Thursday, February 28, 2008
Afghanistan worth it?
Off the AP: after seven years, we ain’t exactly winning in Afghanistan. Only about thirteen years to go and we’ll be in that country as long as the Russians were. We aren’t losing the number of helicopters and tanks they did, and our troops are getting horribly mutilated when captured, but...
What the hell ARE we doing there? It’s pretty obvious we’re about as welcome there as bacon sandwiches are. Opium production is more than ever, the country has even become a major exporter of marijuana, and dog-fights are still a popular past-time. So, apparently is child rape.
Karzai only controls 1/3 of Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai Controls Just 30 Percent of Afghanistan, Top U.S. Official Says
PAMELA HESS
AP News
Feb 27, 2008 21:29 EST
More than six years after the U.S. invaded to establish a stable central regime in Afghanistan, the Kabul government under President Hamid Karzai controls just 30 percent of the country, the top U.S. intelligence official said Wednesday.
National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the resurgent Taliban controls 10 percent to 11 percent of the country and Karzai's government controls 30 percent to 31 percent. The majority of Afghanistan's population and territory remains under local tribal control, he said.
Underscoring the problems facing the Kabul government, a roadside bomb in Paktika province killed two Polish soldiers who are part of the NATO force in the country and opium worth $400 million was seized in the southern part of Afghanistan. That brought the number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan to 21 this year, according to an Associated Press tally.
In 2007, insurgency-related violence killed more than 6,500 people, including 222 foreign troops. Last year was the deadliest yet since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
Officials estimate that up to 40 percent of proceeds from Afghanistan's drug trade — an amount worth tens of millions of dollars — is used to fund the insurgency.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the Defense Intelligence Agency director, told the committee at the same hearing that the Pakistan government is trying to crack down on the lawless tribal area along the Afghan border area where Taliban and al-Qaida are believed to be training, and from which they launch attacks in Afghanistan. But neither the Pakistani military nor the tribal Frontier Corps is trained or equipped to fight, he said.
Maples said it would take three to five years to address those deficiencies and see a difference in their ability to fight effectively in the tribal areas.
"Pakistani military operations in the (region) have not fundamentally damaged al-Qaida's position. ... The tribal areas remain largely ungovernable and, as such, they will continue to provide vital sanctuary to al-Qaida, the Taliban and regional extremism more broadly," Maples said.
Under questioning from committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., Maples also said he considers the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be inhumane. That would put it outside the bounds of U.S. law, which since late 2005 has prohibited cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees.
The Bush administration has refused to rule on whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.
Waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA but its use must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the attorney general and the president.
The U.S. military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. Maples said the 19 other interrogation techniques allowed under military rules are effective.
"We have recently confirmed that with those who are using those tools on operations," Maples said.
Earlier this month, Congress approved a bill that would limit the CIA to the military's interrogation techniques. The White House has threatened to veto that measure.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a statement to the Associated Press on Wednesday that other lawful, Geneva Convention-compliant interrogation techniques not in the Army Field Manual would also be outlawed.
"There will be no conditions of threat or danger that would cause us to make an exception. This is an important national decision and it will have a direct impact on our ability to gather intelligence and to detect and prevent future attacks."
Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 7 that he prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding in 2006 in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees. He said the agency has not used waterboarding for five years.
President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects in certain situations, including "belief that an attack might be imminent," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Feb. 6. The president would consult with the attorney general and intelligence officials before authorizing its use, Fratto said.
___
Source: AP News
What the hell ARE we doing there? It’s pretty obvious we’re about as welcome there as bacon sandwiches are. Opium production is more than ever, the country has even become a major exporter of marijuana, and dog-fights are still a popular past-time. So, apparently is child rape.
Karzai only controls 1/3 of Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai Controls Just 30 Percent of Afghanistan, Top U.S. Official Says
PAMELA HESS
AP News
Feb 27, 2008 21:29 EST
More than six years after the U.S. invaded to establish a stable central regime in Afghanistan, the Kabul government under President Hamid Karzai controls just 30 percent of the country, the top U.S. intelligence official said Wednesday.
National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the resurgent Taliban controls 10 percent to 11 percent of the country and Karzai's government controls 30 percent to 31 percent. The majority of Afghanistan's population and territory remains under local tribal control, he said.
Underscoring the problems facing the Kabul government, a roadside bomb in Paktika province killed two Polish soldiers who are part of the NATO force in the country and opium worth $400 million was seized in the southern part of Afghanistan. That brought the number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan to 21 this year, according to an Associated Press tally.
In 2007, insurgency-related violence killed more than 6,500 people, including 222 foreign troops. Last year was the deadliest yet since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
Officials estimate that up to 40 percent of proceeds from Afghanistan's drug trade — an amount worth tens of millions of dollars — is used to fund the insurgency.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the Defense Intelligence Agency director, told the committee at the same hearing that the Pakistan government is trying to crack down on the lawless tribal area along the Afghan border area where Taliban and al-Qaida are believed to be training, and from which they launch attacks in Afghanistan. But neither the Pakistani military nor the tribal Frontier Corps is trained or equipped to fight, he said.
Maples said it would take three to five years to address those deficiencies and see a difference in their ability to fight effectively in the tribal areas.
"Pakistani military operations in the (region) have not fundamentally damaged al-Qaida's position. ... The tribal areas remain largely ungovernable and, as such, they will continue to provide vital sanctuary to al-Qaida, the Taliban and regional extremism more broadly," Maples said.
Under questioning from committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., Maples also said he considers the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding to be inhumane. That would put it outside the bounds of U.S. law, which since late 2005 has prohibited cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees.
The Bush administration has refused to rule on whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.
Waterboarding remains among the interrogation methods potentially available to the CIA but its use must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the attorney general and the president.
The U.S. military specifically prohibited waterboarding in 2006. Maples said the 19 other interrogation techniques allowed under military rules are effective.
"We have recently confirmed that with those who are using those tools on operations," Maples said.
Earlier this month, Congress approved a bill that would limit the CIA to the military's interrogation techniques. The White House has threatened to veto that measure.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a statement to the Associated Press on Wednesday that other lawful, Geneva Convention-compliant interrogation techniques not in the Army Field Manual would also be outlawed.
"There will be no conditions of threat or danger that would cause us to make an exception. This is an important national decision and it will have a direct impact on our ability to gather intelligence and to detect and prevent future attacks."
Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 7 that he prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding in 2006 in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees. He said the agency has not used waterboarding for five years.
President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects in certain situations, including "belief that an attack might be imminent," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Feb. 6. The president would consult with the attorney general and intelligence officials before authorizing its use, Fratto said.
___
Source: AP News
We're Number One—in terms of number of people locked up, at least
The times have changed, all right.
America now has more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world. More than Russia, more than China, more than any ex-Soviet country. We’re the country that knows how. To lock people up, at least.
We don’t seem to have the longest life-expectancy anymore, however, nor the lowest infant-mortality rate. I saw a study the other day that said, technically, we’re no longer the richest political union—the European Union has a higher Gross National Product than the U.S..
To be fair, we spend way more than any other nation on military stuff and on health care.
Does anyone care anymore?
Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars
02/28/2008 @ 12:35 pm
Filed by Associated Press
http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=9483
Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars Total is far more than any other country in the world
By DAVID CRARY Associated Press
NEW YORK — For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report tracking the surge in inmate population and urging states to rein in corrections costs with alternative sentencing programs.
The report, released today by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.
Using updated state-by-state data, the report said 2,319,258 adults were held in U.S. prisons or jails at the start of 2008 — one out of every 99.1 adults, and more than any other country in the world.
The steadily growing inmate population "is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime," said the report.
Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said budget woes are prompting officials in many states to consider new, cost-saving corrections policies that might have been shunned in the recent past for fear of appearing soft on crime.
"We're seeing more and more states being creative because of tight budgets," she said in an interview. "They want to be tough on crime, they want to be a law-and-order state — but they also want to save money, and they want to be effective."
The report cited Kansas and Texas as states which have acted decisively to slow the growth of their inmate population. Their actions include greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders and employing sanctions other than reimprisonment for ex-offenders who commit technical violations of parole and probation rules.
"The new approach, born of bipartisan leadership, is allowing the two states to ensure they have enough prison beds for violent offenders while helping less dangerous lawbreakers become productive, taxpaying citizens," the report said.
While many state governments have shown bipartisan interest in curbing prison growth, there also are persistent calls to proceed cautiously.
"We need to be smarter," said David Muhlhausen, a criminal justice expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "We're not incarcerating all the people who commit serious crimes — but we're also probably incarcerating people who don't need to be."
According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system.
The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state's crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state's inmate population has increased by 600 percent.
The Pew report was compiled by the Center on the State's Public Safety Performance Project, which is working directly with 13 states on developing programs to divert offenders from prison without jeopardizing public safety.
"For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn't been a clear and convincing return for public safety," said the project's director, Adam Gelb. "More and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers."
The report said prison growth and higher incarceration rates do not reflect a parallel increase in crime or in the nation's overall population. Instead, it said, more people are behind bars mainly because of tough sentencing measures, such as "three-strikes" laws, that result in longer prison stays.
