam.
Apart from the replica shirts showing allegiance mainly to Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool, there are buses decorated with club crests and daubed with the names of top players like Van Nistlerooy and Henry as well as many of the African stars who are now making headlines in the Premiership.
This is one of the reasons Malcolm Glazer wants to own ManU.
But European soccer cannibalizes African soccer to a frightening degree. The best African players play in Europe, leaving behind second rate teams. The growth of the EPL is the outcome of live broadcasts and marketing. The top teams in the EPL have a disproportionate amount of power just from their merchandizing alone.
The Rego Park site where Wal-Mart wants to locate its first New York City store is attracting interest from other retailers, including merchants who might be more acceptable to community and labor groups as well as elected officials.
...................... Its interest in soliciting other potential tenants may be heightened by the ferocious battle it faces in bringing Wal-Mart to the city.
Local unions and community activists are vowing to fight the entry of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, into the city. They object to the company's anti-union policies and its record of labor violations.
The battle could complicate Vornado's plans, putting pressure on the developer to seek out a different tenant.
................... "Basically they [Vornado] kind of said to Wal-Mart, 'It's in your best interest to get out there and see all these people,'" this person said, referring to politicians such as City Council members Melinda Katz, chair of the Land Use Committee, and Helen Sears, the member whose district includes Rego Park.
.........................
Wal-Mart did meet with Helen Sears, who warned the retailer that it would have to reconsider some of its labor policies before it can expect to locate in the five boroughs. ...................
As for Vornado, she said, "I think they were quite surprised at the response to Wal-Mart. It came very quickly. They assured me they had nothing negotiated.".
Basically, they told Wal-Mart they better be union-friendly if they want to come here. Which is a shock to the Wally World system. Unions? Worker rights? Well, the odds are high they will lose that spot to another big box company
BY GRAHAM RAYMAN AND ELIZABETH SANGER STAFF WRITERS
February 15, 2005, 10:43 PM EST
The MTA set a March 21 deadline for the New York Jets and Madison Square Garden to submit their "best and final" offers for the western rail yard -- a move that opens the door for other developers to bid.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Peter Kalikow said in a letter to both parties that bidders must supply a letter of credit and a site analysis. MTA officials will then compare the proposals and present them to the board on March 31.
"The MTA board and customers need an expeditious and orderly resolution of the sale of this important asset," he said.
The MTA will release bid documents on Feb. 22.
"If other developers are interested in bidding, they, too, must comply with the same ground rules," Kalikow said.
The Jets proposal to build a stadium on the yard had been the only game in town until MSG submitted an offer earlier this month.
The Jets offered to pay the MTA $100 million, with the city picking up the $315 million cost of a platform. MSG, which wants to build housing, has offered $350 million for the site and $250 million for the platform.
"The good news is that this confirms that the MTA is opening the process to both bidders," said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. "It obviously is very short notice for anyone else contemplating a bid."
This is long overdue. The Garden will probably get partners and get the money to do their plans, trumping Bloomberg's private deal to steal the rail yards for the Jets.
Steve Gilliard takes pity on Maureen Dowd ("Please will someone be MoDo's valentine?"), and wonders if I take pity on her too. He poignantly asks, "Isn't it sad that this intelligent, attractive woman is alone? And has to use her column to troll for dates?"
It is sad. It is a sad, sorry sight for a New York Times columnist to use the precious column inches that every pundit in America covets to take out a personal ad redolent of crumpled cocktail napkins and Dorothy Parkerish wisecracks disguising heartache. If MoDo's quest for a soulmate continues to cough up dust, she will be reduced to emulating Nick Kristof and purchasing the freedom of Thai go-go boys. But go-go boys, no matter how well they shake it, can never replace the love of a good man.
I wonder if there's any hope for MoDo in the romance department. I fear not. When men and women patrolling for a spouse reach their forties bruised and unmarried, it usually means that the mistakes they've been making throughout their single lives have become ingrained bad habits, and they'll continue sabotaging themselves no matter how aware they are of those habits. It's as if they have a defective chip in their brains, a repetitive cognitive disorder.
Uh, Jim, Thai go-go boys are usually gay.
I think she would start trolling for U Maryland grad students working in the Washington bureau. Speaking of Nick Kristoff, his wife is a Times reporter. Bob Woodward's wife is a WaPo reporter. Many journalists marry within the trade or in closely allied fields, like the law.
I think that MoDo's problem was that a mere reporter wasn't good enough. We're fat, balding or rail thin. No, she needed a superstar. Which is why she dated the junkie Aaron Sorkin and sex addict Michael Douglas. However, high profile men make lousy catches, since there is always a model who needs a daddy to bang her in the can.
I would bet there is more than one person in the Washington bureau who would be more than glad to fuck her silly, but they're not good enough. She needs a CEO or something. You can tell that she has esteem problems because she keeps chasing these men, who basically fuck her and dump her. Liz Phair's Fuck and Run comes to mind. But when you reach a certain age, that gets silly.
But as to the rest of the column, Jim is, of course, right.
Years ago I received a crash course in dating and romancing from a Southern spitfire, an experience I fictionalized in my novel The Catsitters. She was a brilliant tactician, completely unsentimental about her sex and mine, which mean there was no "Be Yourself" "Show Her the Real You" foolishness. I asked her once why she didn't coach women and she said, "Because they don't listen. Or rather, they listen, nod, and agree, and then go and do the very thing that you urged them not to do. And give you this story later about how they 'just couldn't help themselves.'"
I learned this myself. Women used to ask me "guy" questions for advice about someone they were dating, how they should handle certain situations, and I have to say I gave good advice, because it was Darlene's advice translated through a male outlook. Then I gave up, because time and again women would pretend to accept the advice only to turn around and do the exact opposite, explaining to me, "I couldn't not call him because that's not who I am" or "I believe in putting my feelings on the table." Well, they kept putting those feelings on the table, and the guys kept backing away from the table and moonwalking to the nearest exit.