"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."
The nationwide figures, as of Jan. 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails — a total 2,319,258 out of almost 230 million American adults.
The report said the United States is the world's incarceration leader, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which make up the rest of the Top 10.
America now has more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the world. More than Russia, more than China, more than any ex-Soviet country. We’re the country that knows how. To lock people up, at least.
We don’t seem to have the longest life-expectancy anymore, however, nor the lowest infant-mortality rate. I saw a study the other day that said, technically, we’re no longer the richest political union—the European Union has a higher Gross National Product than the U.S..
To be fair, we spend way more than any other nation on military stuff and on health care.
Does anyone care anymore?
Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars
02/28/2008 @ 12:35 pm
Filed by Associated Press
http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=9483
Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars Total is far more than any other country in the world
By DAVID CRARY Associated Press
NEW YORK — For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report tracking the surge in inmate population and urging states to rein in corrections costs with alternative sentencing programs.
The report, released today by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.
Using updated state-by-state data, the report said 2,319,258 adults were held in U.S. prisons or jails at the start of 2008 — one out of every 99.1 adults, and more than any other country in the world.
The steadily growing inmate population "is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime," said the report.
Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said budget woes are prompting officials in many states to consider new, cost-saving corrections policies that might have been shunned in the recent past for fear of appearing soft on crime.
"We're seeing more and more states being creative because of tight budgets," she said in an interview. "They want to be tough on crime, they want to be a law-and-order state — but they also want to save money, and they want to be effective."
The report cited Kansas and Texas as states which have acted decisively to slow the growth of their inmate population. Their actions include greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders and employing sanctions other than reimprisonment for ex-offenders who commit technical violations of parole and probation rules.
"The new approach, born of bipartisan leadership, is allowing the two states to ensure they have enough prison beds for violent offenders while helping less dangerous lawbreakers become productive, taxpaying citizens," the report said.
While many state governments have shown bipartisan interest in curbing prison growth, there also are persistent calls to proceed cautiously.
"We need to be smarter," said David Muhlhausen, a criminal justice expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "We're not incarcerating all the people who commit serious crimes — but we're also probably incarcerating people who don't need to be."
According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system.
The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state's crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state's inmate population has increased by 600 percent.
The Pew report was compiled by the Center on the State's Public Safety Performance Project, which is working directly with 13 states on developing programs to divert offenders from prison without jeopardizing public safety.
"For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn't been a clear and convincing return for public safety," said the project's director, Adam Gelb. "More and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers."
The report said prison growth and higher incarceration rates do not reflect a parallel increase in crime or in the nation's overall population. Instead, it said, more people are behind bars mainly because of tough sentencing measures, such as "three-strikes" laws, that result in longer prison stays.
"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."
The nationwide figures, as of Jan. 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails — a total 2,319,258 out of almost 230 million American adults.
The report said the United States is the world's incarceration leader, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which make up the rest of the Top 10.
Another moralizing Republican politico goes "oops"
One of the ongoing sources of wonder, to me, is the number of Republicans who take falls over sexual behavior. I almost said “misbehavior,” but it isn’t, really. If people do it, without any coaching or coercion, chances are a behavior is normal. The problem seems to be that for the last decade or so, the Republicans have boxed in the definition of “normal” sexual behavior so that almost anything beyond the missionary position, between a man and a woman who are married to each other, when they’re only trying to make children is considered abnormal—if not criminal.
So, being essentially normal human beings, the Republicans get caught when their hypocrisy is revealed. Serves them right, yeah.
AlterNet
Scandal-Ridden, Homophobic DA in Lawrence v. Texas Case Forced to Resign
By Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend
Posted on February 27, 2008, Printed on February 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pamshouseblend.com//77963/
"I think that this Court having determined that there are certain kinds of conduct that it will accept and certain kinds of conduct it will not accept may draw the line at the bedroom door of the heterosexual married couple because of the interest that this Court has that this Nation has and certainly that the State of Texas has for the preservation of marriage, families and the procreation of children. "Even if you infer that various States acting through their legislative process have repealed sodomy laws, there is no protected right to engage in extrasexual - extramarital sexual relations, again, that can trace their roots to history or the traditions of this nation."
-- Houston District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, in arguments to the Supreme Court in 2002's 'Lawrence v. Texas' case.
Oopsie. Chuck unfortunately got into a bit of a hypocritical mess after the discovery of sexually explicit videos on his office computer, along with racist jokes and sexy emails to his executive secretary. (Newsweek):
Last December, as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit into how justice is meted out in the county, he turned over the (partial) contents of his government e-mail account. And what a batch of e-mails it was. Black ministers called for the Republican to resign because of racist material, including a cartoon depicting an African-American suffering from a "fatal overdose" of watermelon and fried chicken. There were adult video clips and love notes from Rosenthal to his secretary, his mistress during a previous marriage. "I love you so much," Rosenthal says in one. "I want to kiss you behind your right ear," he says in another. "Go spend time with your family," she admonishes him back.
Now listen up you Republican Sexual Hypocrites out there -- when you get busted doing hanky panky on the office PC, you can't delete the contents -- they are subject to e-discovery. Hand Rosenthal the Royal Duncecap, since he thought his massive e-deletions were not going to be detected, then he lied about it. So he's out of a job AND faces going the clink. So sorry...
In the wake of the e-mail revelations, local GOP leaders forced him to abort his re-election bid. Then, on Feb. 15, after Lloyd Kelley, the attorney in the civil rights case, brought a lawsuit accusing him of drinking on the job and "incompetence, or official misconduct," Rosenthal resigned. But his problems may not be over. As eye-opening as his e-mails were, it's the ones that disappeared that might cause him more trouble yet. Rosenthal deleted thousands of e-mails (even going so far as to delete them from the trash folder) that investigators in the civil rights case wanted; his actions could lead to obstruction of justice charges (the messages were destroyed after he had received a subpoena for them, he admitted in court). And during a contempt of court hearing earlier this month, Rosenthal appeared to contradict his sworn statements about the e-mails, leaving him open to perjury charges. The hearing was abruptly adjourned at the request of his lawyer and is scheduled to resume March 14. If found in contempt, the former top prosecutor could wind up in jail.
How do you think Rosenthal explained his behavior? It sounds all too familiar...
In an earlier statement to the press about the content of the e-mails, Rosenthal said, "I deeply regret having said those things ... This event has served as a wake-up call to me to get my house in order both literally and figuratively." On Feb. 15, in response to the new lawsuit, he blamed a combination of prescription drugs for causing "some impairment" of his judgment.
Hat tip, Dan
Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.
© 2008 Pam's House Blend All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pamshouseblend.com//77963/
So, being essentially normal human beings, the Republicans get caught when their hypocrisy is revealed. Serves them right, yeah.
AlterNet
Scandal-Ridden, Homophobic DA in Lawrence v. Texas Case Forced to Resign
By Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend
Posted on February 27, 2008, Printed on February 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pamshouseblend.com//77963/
"I think that this Court having determined that there are certain kinds of conduct that it will accept and certain kinds of conduct it will not accept may draw the line at the bedroom door of the heterosexual married couple because of the interest that this Court has that this Nation has and certainly that the State of Texas has for the preservation of marriage, families and the procreation of children. "Even if you infer that various States acting through their legislative process have repealed sodomy laws, there is no protected right to engage in extrasexual - extramarital sexual relations, again, that can trace their roots to history or the traditions of this nation."
-- Houston District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, in arguments to the Supreme Court in 2002's 'Lawrence v. Texas' case.
Oopsie. Chuck unfortunately got into a bit of a hypocritical mess after the discovery of sexually explicit videos on his office computer, along with racist jokes and sexy emails to his executive secretary. (Newsweek):
Last December, as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit into how justice is meted out in the county, he turned over the (partial) contents of his government e-mail account. And what a batch of e-mails it was. Black ministers called for the Republican to resign because of racist material, including a cartoon depicting an African-American suffering from a "fatal overdose" of watermelon and fried chicken. There were adult video clips and love notes from Rosenthal to his secretary, his mistress during a previous marriage. "I love you so much," Rosenthal says in one. "I want to kiss you behind your right ear," he says in another. "Go spend time with your family," she admonishes him back.
Now listen up you Republican Sexual Hypocrites out there -- when you get busted doing hanky panky on the office PC, you can't delete the contents -- they are subject to e-discovery. Hand Rosenthal the Royal Duncecap, since he thought his massive e-deletions were not going to be detected, then he lied about it. So he's out of a job AND faces going the clink. So sorry...
In the wake of the e-mail revelations, local GOP leaders forced him to abort his re-election bid. Then, on Feb. 15, after Lloyd Kelley, the attorney in the civil rights case, brought a lawsuit accusing him of drinking on the job and "incompetence, or official misconduct," Rosenthal resigned. But his problems may not be over. As eye-opening as his e-mails were, it's the ones that disappeared that might cause him more trouble yet. Rosenthal deleted thousands of e-mails (even going so far as to delete them from the trash folder) that investigators in the civil rights case wanted; his actions could lead to obstruction of justice charges (the messages were destroyed after he had received a subpoena for them, he admitted in court). And during a contempt of court hearing earlier this month, Rosenthal appeared to contradict his sworn statements about the e-mails, leaving him open to perjury charges. The hearing was abruptly adjourned at the request of his lawyer and is scheduled to resume March 14. If found in contempt, the former top prosecutor could wind up in jail.
How do you think Rosenthal explained his behavior? It sounds all too familiar...
In an earlier statement to the press about the content of the e-mails, Rosenthal said, "I deeply regret having said those things ... This event has served as a wake-up call to me to get my house in order both literally and figuratively." On Feb. 15, in response to the new lawsuit, he blamed a combination of prescription drugs for causing "some impairment" of his judgment.
Hat tip, Dan
Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.
© 2008 Pam's House Blend All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pamshouseblend.com//77963/
Monday, February 25, 2008
Feng shui fries?
Decades ago, Barry Goldwater’s prime speechwriter, a guy named Hess, predicted the reason capitalism would outlast and overpower communism was because capitalism was utterly without principles—it’s totally amoral.
Communism and socialism, of course, have strong principles, and while Soviet Communism was also quite amoral, it kept trying to shoehorn itself into a Marxist belief system. This of course made it go crazy and collapse. Capitalism is still around. Sigh. So, here’s the latest example:
Do You Want Fries With That Zen? California McDonald's Aims to Boost Sales With Feng Shui
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Calif_McDonald_s_tries_feng_shui_th_02242008.html
DAISY NGUYEN
AP News
Feb 24, 2008 14:16 EST
The only familiar signs at the McDonald's in this large Asian community are the golden arches, the drive-through and the menu. Gone are the plastic furniture, Ronald McDonald and the red and yellow palette that has defined the world's largest hamburger chain. Leather seats, earth tones, bamboo plants and water trickling down glass panels have taken their place.
The makeover elements are meant to help diners achieve happiness and fortune — whether they realize it or not.
That's because the restaurant was redesigned using the principles of feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of arranging objects and numbers to promote health, harmony and prosperity.
The concept is an unlikely fit with fast food. But the restaurant's owners say the designs are aimed at creating a soothing setting that will encourage diners to linger over their burgers and fries, and come back again.
Communism and socialism, of course, have strong principles, and while Soviet Communism was also quite amoral, it kept trying to shoehorn itself into a Marxist belief system. This of course made it go crazy and collapse. Capitalism is still around. Sigh. So, here’s the latest example:
Do You Want Fries With That Zen? California McDonald's Aims to Boost Sales With Feng Shui
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Calif_McDonald_s_tries_feng_shui_th_02242008.html
DAISY NGUYEN
AP News
Feb 24, 2008 14:16 EST
The only familiar signs at the McDonald's in this large Asian community are the golden arches, the drive-through and the menu. Gone are the plastic furniture, Ronald McDonald and the red and yellow palette that has defined the world's largest hamburger chain. Leather seats, earth tones, bamboo plants and water trickling down glass panels have taken their place.
The makeover elements are meant to help diners achieve happiness and fortune — whether they realize it or not.
That's because the restaurant was redesigned using the principles of feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of arranging objects and numbers to promote health, harmony and prosperity.
The concept is an unlikely fit with fast food. But the restaurant's owners say the designs are aimed at creating a soothing setting that will encourage diners to linger over their burgers and fries, and come back again.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Law or force? Take your choice....
Here. How this country is supposed to be run is, of course, always at a distance from how it actually is. Ask any non-white person if you don't believe that.
This op-ed piece outlines the true state of things in this nation.
There are powers in force, held by the federal government, to lock up anyone they want. And to deny those locked up any sort of legal protection. This is a real problem and it’s as immediate as a coiled rattlesnake.
SFGate
Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact
This op-ed piece outlines the true state of things in this nation.
There are powers in force, held by the federal government, to lock up anyone they want. And to deny those locked up any sort of legal protection. This is a real problem and it’s as immediate as a coiled rattlesnake.
SFGate
Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact
Chicago: from meatmarket to bullshit
Sometimes, things are so damn’ heartwarming I just have to sit on them for a little while before I post about them.
Chicago: the more it changes the more it remains the same.
Voters are told pen had 'invisible ink'
BLANK BALLOTS | Staffers try to reach 20 who thought they'd voted
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/779528,CST-NWS-magic06.article#
February 6, 2008
BY ANNIE SWEENEY Staff Reporter/asweeney@suntimes.com
When it comes to election shenanigans, Chicago has been accused of just about everything.
But invisible ink?
Twenty voters at a Far North Side precinct who found their ink pens not working were told by election judges not to worry.
It's invisible ink, officials said. The scanner will count it.
But their votes weren't recorded after all.
"Part of me was thinking it does sound stupid enough to be true,'' said Amy Carlton, who had serious doubts but went ahead and voted anyway.
As it turns out, Carlton was one of 20 voters at the precinct who were given the wrong pen to use. They were also then told, apparently by a misinformed judge, that the pens have invisible ink, elections officials said.
As a result, the votes were not counted. But officials insisted there were no dirty tricks involved.
"This one defies logic,'' said Jim Allen, a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections. "You try to anticipate everything. But certain things just ... they go beyond any kind of planning you can perform.''
By late afternoon, five voters had been contacted and told to come back to the polling place to vote again. And elections staff had left messages at the homes of the rest, Allen said.
Carlton and Angela Burkhardt, another voter who was told the same invisible ink story, spent a good part of the day calling and e-mailing the Board of Elections to get answers.
"I am furious and devastated and I just feel stupid,'' Carlton said. "I feel so angry.''
Both women agreed that this election meant a lot. They had spent a good deal of time researching candidates.
"I have been voting since I was 18,'' said Carlton, 38. "This is the most important election of my life so far.''
Burkhardt planned to go back to vote late Tuesday. She worried about those who might not be able to return.
"I worry about the other people who were there,'' she said. "Maybe [they] can't get off work. I am a person of privilege. I can go back. What if you couldn't?"
© Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc.
Chicago: the more it changes the more it remains the same.
Voters are told pen had 'invisible ink'
BLANK BALLOTS | Staffers try to reach 20 who thought they'd voted
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/779528,CST-NWS-magic06.article#
February 6, 2008
BY ANNIE SWEENEY Staff Reporter/asweeney@suntimes.com
When it comes to election shenanigans, Chicago has been accused of just about everything.
But invisible ink?
Twenty voters at a Far North Side precinct who found their ink pens not working were told by election judges not to worry.
It's invisible ink, officials said. The scanner will count it.
But their votes weren't recorded after all.
"Part of me was thinking it does sound stupid enough to be true,'' said Amy Carlton, who had serious doubts but went ahead and voted anyway.
As it turns out, Carlton was one of 20 voters at the precinct who were given the wrong pen to use. They were also then told, apparently by a misinformed judge, that the pens have invisible ink, elections officials said.
As a result, the votes were not counted. But officials insisted there were no dirty tricks involved.
"This one defies logic,'' said Jim Allen, a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections. "You try to anticipate everything. But certain things just ... they go beyond any kind of planning you can perform.''
By late afternoon, five voters had been contacted and told to come back to the polling place to vote again. And elections staff had left messages at the homes of the rest, Allen said.
Carlton and Angela Burkhardt, another voter who was told the same invisible ink story, spent a good part of the day calling and e-mailing the Board of Elections to get answers.
"I am furious and devastated and I just feel stupid,'' Carlton said. "I feel so angry.''
Both women agreed that this election meant a lot. They had spent a good deal of time researching candidates.
"I have been voting since I was 18,'' said Carlton, 38. "This is the most important election of my life so far.''
Burkhardt planned to go back to vote late Tuesday. She worried about those who might not be able to return.
"I worry about the other people who were there,'' she said. "Maybe [they] can't get off work. I am a person of privilege. I can go back. What if you couldn't?"
© Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc.
Nader on re-run
The writer’s strike is over. But Nader is in re-runs. He’s older than John McCain, for god’s sake! I voted for him as opposed to Bush, back when Dumbya first went for power. Now...no. I’d rather vote for a vegan than anyone who...oh, is he a vegan? I’ll vote for somebody else before I’ll vote for Nader. But I’m glad the idealists/purists have somewhere to go.
Nader Announces Third-Party Run for President
The Associated Press
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_022408B.shtml
Sunday 24 February 2008
Washington - Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."
"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.
"The issue is do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people," Nader said. "We have to shift the power from the few to the many."
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.
Nader Announces Third-Party Run for President
The Associated Press
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_022408B.shtml
Sunday 24 February 2008
Washington - Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."
"In that context, I have decided to run for president," Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.
"The issue is do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people," Nader said. "We have to shift the power from the few to the many."
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
America goes for show trials
The rule of law? Justice? Stalin is laughing in his grave.
latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-davis10dec10,0,2446661.story
From the Los Angeles Times
AWOL military justice
Why the former chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions resigned his post.
By Morris D. Davis
December 10, 2007
Iwas the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until Oct. 4, the day I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system. I resigned on that day because I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively or responsibly.