Apropos, check out Melanie Thernstrom's eyeopener on matchmakers in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. I know Melanie slightly, which makes the piece more piquant, esp the passage where a matchmaker tries to give her advice. I didn't venture advice to Melanie when we were chummier because she's one of those sincere types (tweet tweet) who believes that people are basically nice and good and that there's nothing in a fledgling relationship that can't be resolved through better communication, and as Lou Grant once said, there's no reasoning with a fanatic.
I first heard of Florence through her son, Larry, who is a friend of mine. When I initially e-mailed her, telling her I wanted to write about matchmakers, she did not seem interested. Instead, she wrote back: ''Larry tells me you are not interested in being matched. I told Larry, Don't be so sure about that!''
In the following months, I was unable to shift Florence's attention to the article I was writing. If the journalist is single, she must be matched. What kind of single person refuses? Then she thought of Princeton. Why couldn't I date Princeton? she wanted to know. After all, we live near each other.
I demurred. Nothing against Princeton, I explained, but an absence of a sense of potential for deep connection.
Did I imagine that he wasn't literary enough? Florence wondered. ''He is a good catch,'' she wrote. ''He is very smart. You could marry him and have a friend who has more literature DNA.''
When successive e-mail messages over the course of the year revisited the subject of Princeton, I tried to be clearer. I am not interested. No interest. Not. And neither is he.
But interest for a driven matchmaker is neither here nor there. ''Please just consider some bourgeois perturbations to what you've been thinking,'' Florence wrote. ''I know this will make you angry, but . . . I've made some people angry on the way to making them happy.''
Although I had denied it, Florence was convinced that I was not drawn to Princeton because he was a corporate lawyer. She knew that I had once been engaged to an artist and liked poetry. So she decided that I imagined I could be captivated only by a poetic type. But ''tortured poeticness may ultimately be a shallow contributor to love,'' she wrote. Then, with a neat rhetorical trick, she declared: ''This is not to say that there aren't tortured poems that are worthy of love. It is to say that those poems can be part of your marriage by owning the book and taking it off the shelf when the children are sleeping. . . .
''I am wondering,'' she concluded, ''if you should consider changing your model. . . . '' .................... Upstairs at Barneys one wintry afternoon, Samantha was doing a shopping makeover with a woman, for which she would charge $350. ''I won't accept her as a client until she dresses more suitably,'' Samantha tells me. ''She looks too 'downtown.'''
Downtown is examining a skimpy miniskirt when we arrive, though nothing in the store is as short as what she is wearing. A cashmere sweater with a black-and-white image of a nun knit into the chest is stretched across her breasts, so that the nun appears to be dissolving in her voluptuousness. Downtown says she likes to dress like ''a rock chick, like Pamela Anderson.'' Each rack is a struggle. Downtown pulls out a short powder-pink-rabbit-fur jacket, and Samantha holds up a white wool pantsuit, which Downtown observes looks like something from a ''Virginia Slims ad.''
''You're still going to look sexy,'' Samantha assures her. ''But guys don't like it when you can see it all upfront.''
''I get a lot of compliments -- I can't walk by a doorman without being whistled at,'' Downtown says defensively.
Samantha gives her a you're-not-going-to-be-dating-doormen look.
Samantha describes Downtown as ''a bit of a lost soul.'' She worked in the music industry in Los Angeles for many years but recently moved back to an Upper East Side apartment, where she is trying to write a screenplay and buying vintage clothing and jewelry to resell on eBay. In her mid-30's, she is still dating the kind of men she gravitated toward a decade ago -- aspiring actors, artists, writers, hipsters, guys who like to live on the edge. Internet dating was ''worse than her worst nightmare'' -- encouraging her tendency toward disastrous affairs.
She thinks now of the boys she knew at her prep school -- nice, bright, hard-working ''vanilla boys'' whom her parents would approve of, and she therefore disdained. ''Even a year ago,'' she would have rejected them, she says, but she regrets that attitude now. For the first time, she has a sense of needing intervention. She needs someone to take her under her wing and bring her into a social circle she has never considered desirable -- introduce her to the vanilla boys who have grown into marriageable lawyers and doctors and financiers, with whom she could have the life she was brought up for. She needs someone to circumvent her own desires and help her make better choices. Downtown's mother suggested Samantha, with whom she had a social connection. Downtown was resistant but agreed to a makeover so she would at least have clothes to wear to cocktail parties with her parents.
Which is why she's still single. Dated a loser, come on, he was a loser, who I bet cheated on her, and wouldn't commit to the things into her life.
I once had a long conversation with someone, about appropriate boyfriend behavior. She described an incident where her boyfriend ripped a contract he was signing from her and wouldn't let her read it. I was astonished, since this person had some training in the matter.
I explained that any guy who would do that is an asshole. Boyfriends who constantly humiliate you are not good boyfriends. Women often don't see what guys see, when it comes to their relationships. Men who need to build their self-esteem on the backs of their women aren't much good as men. The same kind of assholes who would call them fat in an argument.
You know, hipsters and bad boys, who I detest, are great when you're in your 20's. But as you grow up and want stablilty, these guys are fucking useless. They're users. Why do I detest them? Because they make it hard for people who aren't assholes to get laid. You know, you can be exciting AND responsible. Hell, in my 20's, I was drinking hard and responsible. What's dull about that? Of course I was useless with women, but that's another story.
Men are eager to listen to advice about relationships, because they know they don't get them right. Women, otoh, don't want to hear it. I understand Jim's frustration. You tell women things, and they get pissed. Like a 27 year old guy dating a 20 year old has an angle. Do not want to hear it.
Oh, and here's a hint: you are not 25 forever. It's cute to dress a certain way and act a certain way in your 20's. Downtown is figuring out that men who have normal lives like women who dress normally, not like hipster chicks or rockers. Wny? Because no one wants to take home a slut to meet their mother.