In my view -- and I think most lawyers would agree -- it is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the military commissions that they be conducted in an atmosphere of honesty and impartiality. Yet the political appointee known as the "convening authority" -- a title with no counterpart in civilian courts -- was not living up to that obligation.
In a nutshell, the convening authority is supposed to be objective -- not predisposed for the prosecution or defense -- and gets to make important decisions at various stages in the process. The convening authority decides which charges filed by the prosecution go to trial and which are dismissed, chooses who serves on the jury, decides whether to approve requests for experts and reassesses findings of guilt and sentences, among other things.
Earlier this year, Susan Crawford was appointed by the secretary of Defense to replace Maj. Gen. John Altenburg as the convening authority. Altenburg's staff had kept its distance from the prosecution to preserve its impartiality. Crawford, on the other hand, had her staff assessing evidence before the filing of charges, directing the prosecution's pretrial preparation of cases (which began while I was on medical leave), drafting charges against those who were accused and assigning prosecutors to cases, among other things.
How can you direct someone to do something -- use specific evidence to bring specific charges against a specific person at a specific time, for instance -- and later make an impartial assessment of whether they behaved properly? Intermingling convening authority and prosecutor roles perpetuates the perception of a rigged process stacked against the accused.
The second reason I resigned is that I believe even the most perfect trial in history will be viewed with skepticism if it is conducted behind closed doors. Telling the world, "Trust me, you would have been impressed if only you could have seen what we did in the courtroom" will not bolster our standing as defenders of justice. Getting evidence through the classification review process to allow its use in open hearings is time-consuming, but it is time well spent.
Crawford, however, thought it unnecessary to wait because the rules permit closed proceedings. There is no doubt that some portions of some trials have to be closed to protect classified information, but that should be the last option after exhausting all reasonable alternatives. Transparency is critical.
Finally, I resigned because of two memos signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that placed the chief prosecutor -- that was me -- in a chain of command under Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes. Haynes was a controversial nominee for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, but his nomination died in January 2007, in part because of his role in authorizing the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques some call torture.
I had instructed the prosecutors in September 2005 that we would not offer any evidence derived by waterboarding, one of the aggressive interrogation techniques the administration has sanctioned. Haynes and I have different perspectives and support different agendas, and the decision to give him command over the chief prosecutor's office, in my view, cast a shadow over the integrity of military commissions. I resigned a few hours after I was informed of Haynes' place in my chain of command.
The Military Commissions Act provides a foundation for fair trials, but some changes are clearly necessary. I was confident in full, fair and open trials when Gen. Altenburg was the convening authority and Brig. Gen. Tom Hemingway was his legal advisor. Collectively, they spent nearly 65 years in active duty, and they were committed to ensuring the integrity of military law. They acted on principle rather than politics.
The first step, if these truly are military commissions and not merely a political smoke screen, is to take control out of the hands of political appointees like Haynes and Crawford and give it back to the military.
The president first authorized military commissions in November 2001, more than six years ago, and the lack of progress is obvious. Only one war-crime case has been completed. It is time for the political appointees who created this quagmire to let go.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have said that how we treat the enemy says more about us than it does about him. If we want these military commissions to say anything good about us, it's time to take the politics out of military commissions, give the military control over the process and make the proceedings open and transparent.
Morris D. Davis is the former chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions. The opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Air Force.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times |
latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-davis10dec10,0,2446661.story
From the Los Angeles Times
AWOL military justice
Why the former chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions resigned his post.
By Morris D. Davis
December 10, 2007
Iwas the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until Oct. 4, the day I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system. I resigned on that day because I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively or responsibly.
In my view -- and I think most lawyers would agree -- it is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the military commissions that they be conducted in an atmosphere of honesty and impartiality. Yet the political appointee known as the "convening authority" -- a title with no counterpart in civilian courts -- was not living up to that obligation.
In a nutshell, the convening authority is supposed to be objective -- not predisposed for the prosecution or defense -- and gets to make important decisions at various stages in the process. The convening authority decides which charges filed by the prosecution go to trial and which are dismissed, chooses who serves on the jury, decides whether to approve requests for experts and reassesses findings of guilt and sentences, among other things.
Earlier this year, Susan Crawford was appointed by the secretary of Defense to replace Maj. Gen. John Altenburg as the convening authority. Altenburg's staff had kept its distance from the prosecution to preserve its impartiality. Crawford, on the other hand, had her staff assessing evidence before the filing of charges, directing the prosecution's pretrial preparation of cases (which began while I was on medical leave), drafting charges against those who were accused and assigning prosecutors to cases, among other things.
How can you direct someone to do something -- use specific evidence to bring specific charges against a specific person at a specific time, for instance -- and later make an impartial assessment of whether they behaved properly? Intermingling convening authority and prosecutor roles perpetuates the perception of a rigged process stacked against the accused.
The second reason I resigned is that I believe even the most perfect trial in history will be viewed with skepticism if it is conducted behind closed doors. Telling the world, "Trust me, you would have been impressed if only you could have seen what we did in the courtroom" will not bolster our standing as defenders of justice. Getting evidence through the classification review process to allow its use in open hearings is time-consuming, but it is time well spent.
Crawford, however, thought it unnecessary to wait because the rules permit closed proceedings. There is no doubt that some portions of some trials have to be closed to protect classified information, but that should be the last option after exhausting all reasonable alternatives. Transparency is critical.
Finally, I resigned because of two memos signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that placed the chief prosecutor -- that was me -- in a chain of command under Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes. Haynes was a controversial nominee for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, but his nomination died in January 2007, in part because of his role in authorizing the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques some call torture.
I had instructed the prosecutors in September 2005 that we would not offer any evidence derived by waterboarding, one of the aggressive interrogation techniques the administration has sanctioned. Haynes and I have different perspectives and support different agendas, and the decision to give him command over the chief prosecutor's office, in my view, cast a shadow over the integrity of military commissions. I resigned a few hours after I was informed of Haynes' place in my chain of command.
The Military Commissions Act provides a foundation for fair trials, but some changes are clearly necessary. I was confident in full, fair and open trials when Gen. Altenburg was the convening authority and Brig. Gen. Tom Hemingway was his legal advisor. Collectively, they spent nearly 65 years in active duty, and they were committed to ensuring the integrity of military law. They acted on principle rather than politics.
The first step, if these truly are military commissions and not merely a political smoke screen, is to take control out of the hands of political appointees like Haynes and Crawford and give it back to the military.
The president first authorized military commissions in November 2001, more than six years ago, and the lack of progress is obvious. Only one war-crime case has been completed. It is time for the political appointees who created this quagmire to let go.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have said that how we treat the enemy says more about us than it does about him. If we want these military commissions to say anything good about us, it's time to take the politics out of military commissions, give the military control over the process and make the proceedings open and transparent.
Morris D. Davis is the former chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions. The opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Air Force.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times |
Golf in the desert
Around here, Bend, golf is a sort of community obsession. With less than 100,000 people, Bend has over a dozen golf courses in the city limits. In the county there are, probably, another dozen more. Even the younger people play golf—at least the younger ones who aren’t so wealthy they still have to hold jobs. Even so, many of them play because of the “networking.”
There are many subdivisions like Broken Top, Sun River, Cross Waters, Widgi Creek, and who knows how many others with their own golf courses. People actually buy into them so they live next to a fairway. And watch golf balls shatter their windows, yes. A lot of the dwellings are only lived in part of the year, of course. In winter, with a foot or so of snow on the ground, the courses are deserted. The owners often rent out their homes through various agencies.
A golf course can absorb a million gallons off water on a hot day. In desert country, that seems extravagant. This is desert country.
But maybe the fad is passing. We can only hope.
The New York Times
February 21, 2008
More Americans Are Giving Up Golf
By PAUL VITELLO
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?em&ex=1203742800&en=53478f97ee77d7d2&ei=5087%0A
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. — The men gathered in a new golf clubhouse here a couple of weeks ago circled the problem from every angle, like caddies lining up a shot out of the rough.
“We have to change our mentality,” said Richard Rocchio, a public relations consultant.
“The problem is time,” offered Walter Hurney, a real estate developer. “There just isn’t enough time. Men won’t spend a whole day away from their family anymore.”
William A. Gatz, owner of the Long Island National Golf Club in Riverhead, said the problem was fundamental economics: too much supply, not enough demand.
The problem was not a game of golf. It was the game of golf itself.
Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.
The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.
More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.
The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation.
The five men who met here at the Wind Watch Golf Club a couple of weeks ago, golf aficionados all, wondered out loud about the reasons. Was it the economy? Changing family dynamics? A glut of golf courses? A surfeit of etiquette rules — like not letting people use their cellphones for the four hours it typically takes to play a round of 18 holes?
Or was it just the four hours?
Here on Long Island, where there are more than 100 private courses, golf course owners have tried various strategies: coupons and trial memberships, aggressive marketing for corporate and charity tournaments, and even some forays into the wedding business.
Over coffee with a representative of the National Golf Course Owners Association, the owners of four golf courses discussed forming an owners’ cooperative to market golf on Long Island and, perhaps, to purchase staples like golf carts and fertilizer more cheaply.
They strategized about marketing to women, who make up about 25 percent of golfers nationally; recruiting young players with a high school tournament; attracting families with special rates; realigning courses to 6-hole rounds, instead of 9 or 18; and seeking tax breaks, on the premise that golf courses, even private ones, provide publicly beneficial open space.
“When the ship is sinking, it’s time to get creative,” said Mr. Hurney, a principal owner of the Great Rock Golf Club in Wading River, which last summer erected a 4,000-square-foot tent for social events, including weddings, christenings and communions.
The disappearance of golfers over the past several years is part of a broader decline in outdoor activities — including tennis, swimming, hiking, biking and downhill skiing — according to a number of academic and recreation industry studies.
A 2006 study by the United States Tennis Association, which has battled the trend somewhat successfully with a forceful campaign to recruit young players, found that punishing hurricane seasons factored into the decline of play in the South, while the soaring popularity of electronic games and newer sports like skateboarding was diminishing the number of new tennis players everywhere.
Rodney B. Warnick, a professor of recreation studies and tourism at the University of Massachusetts, said that the aging population of the United States was probably a part of the problem, too, and that “there is a younger generation that is just not as active.”
But golf, a sport of long-term investors — both those who buy the expensive equipment and those who build the princely estates on which it is played — has always seemed to exist in a world above the fray of shifting demographics. Not anymore.
Jim Kass, the research director of the National Golf Foundation, an industry group, said the gradual but prolonged slump in golf has defied the adage, “Once a golfer, always a golfer.” About three million golfers quit playing each year, and slightly fewer than that have been picking it up. A two-year campaign by the foundation to bring new players into the game, he said, “hasn’t shown much in the way of results.”
“The man in the street will tell you that golf is booming because he sees Tiger Woods on TV,” Mr. Kass said. “But we track the reality. The reality is, while we haven’t exactly tanked, the numbers have been disappointing for some time.”
Surveys sponsored by the foundation have asked players what keeps them away. “The answer is usually economic,” Mr. Kass said. “No time. Two jobs. Real wages not going up. Pensions going away. Corporate cutbacks in country club memberships — all that doom and gloom stuff.”
In many parts of the country, high expectations for a golf bonanza paralleling baby boomer retirements led to what is now considered a vast overbuilding of golf courses.
Between 1990 and 2003, developers built more than 3,000 new golf courses in the United States, bringing the total to about 16,000. Several hundred have closed in the last few years, most of them in Arizona, Florida, Michigan and South Carolina, according to the foundation.
(Scores more courses are listed for sale on the Web site of the National Golf Course Owners Association, which lists, for example, a North Carolina property described as “two 18-hole championship courses, great mountain locations, profitable, $1.5 million revenues, Bermuda fairways, bent grass, nice clubhouses, one at $5.5 million, other at $2.5 million — possible some owner financing.”)
At the meeting here, there was a consensus that changing family dynamics have had a profound effect on the sport.
“Years ago, men thought nothing of spending the whole day playing golf — maybe Saturday and Sunday both,” said Mr. Rocchio, the public relations consultant, who is also the New York regional director of the National Golf Course Owners Association. “Today, he is driving his kids to their soccer games. Maybe he’s playing a round early in the morning. But he has to get back home in time for lunch.”
Mr. Hurney, the real estate developer, chimed in, “Which is why if we don’t repackage our facilities to a more family orientation, we’re dead.”
To help keep the Great Rock Golf Club afloat, owners erected their large climate-controlled tent near the 18th green last summer. It sat next to the restaurant, Blackwell’s, already operating there. By most accounts, it has been a boon to the club — though perhaps not a hole in one.
Residents of the surrounding neighborhood have complained about party noise, and last year more than 40 signed a petition asking the town of Riverhead to intervene. Town officials are reviewing whether the tent meets local zoning regulations, but have not issued any noise summonses. Mr. Hurney told them he had purchased a decibel meter and would try to hire quieter entertainment.
One neighbor, Dominique Mendez, whose home is about 600 feet from the 18th hole, said, “We bought our house here because we wanted to live in a quiet place, and we thought a golf course would be nice to see from the window. Instead, people have to turn up their air conditioners or wear earplugs at night because of the music thumping.”
During weddings, she said: “you can hear the D.J., ‘We’re gonna do the garter!’ It’s a little much.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
There are many subdivisions like Broken Top, Sun River, Cross Waters, Widgi Creek, and who knows how many others with their own golf courses. People actually buy into them so they live next to a fairway. And watch golf balls shatter their windows, yes. A lot of the dwellings are only lived in part of the year, of course. In winter, with a foot or so of snow on the ground, the courses are deserted. The owners often rent out their homes through various agencies.
A golf course can absorb a million gallons off water on a hot day. In desert country, that seems extravagant. This is desert country.
But maybe the fad is passing. We can only hope.
The New York Times
February 21, 2008
More Americans Are Giving Up Golf
By PAUL VITELLO
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?em&ex=1203742800&en=53478f97ee77d7d2&ei=5087%0A
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. — The men gathered in a new golf clubhouse here a couple of weeks ago circled the problem from every angle, like caddies lining up a shot out of the rough.
“We have to change our mentality,” said Richard Rocchio, a public relations consultant.
“The problem is time,” offered Walter Hurney, a real estate developer. “There just isn’t enough time. Men won’t spend a whole day away from their family anymore.”
William A. Gatz, owner of the Long Island National Golf Club in Riverhead, said the problem was fundamental economics: too much supply, not enough demand.
The problem was not a game of golf. It was the game of golf itself.
Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.
The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.
More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.
The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation.
The five men who met here at the Wind Watch Golf Club a couple of weeks ago, golf aficionados all, wondered out loud about the reasons. Was it the economy? Changing family dynamics? A glut of golf courses? A surfeit of etiquette rules — like not letting people use their cellphones for the four hours it typically takes to play a round of 18 holes?
Or was it just the four hours?
Here on Long Island, where there are more than 100 private courses, golf course owners have tried various strategies: coupons and trial memberships, aggressive marketing for corporate and charity tournaments, and even some forays into the wedding business.
Over coffee with a representative of the National Golf Course Owners Association, the owners of four golf courses discussed forming an owners’ cooperative to market golf on Long Island and, perhaps, to purchase staples like golf carts and fertilizer more cheaply.
They strategized about marketing to women, who make up about 25 percent of golfers nationally; recruiting young players with a high school tournament; attracting families with special rates; realigning courses to 6-hole rounds, instead of 9 or 18; and seeking tax breaks, on the premise that golf courses, even private ones, provide publicly beneficial open space.
“When the ship is sinking, it’s time to get creative,” said Mr. Hurney, a principal owner of the Great Rock Golf Club in Wading River, which last summer erected a 4,000-square-foot tent for social events, including weddings, christenings and communions.
The disappearance of golfers over the past several years is part of a broader decline in outdoor activities — including tennis, swimming, hiking, biking and downhill skiing — according to a number of academic and recreation industry studies.
A 2006 study by the United States Tennis Association, which has battled the trend somewhat successfully with a forceful campaign to recruit young players, found that punishing hurricane seasons factored into the decline of play in the South, while the soaring popularity of electronic games and newer sports like skateboarding was diminishing the number of new tennis players everywhere.
Rodney B. Warnick, a professor of recreation studies and tourism at the University of Massachusetts, said that the aging population of the United States was probably a part of the problem, too, and that “there is a younger generation that is just not as active.”
But golf, a sport of long-term investors — both those who buy the expensive equipment and those who build the princely estates on which it is played — has always seemed to exist in a world above the fray of shifting demographics. Not anymore.
Jim Kass, the research director of the National Golf Foundation, an industry group, said the gradual but prolonged slump in golf has defied the adage, “Once a golfer, always a golfer.” About three million golfers quit playing each year, and slightly fewer than that have been picking it up. A two-year campaign by the foundation to bring new players into the game, he said, “hasn’t shown much in the way of results.”
“The man in the street will tell you that golf is booming because he sees Tiger Woods on TV,” Mr. Kass said. “But we track the reality. The reality is, while we haven’t exactly tanked, the numbers have been disappointing for some time.”
Surveys sponsored by the foundation have asked players what keeps them away. “The answer is usually economic,” Mr. Kass said. “No time. Two jobs. Real wages not going up. Pensions going away. Corporate cutbacks in country club memberships — all that doom and gloom stuff.”
In many parts of the country, high expectations for a golf bonanza paralleling baby boomer retirements led to what is now considered a vast overbuilding of golf courses.
Between 1990 and 2003, developers built more than 3,000 new golf courses in the United States, bringing the total to about 16,000. Several hundred have closed in the last few years, most of them in Arizona, Florida, Michigan and South Carolina, according to the foundation.
(Scores more courses are listed for sale on the Web site of the National Golf Course Owners Association, which lists, for example, a North Carolina property described as “two 18-hole championship courses, great mountain locations, profitable, $1.5 million revenues, Bermuda fairways, bent grass, nice clubhouses, one at $5.5 million, other at $2.5 million — possible some owner financing.”)
At the meeting here, there was a consensus that changing family dynamics have had a profound effect on the sport.