I think guys figure out around 30 that it's time to cut the shit and start dating women seriously, as in marriable women. Now, that doesn't mean you'll marry them, but the bartender/waitress set tend to fade as you start to date more serious people. People with real job and aspirations. I've dated one woman without a graduate degree since I turned 30. But a lot of women think what works at 25 can work at 35, and it doesn't. First of all, if you want a 25 year old, you can date a 25 year old. Second, you get tired of hearing about the loser boyfriends and bad dates. They don't change, because you keep making the same mistakes. I once yelled at my best friend to change who he dates if he ever wants a serious girlfriend. It kinda worked, but I could never say that to a woman, because it would hit a brick wall.
I think the reason men get married is not romance or love, but trust. You get tired of wondering about what someone really thinks. I believe people marry, at least successfully, people they trust. You just want someone who doesn't have a totally seperate agenda or is just looking out for themselves. That you're not going to get judged for everything you do, well until you ARE married, but that's the problem in living with people.
They get a new trial. A police officer speaks to anti-McDonald's activists, David Morris, center, and Helen Steel, right, as they distribute leaflets to passers-by outside a McDonald's fast food restaurant, in Wood Green, north London, in this Saturday, June 21, 1997 file photo.
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Two activists found to have libeled the U.S. fast food chain McDonald's after the longest court case in English legal history did not have a fair trial, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.
Helen Steel and David Morris, whose 1984 pamphlet accused McDonald's (MCD.N) of starving the Third World, destroying rainforests and selling unhealthy food, were also deprived of their freedom of expression by the 1997 ruling, it said.
The Strasbourg-based court ordered Britain to pay them a total of 35,000 euros ($45,400) and offer them a retrial. Britain has three months to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the court said the denial of state legal aid to the defendants, a part-time barmaid and an unemployed single father, had skewed the case from the start.
``The denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's,'' it wrote.
The ruling also argued there was ``a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate.''
The original decision had rejected the argument that activists enjoyed the same freedom of expression as journalists.
McDonald's office in Britain said it had no immediate comment.
Two things: British libel law protects the establishment by forcing the defendents to prove their claims under brutal restrictions. Such a suit in the US would have never gotten past the district court, mainly because McDonald's would have had to prove the charges were both malicious and false.
Second, no US court could rule such a distinction. Which is why so many journalists are filing briefs in support of the Apple defendents. There is no discretion between the journalist and the activist in this kind of thing. While journalists have some protections for their work, the discretion is not so broad as to create two classes of people discussing political opinions.
Now it emerges that there is a strong movement in southern Iraq for the establishment of autonomous Shi'ite provinces as a precursor to introducing vilayet-e-faqih (rule by the clergy) in the whole country.
Of these calls for autonomy or federalism, the most disconcerting for US authorities is the call for religious rule. Already, leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq are pushing for "Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution".
To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".
Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.
The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba'ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord.
..................
For the Americans, the situation in southern Iraq has turned into a double-edged sword. Iraqis there fully embraced the elections - even if they had to be convinced by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to do so - and this participation was welcomed as a sign of democracy taking root in the country.
But with Shi'ite religious parties emerging as the strongest power, no sooner were the elections over than voices were raised for the creation of an autonomous southern Iraqi region, and for vilayet-e-faqih .
................
Observers say this is the beginning of a new era which could climax in a movement for vilayet-e-faqih , a compulsory part of the Shi'ite faith that is intertwined with the concept of imamat or leadership (all Muslims under one leader). The difference between a caliph and an imam is that a caliph can be anyone accepted by Muslims, but an imam must hail from the Prophet Mohammed's family and be a recognized religious authority (clergy).
Already, members of the Da'wa Party, many of whom were taught in Iran, have taken over mosques in Basra, and members of Hezbollah have heavily infiltrated the Shi'ite population, in addition to Iranian intelligence and members of the Pasdaran-i-Inqalab (Iran's Revolutionary Guards) to pave the way for vilayet-e-faqih.
Man, just when you hear of something stupid, you get trumped by even more stupid. What kind of militia opposing clerical rule could survive in Shia dominated Iraq?
Either the clergy goes into the street and demands the US leave, or they start the civil war. Sadr is already the liason to the Sunni resistance. If they try to make a move against Sistani, he can turn Sadr City into an armed camp overnight. It would be in his interest to defend Sistani, and many of Sistani's aides would have no problem calling their Shia coreligionists to arms. The US created this mess and now they think they can keep the Shia down? All it would take is Sistani calling for Shia to not join the police and army to fuck the US quite over. He drops a fatwa on the security forces, what does the US do then?
Given the rank corruption of Allawi and the INA, I would not be surprised to see those weapons in Sunni guerrilla hands in a month.
The US gave Sistani what he wanted. Now they have to live with it.
Why was a man-whore allowed to question the President?
"Jeff Gannon's" secret life Revelations that the bogus reporter worked as a gay escort are the latest twist in the affair that has the White House squirming -- and Democrats demanding explanations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Eric Boehlert
Guckert insisted his only involvement with the sex sites was as a software consultant and, he added: "Those sites were never hosted. There's -- nothing ever went up on them," as he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 10. In an interview posted Feb. 11 with Editor & Publisher magazine, Guckert made the same claim: "They were done through a private company [Bedrock Corp.] I was involved with doing Web site development about five years ago. The sites were never hosted, and nothing was ever posted to the sites." On Monday, John Aravosis posted on his liberal site AmericaBlog.org detailed evidence indicating that not only was Guckert personally involved with the Web sites, but he was also offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend. .....................
Writing for the right-wing media advocacy group, Accuracy in Media, Cliff Kincaid dismissed the controversy as "laughable," insisting Guckert's only "crimes" were "that he was too pro-Republican, attended White House briefings, and asked questions unfair to Democrats." And at Power Line, the conservative outpost that wrote relentlessly about CBS's troubles with its Bush National Guard story last year, the site has confessed bewilderment about the Guckert controversy. "I can't figure out what the story is," wrote one of Power Line's contributors.
Ah, our idiot friends on the right have no problem with a man-whore turning tricks and covering the White House.