“Years ago, men thought nothing of spending the whole day playing golf — maybe Saturday and Sunday both,” said Mr. Rocchio, the public relations consultant, who is also the New York regional director of the National Golf Course Owners Association. “Today, he is driving his kids to their soccer games. Maybe he’s playing a round early in the morning. But he has to get back home in time for lunch.”
Mr. Hurney, the real estate developer, chimed in, “Which is why if we don’t repackage our facilities to a more family orientation, we’re dead.”
To help keep the Great Rock Golf Club afloat, owners erected their large climate-controlled tent near the 18th green last summer. It sat next to the restaurant, Blackwell’s, already operating there. By most accounts, it has been a boon to the club — though perhaps not a hole in one.
Residents of the surrounding neighborhood have complained about party noise, and last year more than 40 signed a petition asking the town of Riverhead to intervene. Town officials are reviewing whether the tent meets local zoning regulations, but have not issued any noise summonses. Mr. Hurney told them he had purchased a decibel meter and would try to hire quieter entertainment.
One neighbor, Dominique Mendez, whose home is about 600 feet from the 18th hole, said, “We bought our house here because we wanted to live in a quiet place, and we thought a golf course would be nice to see from the window. Instead, people have to turn up their air conditioners or wear earplugs at night because of the music thumping.”
During weddings, she said: “you can hear the D.J., ‘We’re gonna do the garter!’ It’s a little much.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Keep Secrets or Telling All?
As a person with a chronic “illness”—although it’s a genetic mutation—I’ve always been involved with the relationship between this condition and the outside world. I mean, how much do people need to know about me? If I had an office job, I figured it was nobody’s business; in fact, as long as I could do what was in front of me, it wasn’t anybody’s business but mine. The same with being a recovering alcoholic and drug user—when I do cop to that, it’s after some consideration. Usually, I don’t.
Like when I broke my leg a year or so ago, I didn’t say anything about my time in 12-step programs. I had no intention of going through a lot of pain because some concerned doctor might worry about a relapse on my part. Gimme those pills! And, no, I didn’t relapse.
I know several people who have bi-polar disorders. One of them never mentions it and another one always does. It’s up to them, but I figure very little needs to be said about it, up front. Big fucking deal: everybody’s got something or other wrong with them. The probably isn’t our diagnoses, but what we do about them. I’m a lot more than what is “wrong” with me. In fact, there really isn’t anything “wrong” with me at all. I’m more than the sum of my parts... And, even so, sometimes there isn't anything wrong with "keeping secrets."
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/fashion/21WORK.html?th&emc=th
February 21, 2008
Life’s Work
I’m Ill, but Who Really Needs to Know?
By LISA BELKIN
ONE of the first decisions you make in the emotional hours after a scary diagnosis is whether to tell others. Most of us share the news with our loved ones, but what of the circles beyond, particularly those at work? Your boss?
At first, Richard M. Cohen, whose multiple sclerosis was diagnosed at 25, did not tell. Mr. Cohen — whose latest book, “Strong at the Broken Places,” recounts the stories of five patients with chronic illnesses — was starting what would become a hard-charging career as a television news producer when he learned of his condition. He feared he would be considered unfit. He kept his secret for years despite failing vision and shaky balance.
Marlene Kahan, in turn, disclosed her condition right away. Four years ago, when she learned she had Parkinson’s disease, she had been the executive director of the American Society of Magazine Editors for more than a decade. With that longevity came security, she hoped.
Ms. Kahan was also afraid that the mix of symptoms and side effects from the treatments would leave her at “less than 100 percent,” she said, making it seem as if she was either slacking or even sicker than she was. “I didn’t want people to wonder and jump to other conclusions,” she said.
Gayle Backstrom, whose fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition, was diagnosed decades ago, understands both paths. Still she advises to keep your condition to yourself for as long as possible, because that is safer.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from dismissing or failing to hire a chronically-ill employee on the basis of that disability “if they are able to do the job with reasonable accommodation,” she said. But in many cases, “reasonable” and “able” and even “job” all become open to interpretation, said Ms. Backstrom, the author of “I’d Rather Be Working” (Amacom, 2002).
An excellent resource for workers facing this choice, she said, is the Job Accommodation Network, a service of the federal Department of Labor. Most questions on its site, she said, come from workers, not management, and “they are looking for suggestions on how to do adjust their work without bringing it to the attention of their bosses,” she said. They buy themselves custom footstools and wrist-rests, and sneak off to restrooms to take medications. To hide their condition on the worst days, they call in sick, giving a reason other than their chronic illness.
Mr. Cohen did that for nearly 10 years. In “Blindsided: Lifting a Life Above Illness,” he recalled an interview for a job as a producer on the “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.” He asked a friend, Robert MacNeil, whether he should mention his multiple sclerosis. Recalling Mr. MacNeil’s answer, he wrote: “Say nothing. Your silence is an honorable dishonesty.”
Mr. Cohen got the job and was able to keep his secret with scrupulous attention to logistics, quietly using public transportation to conceal that he could not see well enough to drive. Years later, the executive who first hired him agreed that he had been wise to stay mum. “I am not proud to say this,” Mr. Cohen quoted the man as saying, “but I don’t think I would have hired you if I had known.”
Celeste Lee also chose to keep the details of her life from her employers for years. An autoimmune disease she developed in high school, 25 years ago, led to kidney failure. A transplant was initially successful, but eventually her body rejected the organ. That left her dependent on regular dialysis.
At first, she managed it on her own with a saline bag and an IV needle. She then worked as an administrator at a Boston law firm, and because the process took 15 minutes behind her closed office door, “it was something they didn’t really need to know,” she said of her employers and co-workers.
The timing was sometimes tricky, but life went on. She got her master’s degree, was promoted, married and had a son.
But after she moved to take a job at Duke University, the simpler form of treatment began to prove insufficient. She had to switch to hemodialysis, which required that she be hooked to a machine that cleaned her blood for three hours, three days a week.
Shortly after, she was offered her “dream job” as chief of staff to the chief executive of the Duke University Health System. The high-paced work would require 12- to 15-hour days. For the first time, she wondered whether her illness would hold her back.
She raised the issue in her interview. “At first they were uncomfortable because they thought that if they didn’t hire me I would accuse them of discrimination,” she said. “But I said: ‘No, we have to talk about this. It needs to be on the table.’ ”
She got the job. Now she is on the dialysis machine at the outpatient dialysis clinic at Duke by 7 a.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. On workdays she is at her desk by 10 a.m., respectable by most standards, but hours later than her arrival on nondialysis days. She also arrives feeling “hung over” from the six-pound weight loss post-treatment, she said, another reason why she felt she had to be upfront. “On Tuesdays and Thursdays, everyone knows that I can’t always be accountable for my personality,” she said.
Mr. Cohen eventually also revealed all once he had proved himself. He then went on to squint his way through the Solidarity protests in Poland and the violence in Beirut, once staring down Palestine Liberation Organization guards because he could not see the guns pointed at his head. Eventually he left breaking news for the slower pace of documentary television.
Now even writing books is increasingly difficult because of his worsening condition. He wrote most of “Strong at the Broken Places” with his left hand, because his right side doesn’t function well. The patients profiled in his book live nationwide, so he spent a lot of time in airports. “Picture it,” he said. “I am legally blind, I have trouble with mobility, I was constantly lost and under pressure to get from point A to point B. More than once I dropped everything I was carrying, because I do that, and I had tears in my eyes. I thought, ‘I can’t do this.’ ”
Yet he commutes daily to his office on the Upper West Side from Westchester, where he lives with his wife, Meredith Vieira, a host of “Today,” and their three children.
“Barbara Walters is always asking me, ‘Why do you do that?’ ” he said of his wife’s former colleague on “The View.” “Because I can. You do it until you can’t do it anymore.”
That is Ms. Lee’s mantra, too. In recent weeks her doctors have confirmed that she faces a new challenge: nephrogenic systemic fibrosing. It is essentially a thickening of the tissue or subcutaneous skin that can affect muscle and organ functions.
“At some point I have to consider whether I will have to bow out of this position,” she said. “But I want that to be my decision, and I won’t make it until I have to.”
E-mail: Belkin@nytimes.com
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Like when I broke my leg a year or so ago, I didn’t say anything about my time in 12-step programs. I had no intention of going through a lot of pain because some concerned doctor might worry about a relapse on my part. Gimme those pills! And, no, I didn’t relapse.
I know several people who have bi-polar disorders. One of them never mentions it and another one always does. It’s up to them, but I figure very little needs to be said about it, up front. Big fucking deal: everybody’s got something or other wrong with them. The probably isn’t our diagnoses, but what we do about them. I’m a lot more than what is “wrong” with me. In fact, there really isn’t anything “wrong” with me at all. I’m more than the sum of my parts... And, even so, sometimes there isn't anything wrong with "keeping secrets."
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/fashion/21WORK.html?th&emc=th
February 21, 2008
Life’s Work
I’m Ill, but Who Really Needs to Know?
By LISA BELKIN
ONE of the first decisions you make in the emotional hours after a scary diagnosis is whether to tell others. Most of us share the news with our loved ones, but what of the circles beyond, particularly those at work? Your boss?