For our friends at Powerline, I will explain why this is a story:
Man-whore Jim Guckert, on behalf of Bush friend and supporter Bobby Eberle, without so much as Reporting I in his background, was allowed to enter the White House daily for nearly two years. The question of his being a man-whore, or rent boy, if you like, is beyond doubt. And it would have been figured out if he had undergone the FBI background check required for the hard pass used by the other reporters.
The question is why a man-whore would be allowed to act as a reporter. Was it to provide a lifeline for Scotty McClellan? Was it because someone owed Eberle a favor? Was it because this was someone's favorite man-whore and they wanted to hook him up? It's not because bloggers are begging for accreditation for the White House. His presence there was a favor to someone.
The fact that he was a hack can be determined by his copy on the Talon News web site, including WH press releases in all their glory.
But our friends on the right are full of shit. If this had been in the Clinton White House, a special prosecutor would have been whipped up in a week.
One of the great weaknesses of the current GOP is the free hand Bush has to be as corrupt as he chooses. Congress should be intensly curious as to how a criminal (and prostitution is a crime in DC, as the brothers in Lawton can tell you) has access to one of the most secure buildings in the United States, or should be. He was there as a favor to someone. It could be as simple as doing Bobby Eberle a solid or as complex as helping a favorite rent boy out.
But whatever it is, there's WH influence here. Was Guckert someone's bitch, offering up his ass for access, was he there on behalf of his master Eberle, or because he knew something about someone in the White House?
While it is amusing that Talon ran anti-faggot screeds, his being gay is only barely relevant to the story. If this was a woman, this would be the same issue.
Let's do this once again: Guckert is a criminal if he was a man-whore/rent boy in DC. An alleged criminal was allowed to have access to the White House and come in contact with the President. Basic security procedures were violated to allow this alleged criminal to enter the White House for two years. The question is why. No one cares if he was a columnist for a legitimate network and asked his bonehead questions. But he wasn't. By the White House's own rules he had no business in the press room. The question is why was he there and who did he blow to get there.
His paid dick activities, are humorous, but the real issue is security. Maybe that might be of interest to our friends on the right. Or will they continue to be deaf, dumb and stupid about this because he claims to be a Republican.
TruthNews of impending announcements of a $500 Mac and new applications spurred Apple to legal action. Mac rumor web site Think Secret and other individuals and alleged that recent articles contain Apple trade secrets.
Is the lawsuit designed to protect Apple’s “secrets,” impede free speech rights of web sites, or is this simply a new component of marketing and PR?
Numerous Mac web sites and mainstream media have spread the “rumor” of an impending $500 Mac and new Mac applications. The pro-Mac web site Think Secret was one of the first to release the information to the public.
Think Secret has often been the public source of accurate information (rumors) about new Apple product information, lending more respectability to recent news of a $500 Mac.
Is Apple attempting to plug a leak in the secretive corporate culture of Cupertino (thereby protecting important trade secrets), or is the Mac maker trying to intimidate the non-mainstream Mac media? Or, is this really a combination of both but with the added benefit (by design) of gaining tremendous public relations notice?
Here’s what cNet is reporting:
“Apple has filed a civil complaint against the owner of ThinkSecret.com and unnamed individuals who we believe stole Apple’s trade secrets...” “We believe that Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet.”
Hmmm. I see a few problems developing on the immediate horizon. First, Apple is well within their rights to sue to protect trade secrets. The company is among the most secretive in the US technology field.
How many of us knew about the sunflower iMac before the Time Magazine article?
Apple’s lawsuit, successful or not, will have a dampening effect on a number of Mac sites which specialize in digging up secret information (also known as “dirt” or rumors) for those of us who simply can’t get enough just by using our Macs daily.
The quote above says Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products from various individuals. These same individuals apparently violated confidentiality agreements with Apple. The Cupertino computer maker now wants their collective necks hung out to dry (to mix a few metaphors).
In the process, some Mac sites may scale back their dirt digging efforts in fear of the expense of a lawsuit or two from Apple.
Apple fucked up, since the kid at ThinkSecret got a decent lawyer. These kinds of suits are doomed in state and federal court, since the First Amendment trumps pretty much every other law. Apple cannot prove any theft, for one thing. And the deposition could reveal a lot more than one Apple secret. Why? Because as a defense, the defendent can ask exactly how Apple decides on a PR strategy, favored journalists, exactly what they consider a trade secret. I would think Apple would be scared shitless of discovery, much less an actual deposition. What they had wanted was to do one of two things: shut up MacRumors sites (MS ignores Windows rumors sites) and to scare employees.
I don't get why companies think everyone will roll over on them.
And considering that these folks are among the most ferverent Apple supporters, aren't they worried about a backlash. But given the culty comments on Dan Gilmor's column, most of the posters are clueless.
I'm all for companies protecting their rights, but suing writers is clueless and more likely to lead to an embarassing defeat. Jobs is a massive control freak, which may be fine with his machines, but once it gets into free speech, he's likely to be humiliated.
FEBRUARY 07, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - When Steve Jobs took the stage at the recent Macworld Conference and Expo in San Francisco to make his keynote speech, suspense was thick in the cavernous hall. But it wasn't the standard "What will he announce?" brand of suspense that has marked Apple Computer's recent events of this kind.
................. Apple, one of the most famously secretive companies in the technology business, frames this case and several like it as little more than attempts to protect massively valuable trade secrets. The value strikes me as questionable, and the larger reality is an Apple-aimed dagger at one of the foundations of free speech: a vibrant press.
................. In the case at hand, the target is Think Secret (www.thinksecret.com). The site, operated by a Harvard freshman named Nicholas Ciarelli (who goes by the site pen name of Nick dePlume), had apparently gotten information that was leaked by someone, perhaps inside Apple, about the consumer products Apple would be announcing.
Apple has said in statements that Think Secret induced people to violate nondisclosure agreements and that this somehow gives Apple a cause for legal action. That's debatable, but I'm fairly sure of this: If the party leaking information to Think Secret had sent it to, say, the San Jose Mercury News or The New York Times -- and had those publications run the news, as they no doubt would have -- Apple wouldn't be suing. Both newspapers have deep enough pockets to defend themselves.
Induce how? A college freshman, even at Harvard, doesn't have spare money to pay people. So what is the inducement? Anonymous fame?
The reason Apple can act so stupidly is the company is immune to consumer critcism. Apple culties refuse to demand decent standards from the company, and it's behavior can border on the thuggish to those out of it's control. There is no real reason for the obsessive secrecy of Apple except as part of Jobs's ego.
It's the DIVX suit part two: bully a defendent too poor to defend himself. Well, depending on the balls of the defendent, this can be a seriously risky strategy. All it takes is one defendent to get their back up and you have a serious legal battle. The kind of people who run these sites are not likely to run from a cease and desist letter.
A much smarter strategy would be to cultivate these people, leak information to them and generally encourage the image of them having a pipeline to Apple. These folks are not critical of Apple, they love the company. The kid running ThinkSecret has been more than willing to pull stuff when asked. He's cooperated with the company, and now they sue him?
Instead, this risks making a small fight big, when the newspapers file affadavits in favor of the bloggers. Apple could have a lot of secrets come out in open court.
I never understand why tech companies do this. Sure, some people will back down, but if they don't they will fight like they were in Pavlov's house, and won't be moved. It's a much riskier legal strategy than it seems at the time, especially when First Amendment issues are in play. Once that happens, then all hell can break loose.
Jen and I went to Chinese New Years celebrations yesterday.
Jen likes to drag innocent people, boyfriends, friends, strangers to this every year. This is the first year she's dragged me to this, but I doubt it will be the last. Drag should not imply unwillingness or reluctance. I was a lot less reluctant than she was to watch football or meet my friend Frank. Drag, in this case, would be more like the physical act of pulling me through crowds.
Anyway, we met at the playground north of the new federal court building and walked right up to Mott. Now, Jen used to go to Chinatown all the time when she lived in Brooklyn Heights. I used to go there when I was at NYU. You are familiar with Wo Hop, right? Milk and Cheese?
Well, anyway, it was pretty crowded. Now the crowd consisted of locals looking at their kids, people who like Chinatown, and people who had either adopted Asian cildren or were dating/married to Asians. Now, if you you looked around, it kind of makes people's ideas on race rather silly. Because if you paid attention, you would have seen kids acting like kids. Asian kids, white kids, black kids, they all acted remarkably the same, running around and throwing snaps and firing confetti into the air. Even the parade were mixed with various kids from the area. This was still an ethnic parade, but in a very New York way.
After a while, Jen, who is a sleepyhead and who's breakfast consisted of coffee, wanted dumplings from this dumpling shop, a small hole in the wall, but the line was long. It wasn't bad.
We then walked over to East Broadway,they had a Dragon dance. Jen was hungry, so we went to the nearest restaurant, a seafood place. When eating in Chinatown, most of the tourist places are on Mott, while the places the locals eat are on East Broadway or Bowery.
So we go into this seafood restaurant and the service was slow. Which was good. Because it meant they cooked the food fresh.
Of course, eating with Jen is an adventure. She'dbeen with people who were, well, not adventurous, so in the interest of harmony and curiousity, we had chicken and frogs legs, as well as shrimps and peanuts in garlic sauce. To be honest, I couldn't tell the difference between the frog and the chicken.
But I let Jen take the leftovers home. After all, the frog was her idea.
As we walked around Chinatown, we plotted a seafood meal, because it took supreme effort for Jen not to bring home prawns or a lobster.
We went to PearlPaint for me to pick up some airbrush supplies. Where Jen noticed that you could airbrush on henna designs which I agreed to do. Of was course, it was actually nice to be with someone who didn't bitch about me building models or was bored by it.
Of course, afterwards, I went to Boston Market, forgetting that it gives me the runs. Had to bring dinner home. Never again.
Eric Shepherd attacks a "Ham Dog," a hot dog wrapped with a beef patty, deep-fried and covered with chili and cheese.
DECATUR, Georgia (AP) -- When Becky Cleaveland is out with her girlfriends, they all pick at salads except for the petite Atlanta woman. She tackles "The Hamdog."
The dish, a specialty of Mulligan's, a suburban bar, is a hot dog wrapped by a beef patty that's deep fried, covered with chili, cheese and onions and served on a hoagie bun. Oh yeah, it's also topped with a fried egg and two fistfuls of fries.
"The owner says I'm the only girl who can eat a whole one without flinching," Cleaveland said proudly.
Amid a national obesity epidemic and the South's infamous distinction as the "Stroke Belt," health officials have been trying to get diners to flinch, at least a little, at the region's trademark fried and fatty foods.
But nutritionists have found it's hard to teach an old region new tricks. How can Southerners give up delicious staples fried chicken, fried seafood, fried green tomatoes and cornbread slathered in butter?
Even at the Atlanta headquarters of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the leader of the nation's anti-obesity campaign, the cafeteria serves up such artery-clogging regional favorites as biscuits and gravy.
CDC nutritionist Annie Carr said the agency is working to get its house in order by pushing the cafeteria to serve popular foods in healthy ways. The broader goals of the anti-obesity campaign are to educate people to cook with less fat and sugar and to promote the idea of eating five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
And for the South, that doesn't mean vegetables and greens flavored with bacon and meat drippings.
"I don't think anything is wrong with the kind of vegetables we eat in the South -- it's the way they are prepared," said former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher, the interim president of the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, who grew up eating traditional Southern staples on a farm in Alabama. "We need more fruits and vegetables in our diet." ......... But he acknowledged that the "Hamdog" and the "Luther Burger," a bacon-cheeseburger served on a Krispy Kreme doughnut bun, are what draw attention.