At first, Richard M. Cohen, whose multiple sclerosis was diagnosed at 25, did not tell. Mr. Cohen — whose latest book, “Strong at the Broken Places,” recounts the stories of five patients with chronic illnesses — was starting what would become a hard-charging career as a television news producer when he learned of his condition. He feared he would be considered unfit. He kept his secret for years despite failing vision and shaky balance.
Marlene Kahan, in turn, disclosed her condition right away. Four years ago, when she learned she had Parkinson’s disease, she had been the executive director of the American Society of Magazine Editors for more than a decade. With that longevity came security, she hoped.
Ms. Kahan was also afraid that the mix of symptoms and side effects from the treatments would leave her at “less than 100 percent,” she said, making it seem as if she was either slacking or even sicker than she was. “I didn’t want people to wonder and jump to other conclusions,” she said.
Gayle Backstrom, whose fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition, was diagnosed decades ago, understands both paths. Still she advises to keep your condition to yourself for as long as possible, because that is safer.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from dismissing or failing to hire a chronically-ill employee on the basis of that disability “if they are able to do the job with reasonable accommodation,” she said. But in many cases, “reasonable” and “able” and even “job” all become open to interpretation, said Ms. Backstrom, the author of “I’d Rather Be Working” (Amacom, 2002).
An excellent resource for workers facing this choice, she said, is the Job Accommodation Network, a service of the federal Department of Labor. Most questions on its site, she said, come from workers, not management, and “they are looking for suggestions on how to do adjust their work without bringing it to the attention of their bosses,” she said. They buy themselves custom footstools and wrist-rests, and sneak off to restrooms to take medications. To hide their condition on the worst days, they call in sick, giving a reason other than their chronic illness.
Mr. Cohen did that for nearly 10 years. In “Blindsided: Lifting a Life Above Illness,” he recalled an interview for a job as a producer on the “CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.” He asked a friend, Robert MacNeil, whether he should mention his multiple sclerosis. Recalling Mr. MacNeil’s answer, he wrote: “Say nothing. Your silence is an honorable dishonesty.”
Mr. Cohen got the job and was able to keep his secret with scrupulous attention to logistics, quietly using public transportation to conceal that he could not see well enough to drive. Years later, the executive who first hired him agreed that he had been wise to stay mum. “I am not proud to say this,” Mr. Cohen quoted the man as saying, “but I don’t think I would have hired you if I had known.”
Celeste Lee also chose to keep the details of her life from her employers for years. An autoimmune disease she developed in high school, 25 years ago, led to kidney failure. A transplant was initially successful, but eventually her body rejected the organ. That left her dependent on regular dialysis.
At first, she managed it on her own with a saline bag and an IV needle. She then worked as an administrator at a Boston law firm, and because the process took 15 minutes behind her closed office door, “it was something they didn’t really need to know,” she said of her employers and co-workers.
The timing was sometimes tricky, but life went on. She got her master’s degree, was promoted, married and had a son.
But after she moved to take a job at Duke University, the simpler form of treatment began to prove insufficient. She had to switch to hemodialysis, which required that she be hooked to a machine that cleaned her blood for three hours, three days a week.
Shortly after, she was offered her “dream job” as chief of staff to the chief executive of the Duke University Health System. The high-paced work would require 12- to 15-hour days. For the first time, she wondered whether her illness would hold her back.
She raised the issue in her interview. “At first they were uncomfortable because they thought that if they didn’t hire me I would accuse them of discrimination,” she said. “But I said: ‘No, we have to talk about this. It needs to be on the table.’ ”
She got the job. Now she is on the dialysis machine at the outpatient dialysis clinic at Duke by 7 a.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. On workdays she is at her desk by 10 a.m., respectable by most standards, but hours later than her arrival on nondialysis days. She also arrives feeling “hung over” from the six-pound weight loss post-treatment, she said, another reason why she felt she had to be upfront. “On Tuesdays and Thursdays, everyone knows that I can’t always be accountable for my personality,” she said.
Mr. Cohen eventually also revealed all once he had proved himself. He then went on to squint his way through the Solidarity protests in Poland and the violence in Beirut, once staring down Palestine Liberation Organization guards because he could not see the guns pointed at his head. Eventually he left breaking news for the slower pace of documentary television.
Now even writing books is increasingly difficult because of his worsening condition. He wrote most of “Strong at the Broken Places” with his left hand, because his right side doesn’t function well. The patients profiled in his book live nationwide, so he spent a lot of time in airports. “Picture it,” he said. “I am legally blind, I have trouble with mobility, I was constantly lost and under pressure to get from point A to point B. More than once I dropped everything I was carrying, because I do that, and I had tears in my eyes. I thought, ‘I can’t do this.’ ”
Yet he commutes daily to his office on the Upper West Side from Westchester, where he lives with his wife, Meredith Vieira, a host of “Today,” and their three children.
“Barbara Walters is always asking me, ‘Why do you do that?’ ” he said of his wife’s former colleague on “The View.” “Because I can. You do it until you can’t do it anymore.”
That is Ms. Lee’s mantra, too. In recent weeks her doctors have confirmed that she faces a new challenge: nephrogenic systemic fibrosing. It is essentially a thickening of the tissue or subcutaneous skin that can affect muscle and organ functions.
“At some point I have to consider whether I will have to bow out of this position,” she said. “But I want that to be my decision, and I won’t make it until I have to.”
E-mail: Belkin@nytimes.com
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney spits in the soup
"...surrender to terror..."?
Who is this arrogant jerk? As Dave Neiwert pointed out over at Orcinus, the stab in the back scenario is alive and well. The conservatives have always loved this one, since they saw how well it worked for the Nazis. They've had the communists stabbing us in the back, the intellectuals, the students, liberals, everybody who hasn't marched lock-step with them on the War Road.
Every so often I get kind of sentimental toward the Mormons. After all, my mother's dad came from the Mormon church (actually, he came away from it) and one of my g-grandfathers—g-g-grandfather, I think it was—was a Mormon lad who rode for the Pony Express. And translated for the Indians. And so on. Pretty romantic stuff. But.
Back when the LDS successfully campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment, I started feeling, well, cynical about them. It isn't just their personal belief system: it's what they'd like to impose on the rest of us. And, apparently, Mitt Romney would like us all to believe that the Democrats are hand-in-hand with Islamic terrorists. What a crock of shit.
Arrogant ass.
Who is this arrogant jerk? As Dave Neiwert pointed out over at Orcinus, the stab in the back scenario is alive and well. The conservatives have always loved this one, since they saw how well it worked for the Nazis. They've had the communists stabbing us in the back, the intellectuals, the students, liberals, everybody who hasn't marched lock-step with them on the War Road.
Every so often I get kind of sentimental toward the Mormons. After all, my mother's dad came from the Mormon church (actually, he came away from it) and one of my g-grandfathers—g-g-grandfather, I think it was—was a Mormon lad who rode for the Pony Express. And translated for the Indians. And so on. Pretty romantic stuff. But.
Back when the LDS successfully campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment, I started feeling, well, cynical about them. It isn't just their personal belief system: it's what they'd like to impose on the rest of us. And, apparently, Mitt Romney would like us all to believe that the Democrats are hand-in-hand with Islamic terrorists. What a crock of shit.
Arrogant ass.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
It's for our own good, you know....
Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
By Dan Hamburg
Created Feb 3 2008 - 10:58am
by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
[This essay will appear in the February 4 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.]
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the US government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse.
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."1 The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.2
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."3
Fraud-busters like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars shouldn't go taxpayer-gouging Halliburton.4 But the real question is: what kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the Union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people? According to whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Middle Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters."5
Section 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."6
The NDAA signifies a continuation of the process of dismantling legal barriers to unrestrained executive power. In 2002, the government created the Northern Command, the first time since the Civil War that the military has been given an operational command inside the continental United States. In 2005, the Washington Post reported that Northcom had developed battle plans for martial law in the U.S., envisioning 15 different scenarios for its imposition.7
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and non-citizens alike.8
In 2007, President Bush tightened the noose by issuing an executive order that authorizes seizure of the property of anyone who "threatens stabilization efforts" in Iraq.9 The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes such efforts.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government."10 This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
California Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Venice) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955), which recently passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a Commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combating it.11
According to a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it. The commission would have the power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths. Individual members of the commission--"little Joe McCarthys"--would be allowed to tour the country holding their own hearings in order to "expose native terrorism."12
Rep. Harman's bill also includes an attack on the Internet, claiming it provides Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and further legalizes the infiltration of a wide array of organizations.13
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists.14 Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, second amendment rights supporters...the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center currently holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.15
Add to these facts the inception of the world's largest mercenary army (Blackwater USA) and the sale of the United States Investigative Service (USIS) to the notorious Carlyle Group, placing the relevant information of every American citizen in private hands, and presto! All the essential elements for the transformation of our constitutional democracy into an American form of fascism are in place.16
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terror to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
* * *
Notes:
1. Press release posted on the Halliburton website.
2. "Fear the Coming Train," Lost Bleu, Portland Independent Media Center, October 18, 2004.