Jen
Gilly, we gotta go to Atlanta--I want me a "Luther Burger." Let's donate one to PETA as well! Damn...a BACON CHEESEBURGER on a KRISPY KREME donut for a BUN? JESUS H. CHRIST, ESQUIRE! How do people dream this shit up?
Not all Southern cooking is fried. Lowland cusine in the Carolinas is fish-based with steaming and boiling, as is Louisiana. The problem is in the middle of the country. Despite great fresh fruit and veggies, there is verly little imagination in fixing them.
By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A08
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.
But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.
Adnan Pachachi's U.S.-backed party fared poorly in the election.
Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."
Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.
Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.
And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.
"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."
Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."
The results have long-term implications. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms.
But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran. "If the United States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have produced joy in Baghdad," he added. "Now it might produce strong protests from Baghdad."
Ooops.
Funny, I saw this was going to be the outcome in 2003. So did Wright, who makes Tom Friedman look like the twit that he is.
"Ma'am, your son died to make Iraq an ally of Iran", is not what people had in mind when they were going to dump Saddam. But it was the inevitable outcome. The mullahs in Tehran must be quite happy. So how many Americans died for the benefit of Iran? Nearly 1500? Preventing Iranian influence has been a major US goal for two decades. It takes George Bush to figure out how to give them what they could never get on their own.
Jonah is now whining about how he's getting all those feathers.
Sorry for reopening what may be for most folks an old and tedious argument. That’s not my intention. Unfortunately, my recent spat with Juan Cole has launched a second front of hate mail, spam and blog flames. And since I don’t have the time or energy to respond to every email or ever blog post, I figured I could respond here and then I’d at least have a link I can send back to folks.
As you may recall, Cole advocated the position that every able bodied male in America who supported the Iraq war should have enlisted. In response to these and similar “chicken-hawk” arguments I mentioned in passing that “a few” of the reasons I never signed up before the war were my age, my financial situation, my brand new baby daughter and my physical condition. The blogger Atrios considered this an “incredible” admission as have several other leftwing bloggers. The moral outrage seems to be based on what I can only figure to be several misunderstandings and one fair point. The misunderstandings include the fact that I never said these were the “only” reasons I didn’t sign up. Merely that these were among them. I never expected Atrios to be a fair reader (he’s too concerned with my looks). But apparently this misreading has now become the official one among many on the web. I’ve received lots of email from folks who sincerely believe – for one reason or another – that I was saying my family or my financial situation was more important than those of the soldiers, marines and airmen in Iraq who also have families and, often, even greater financial challenges. So let me just say here that this was never my intention nor my meaning. If I gave that impression, I’m sorry. While obviously my family is everything to me, I have never thought in those terms. And I have never done anything but marvel at the contributions of America’s warriors. And, having gone to Walter Reed this weekend to meet with wounded vets, my gratitude and admiration for their sacrifices is even greater. What I was trying to say was that it doesn’t matter what my reasons for not enlisting were, it wouldn’t matter to people who think it’s more satisfying or effective to hurl insults than engage in arguments. Indeed, the fact that I am too old to enlist seems to bounce off of most of these people (to serve at my age I would need to have already served before or be in the reserve).
But as for the larger argument, I still think it is absurd. Every morning I get these emailed images of white feathers sent to me by folks who think I should sign up. The reference is to WWI when women would give young men not in uniform feathers to shame them into enlisting. It’s a clever bit of web-bullying I suppose. But the analogy is stupid. Those women supported the war. The people reprising the role of WWI prim ladies on the homefront do not. Daily Kos’ reaction to the mutilation of American contractors in Iraq was "I feel nothing over the death of the mercenaries [sic]. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
That’s not the sort of thing one says when in support of the war effort.
The lefty blogs love pointing out conservative hypocrisy. Fair enough. But this chickenhawk nonsense itself is grotesquely hypocritical. Recently many on the left took great umbrage at Peter Beinart’s suggestion that much of the left opposed the Afghanistan war. No we didn’t! They declared. Well, okay. But if they didn’t oppose it, why didn’t they sign up? What about for the first Gulf War? Or Bosnia?
Look, in the age of the all-volunteer military, and in a country which prides itself on civilian control of that military, there is no shame in not signing up. Or even if there is shame, it’s personal not political. We have, by my rough estimate, some 70 million men of military age. Should they all join-up the moment they agree the military should do something dangerous? I favor aggressive law enforcement at home, does this mean I should become a cop? Of course not.
I supported the war and I support the work the military is doing there now. I make no apologies for that. I do not believe they’re there on a fool’s errand nor do I consider them to be hapless dupes and slaves to a cause not worth fighting. About the folks sending me these feathers, I know no such thing.
Fucking coward.
You're the one in favor of the war. Go cover it, go support it, do something other than suggest other people are traitors for not supporting it and other people should fight it. Don't hide behind others. It's about you, not anyone else.
You wanted this war, why don't you have the courage to support it with deeds, not words? You can bring up all the straw men you want, whine all you want, but in the end, you thought conquering Iraq was a grand idea. Now you're being called on it.
Hell, go volunteer at Walter Reed. That would require some moral strength. Your words are cheap and you are being called on them.
I know your mommy has protected you all your life, fearsone she-bitch that she is, but now you're dealing with adults. So go stand on your feet like a man, or whine like the yellow coward that you are.
Oh, and how much support have you given to the troops? Send a phone card to Walter Reed? A package to Anysoldier.com or Booksforsoldiers.com. Michael Moore has. Many left bloggers regularly mention these sites. Have you? Have you shown one ounce of concern for the people fighting this war? Or do you insult soldiers like the one who asked why he was expected to go to Iraq without adequate armor? Call him a dupe. You lie when you say you support the troops. You support the war, which is he thing which counts to you. Never a word about the mistreatment of the wounded or the inadequate supplies thse in the field have to live with, like the NG trooper who had to take out a loan to get body armor.
By the way:
In response to the letter Jonah Goldberg wrote about why he is not in Iraq, I have put up a website called www.whitefeatherforjonah.com. It encourages people to mail or email white feathers to Jonah to remind him that he is a lily-livered poltroon.
The site gives an easy link to his email and his mailing address at the National Review (more addresses might be added). There is also available for downloading a very nice letterhead with the image of a white feather and the words "Why aren't you in Iraq" in bold letters across the top. In order to encourage as many people as possible to drown Jonah in feathers, I am asking that you visit the site and if you like it, give me a plug on your blog
This picture, taken in public, is not an invasion of privacy
Atrios points out how Jeff Jarvis misses the point.
In the case of "Gannon," this is more a story about the White House than him. Did the White House stack the press deck and was the President cued to pull the friendly card out of that deck? Is the White House manipulating the press in this way (too)?
The blog angle: A few issues here. First, it's hard to insist that "Gannon" as a partisan should not be allowed into a press conference when we opinionated bloggers -- including the activist advocate, Kos, who led the charge on "Gannon" -- are also demanding access. Second, by going after Gannon's personal issues -- his made-up name, his hinky past, made all the easier because he comes off like an intense jerk -- the bloggers lost focus on the real issue (above) and shifted the focus to themselves, getting them portrayed as a lynch mob. That, again, is perilous.
A: What the fuck is he talking about? What Blogger has demanded access to the WH Press Corps? If he has names of anyone who has, he should make them public. I mean, is Kos supposed to fly from SF to pester Scotty?
B: Guckert wasn't a blogger, he was there to ask easy questions and provide a life line, NOT to ask qustions which challenged the Adminitration. His "reporting" consisted of reprinting White House Press Releases.
Again, he misses the issue. It wasn't because he may have been a man-whore or was an asshole, if that was the case, you could boot a lot of people from the WH. It was because wirh no credentials, he was able to enter the WH for two years, representing an organ funded by Bush's Texas friend, Bobby Eberle.
The ONLY people who fell for the lynch mob angle was Wolf Blitzer, who is pretty much a tool. Anyone who actually read what was going on shouldhave been far more concerned about the breach of security than where he put his dick.
C: He's wrong. It was the MSM who thought this was personal. No one blogging on this on Kos did. They used widely available records in the public realm to show what a freak this guy was. The fact that he was a freak was on him, not on people doing research.
Before you make stupid allegations, you might want to talk to the people involved.
Pentagon covers up failure to train and recruit local security forces Police and army numbers falling far short of projections as post-election violence surges and wait for results drags on By Andrew Buncombe in Washington, Kim Sengupta in Basra, and Raymond Whitaker in London
13 February 2005
Training of Iraq's security forces, crucial to any exit strategy for Britain and the US, is going so badly that the Pentagon has stopped giving figures for the number of combat-ready indigenous troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned.
Instead, only figures for troops "on hand" are issued. The small number of soldiers, national guardsmen and police capable of operating against the country's bloody insurgency is concealed in an overall total of Iraqis in uniform, which includes raw recruits and police who have gone on duty after as little as three weeks' training. In some cases they have no weapons, body armour or even documents to show they are in the police. ................. The reality, according to experts, is that there may be as few as 5,000 troops who could be considered combat ready.
The gap between troops "on hand" and the overall target for fully trained and equipped security forces has actually widened in recent months, according to John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington- based think-tank. Between October and November last year, just before the Pentagon quietly stopped giving figures for fully trained troops, the shortfall more than doubled, from 69,400 to 159,000. At current levels, the targets would not be met until next year. .................... A police colonel told the IoS: "I keep on hearing that we have been trained and we have been given the arms necessary by the Americans. But I seem to have missed all that. We have had people sent here who I would not trust at all. I have discovered that the Americans have made no checks on these men. Do you wonder why police stations and army barracks get blown up?"
Meanwhile recommendations to attach more US advisers to the fledgling Iraqi units stoke fears that this Vietnam-era policy will further delay any exit from Iraq.
Actually, I'd worry more about fragging.
The signal success of the resistance: crippling the local forces.
..................... Still, my ears perked up when I recently heard the tale of a New York journalist who gave his wife an unusual birthday present: a list of books from A to Z that would help her better understand him.
I decided to adapt the idea for Valentine's Day, and get some lucky guy the books from A to Z that would help him better understand me.
I prowled Borders, but the more I looked, the more I fretted. I could start with "All the King's Men," but it's pretty obvious that I'm interested in the nexus between politics and dishonesty. ...................
High-maintenance if I selected "Empty Promises," Ann Rule's true stories of love affairs that ended with a horrible crime? Scheming if I put in Zsa Zsa Gabor's seminal treatise: "How to Catch a Man, How to Keep a Man, How to Get Rid of a Man"? Needy if I chose the Deepak Chopra cookbook to nourish body and soul, unlock the hidden dimensions in your life and harness the infinite power of coincidence? Pandering if I stacked the deck with guy-lit like Nick Hornby, Frederick Exley's "A Fan's Notes," John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" and my Mom's recommendation, "365 Ways to Cook Hamburger and Other Ground Meats"?
The more I thought about it, the more it seemed not only risky, but the height of presumption to expect someone to devote that many hours to fathoming someone else's psyche. What guy would drag himself away from ESPN's "SportsCenter" to read "Sense and Sensibility" or from beer and pizza to devour "Cakes and Ale"?
..............."
Let's pretend for a moment that Maureen Dowd did NOT just waste her valuable column space on an article beter suited to O Magazine.
Isn't there anytone who can date this woman? The Pentagon is filled with single men in their 40's. Don't they want a smart redhead with a sense of humor? Sure, she wound up with losers instead of a husband. So we're treated to this lonely hearts column. Should she be condemned to a life of cats and all-womens vacations? Can't some brave soul save her from this fate? She's funny, if a little high-strung, like a lot of redheads, smart, a DC local, has a good job. Sure, her taste in men has sucked, but you can change that. So your first wife left you after Kosovo? You still have the CIB fro the first Gulf War, and that Bronze Star from Somalia. You're getting older, another deployment to Iraq doesn't appeal, so you put in your papers. Wouldn't MoDo be the perfect transition mate for a return to civilian life?