3. "10-Year US Strategic Plan for Detention Camps Revives Proposals from Oliver North," Peter Dale Scott, New America Media, Feb. 21, 2006.
4. "Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs,' Nat Parry, Consortium News, Feb. 21, 2006.
5. ibid.
6. "Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law [1]," March 22, 2007.
7. ibid.
8. "Who Is 'Any Person' in Tribunal Law?", Robert Parry, Consortium News, Oct. 19, 2006.
9. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html [2].
10. "Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Oct. 19, 2007.
11. "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," Huffington Post, Philip Giraldi, Nov. 26, 2007
12. "Here come the thought police," Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 19, 2007.
13. ibid.
14. "Battle of the Beagles," Nick Cooney, Z Magazine, May, 2007.
15. Naomi Wolf interviewed by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, Nov. 28, 2007.
16. "When War Is Swell: Bush's Crusades and the Carlyle Group," Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, May 22/23, 2004.
_______
Vote Result
Score: 10.0, Votes: 10
Bookmark/Search this post with:
[3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9]
Source URL (retrieved on Feb 3 2008 - 4:31pm): http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584
Links:
[1] http://www.inteldaily.com
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
[3] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[4] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[5] http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[6] http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&h=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[7] http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[8] http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&t=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[9] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584
Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
By Dan Hamburg
Created Feb 3 2008 - 10:58am
by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
[This essay will appear in the February 4 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.]
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-- Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the US government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse.
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."1 The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.2
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."3
Fraud-busters like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars shouldn't go taxpayer-gouging Halliburton.4 But the real question is: what kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the Union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people? According to whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Middle Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters."5
Section 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."6
The NDAA signifies a continuation of the process of dismantling legal barriers to unrestrained executive power. In 2002, the government created the Northern Command, the first time since the Civil War that the military has been given an operational command inside the continental United States. In 2005, the Washington Post reported that Northcom had developed battle plans for martial law in the U.S., envisioning 15 different scenarios for its imposition.7
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and non-citizens alike.8
In 2007, President Bush tightened the noose by issuing an executive order that authorizes seizure of the property of anyone who "threatens stabilization efforts" in Iraq.9 The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes such efforts.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government."10 This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
California Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Venice) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955), which recently passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a Commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combating it.11
According to a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it. The commission would have the power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths. Individual members of the commission--"little Joe McCarthys"--would be allowed to tour the country holding their own hearings in order to "expose native terrorism."12
Rep. Harman's bill also includes an attack on the Internet, claiming it provides Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and further legalizes the infiltration of a wide array of organizations.13
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists.14 Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, second amendment rights supporters...the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center currently holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.15
Add to these facts the inception of the world's largest mercenary army (Blackwater USA) and the sale of the United States Investigative Service (USIS) to the notorious Carlyle Group, placing the relevant information of every American citizen in private hands, and presto! All the essential elements for the transformation of our constitutional democracy into an American form of fascism are in place.16
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terror to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
* * *
Notes:
1. Press release posted on the Halliburton website.
2. "Fear the Coming Train," Lost Bleu, Portland Independent Media Center, October 18, 2004.
3. "10-Year US Strategic Plan for Detention Camps Revives Proposals from Oliver North," Peter Dale Scott, New America Media, Feb. 21, 2006.
4. "Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs,' Nat Parry, Consortium News, Feb. 21, 2006.
5. ibid.
6. "Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law [1]," March 22, 2007.
7. ibid.
8. "Who Is 'Any Person' in Tribunal Law?", Robert Parry, Consortium News, Oct. 19, 2006.
9. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html [2].
10. "Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Oct. 19, 2007.
11. "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," Huffington Post, Philip Giraldi, Nov. 26, 2007
12. "Here come the thought police," Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 19, 2007.
13. ibid.
14. "Battle of the Beagles," Nick Cooney, Z Magazine, May, 2007.
15. Naomi Wolf interviewed by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, Nov. 28, 2007.
16. "When War Is Swell: Bush's Crusades and the Carlyle Group," Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, May 22/23, 2004.
_______
Vote Result
Score: 10.0, Votes: 10
Bookmark/Search this post with:
[3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9]
Source URL (retrieved on Feb 3 2008 - 4:31pm): http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584
Links:
[1] http://www.inteldaily.com
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
[3] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[4] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[5] http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[6] http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&h=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[7] http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&title=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[8] http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584&t=Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
[9] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12584
Another moral pillar of salt...or shit...
This is one of those stories that isn’t too good to be true. It’s almost too bad to be true. It’s like the bigwig TV evangelist caught fucking his secretary, or the rightwing politician picked up for giving blowjobs to teen-age boys.
A guy like this should go to work for the Bush-Cheney Junta.
DVD Sanitizer Accused of X-Rated Behavior
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/01/headline-here.html
Posted by Eriq Gardner
Cleanflicks Remember Clean Flix? It's the Utah-based DVD business that was a favorite of conservative politicians and an anathema to the studios because it edited feature films to remove or alter content deemed inappropriate.
The company's activities sparked a number of lawsuits, including one huge one filed by 16 prominent directors, including Steven Spielberg and Robert Redford, and entertainment studios such as Disney, Sony, Universal, Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox. In 2006, Hollywood won its copyright claims against Clean Flix and the company recently shut down, supposedly due to the industry's legal force.
Well, cover your eyes for this story. Clean Flix founder Daniel Thompson has just been arrested and is accused of having sex with underaged girls. And according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the "booking documents state Thompson told the 14-year-olds that his film sanitizing business was a cover for a pornography studio." Police found a "large quantity" of porno movies inside the business, "along with a keg of beer, painkillers and two cameras hooked up to a television." Thompson has been released after posting $30,000 bail.
We wish we could edit that story out of our heads.
A guy like this should go to work for the Bush-Cheney Junta.
DVD Sanitizer Accused of X-Rated Behavior
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/01/headline-here.html
Posted by Eriq Gardner
Cleanflicks Remember Clean Flix? It's the Utah-based DVD business that was a favorite of conservative politicians and an anathema to the studios because it edited feature films to remove or alter content deemed inappropriate.
The company's activities sparked a number of lawsuits, including one huge one filed by 16 prominent directors, including Steven Spielberg and Robert Redford, and entertainment studios such as Disney, Sony, Universal, Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox. In 2006, Hollywood won its copyright claims against Clean Flix and the company recently shut down, supposedly due to the industry's legal force.
Well, cover your eyes for this story. Clean Flix founder Daniel Thompson has just been arrested and is accused of having sex with underaged girls. And according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the "booking documents state Thompson told the 14-year-olds that his film sanitizing business was a cover for a pornography studio." Police found a "large quantity" of porno movies inside the business, "along with a keg of beer, painkillers and two cameras hooked up to a television." Thompson has been released after posting $30,000 bail.
We wish we could edit that story out of our heads.
As long as I'm up—
Dave Niewert's blog, "Orcinus" is having a fundraising. Dave Niewert is an excellent observer of the right wing in America—and I mean the moonbat, wingnut, neo-fascist right wing. The ones who are running this country as well as the ones standing in the background, itching to whack some liberals.
Dave Niewert deserves donations as much as, say, Free Speech TV, and a lot more than your local PBS station (but, then, hey, so do I—send me some money, too). Check out Orcinus. You'll like it.
Dave Niewert deserves donations as much as, say, Free Speech TV, and a lot more than your local PBS station (but, then, hey, so do I—send me some money, too). Check out Orcinus. You'll like it.
Sometimes the light's all shining on me
Reuters says that Monday night—tomorrow, the remaining members of the Grateful Dead will play a concert to support Obama's campaign. The least politically-outspoken rock band of all comes full circle (OK, so that's hyperbole: who cares).
Obviously Obama is seen as an outsider (even if he is from one of the most politically corrupt states of all...yeah, that's saying something) who's...what? Kennedy-esque? I guess. I can't remember any candidate with such wide-spread support on the left side of the hall. No, I'm not saying he's a lefty, not at all. He's so mainstream he gives me a headache. But what he has is a huge appeal to the young and to those who feels politics are a mistake. That may be what it takes. I mean there hasn't been an insider since JFK who's fired up younger voters like Obama has. An insider, I said—not McCarthy, who was automatically forced outside the mainstream Democratic Party, not RFK, either, since the machine would have stopped him one way or the other.
So, sometimes the light's all shining on me, yeah, but: other times I can barely see....
Obviously Obama is seen as an outsider (even if he is from one of the most politically corrupt states of all...yeah, that's saying something) who's...what? Kennedy-esque? I guess. I can't remember any candidate with such wide-spread support on the left side of the hall. No, I'm not saying he's a lefty, not at all. He's so mainstream he gives me a headache. But what he has is a huge appeal to the young and to those who feels politics are a mistake. That may be what it takes. I mean there hasn't been an insider since JFK who's fired up younger voters like Obama has. An insider, I said—not McCarthy, who was automatically forced outside the mainstream Democratic Party, not RFK, either, since the machine would have stopped him one way or the other.
So, sometimes the light's all shining on me, yeah, but: other times I can barely see....