Shorter MoDo:
40-something columnist seeks high achieving male for long walks along the Canal, intimate dinners and debates on geopolitics. Send your responses to the New York Times Washington Bureau.
Jim Wolcott, when he was at the New Yorker, wrote a savage piece on MoDo, so savage, one could think he once dated her. But after seeing her recent bitter muttering about trophy wives and now this "valentine's day" column, even he would have to have some pity. Right, Jim? Isn't it sad that this intelligent, attractive woman is alone? And has to use her column to troll for dates?
She's no nut job like Ann Coulter. Surely, some Light Colonel with a busted marriage could be convinced to squire her arond town while he waits out his retirement papers. MoDo just needs a good man. Someone to hold her hand, not dump her for Catherine Zeta-Jones, or be convicted on a drugs charge. That's all she needs. So we can stop reading crap which belongs in another part of the Times. Candace Bushnell, she is not.
The actor Ossie Davis was remembered yesterday with rousing eulogies by Harry Belafonte and Bill Clinton and a musical tribute by Wynton Marsalis in a service that lasted almost four hours and was described by several speakers as a state funeral for black America.
The prominent speakers also included Maya Angelou, Burt Reynolds and Alan Alda, who all hailed Mr. Davis for devoting his life to civil rights, and using his considerable talent to that end.
Thousands of mourners packed Riverside Church in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, to pay respects to Mr. Davis, who died on Feb. 4 at the age of 87.
Mr. Clinton arrived about midway through the service and was seated in the front.
"I asked to sit in the back," he said. "I would proudly ride on the back of Ossie Davis's bus any day."
The crowd applauded wildly and did so again when he said of Mr. Davis, "He would have been a very good president of the United States."
Ms. Angelou compared Mr. Davis's death to a great tree falling and all of nature recoiling. She said that when Mr. Davis died, "the heaviest door in the universe slammed shut, and there are no knobs."
Mr. Alda said Mr. Davis taught him how to eat sweet potato pie.
"Ossie was my hero, and he still is," he said. "He spoke of black princes; he was one."
Mr. Reynolds said he came from the same part of Georgia as Mr. Davis. "He took a bad part of the South out of me," he said. "My heroes were a lot of John Waynes. I know what a man is because of Ossie."
Mr. Belafonte recalled Mr. Davis, attributing his drive to succeed to one motivating moment in his youth when the Ku Klux Klan threatened to "shoot down his father like a dog."
So for Mr. Davis, he added, "the performing arts became his rebellion to tyranny."
This was the biggest funeral Harlem has seen in decades. How big?
Well, the viewing was held at Abyssinian Baptist Church, and the funeral, all of which ran live on NY 1, over three hours, was held at Riverside Chruch. Now, if you don't know Harlem or New York, mayors have been buried with less ceremony and a lot fewer kind words. The memorial was held at the Schomburg library and was so packed that they had to turn people away and that was invite only.
I've never heard of someone being viewed at Abyssinian and then having the funeral at Riverside. For one thing, the two churches are very different places. Abyssinian is old school Harlem, the political heart of black New York, until Al Sharpton rose from Brooklyn and moved across the river. Riverside, who was run by William Sloane Coffin for decades, and is now run by James Forbes. But the church was more associated with the liberal Upper West Side and had an integrated congregation than Harlem. But it is also a very politically active, liberal church and very large, one of the largest in the city. Which given the turnout, was neccessary. It is very hard to pack Riverside. It was packed today.
It's rare for the funeral of a private citizen to be aired live on cable news. When I talked to my father around 2PM, he was surprised it was still on. When I talked to my mother an hour later, it was still on. It ended around 3:30 and was rebroadcast.
But everything about this funeral was special. There were a ton of celebrities, who dropped what they were doing to come to pay respects, amazing stories and recollections of kindnesses long past.
But it should be remembered, when Malcolm X was left unburied and his family in penury, Ossie Davis stepped in. Not just to bury him, but to support his family afterwards. One of Malcolm's daughters spoke lovingly of her "uncle" today.
I don't know if I would call it a state funeral, because the emotion and respect were not pro-forma, but geniune and heartfelt. But it was touching to see how many people he affected, both as an actor and activist. I wasn't surprised to see it on TV, but I was surprised to see it live for hours.
It was, of course, a fitting tribute, but a surprise all the same.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 - Army troops assigned to combat units that come under fire will be eligible for a new badge that recognizes their efforts separately from ribbons for all who serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or who support the Pentagon's antiterrorism missions based in the United States, a senior Army official said Saturday.
The new award, called the Close Combat Badge, was unveiled to a private conference of four-star generals convened in Washington this weekend by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, the senior official said.
Army and Pentagon officials discussed the badge on the condition that they not be identified by name.
The badge was requested by field commanders and reflects their desire to distinguish the efforts of soldiers whose units are "organized to routinely conduct close combat operations and engage in direct combat," the Army official said.
Previous decisions that created ribbons to honor military efforts in the Bush administration's global campaign against terrorism have been harshly criticized by members of Congress, veterans and even some current service members.
The Army officer said on Saturday that the new badge was, at least in part, meant to answer some of those concerns.
........................
In contrast, the Close Combat Badge "will be presented only to eligible soldiers who are personally present and under fire while engaged in active ground combat," the Army official said.
It will not be given to members of support units attacked while performing their missions, even though supply convoys have been a regular target of the insurgency in Iraq.
In particular, the badge will be for soldiers who serve with armored, cavalry, combat engineering and field artillery units at the brigade size or smaller that come under attack and "close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires," the Army official said.
This is the badge for the other combat arms. The Infantry has had the CIB since WWII. The medics have had the CMB since then as well. But the other combat arms have been shit out of luck. The CCB will reward them and not the support troops for engaging in close combat. There has always been lingering resentment that only the Infantry had a special award for combat. Also, so many troops have been dismounted and sent on daily patrols that they had to do something.
