Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to “take smaller steps towards reform” while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.
Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.
Just 30% would favor legislation that focused “exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.” Fifty-seven percent (57%) oppose that strategy, including 63% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 55% of unaffiliated voters.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a proposal giving “all illegal aliens up to three years to leave the United States. After leaving, the illegal aliens would have to get in line and wait their turn for legal entry into the United States.” Support for that concept comes from 67% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 56% of unaffiliated voters.
The Senate immigration reform bill that failed last week was far more popular in Congress than among the American people. It was strongly opposed by a cross-section of the nation’s voters. At the end, just 23% of voters favored the legislation.
When the immigration debate dominates the news, the President’s Job Approval ratings generally tumble. This week is no exception. The morning after a much publicized lunch meeting aimed at encouraging Republican Senators to vote for the “comprehensive” reform measure, the President’s Job Approval fell to 33%. That matches the lowest level recorded to this point in time.
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) has also been hurt by the debate over immigration. McCain has been one of the legislation’s most vocal supporters and was once considered the dominant frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination. Now, however, just 11% of Likely GOP Primary Voters name McCain as their top choice. In his home state of Arizona, McCain is viewed favorably by just 47% of voters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has seen his Favorability ratings slide to 19% during the recent debate. A month ago, he was viewed favorably by 26%.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Voters Want Smaller Steps to Immigration Reform With Focus on Enforcement (Fax to your Senator)
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Chavez orders supporters to give up extra possessions
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told his supporters to give away possessions they do not need such as an extra refrigerator because he only wants true socialists to be members of a new single party he is forming.
"Whoever has a fridge they do not need, put it out in the village square. Whoever has a truck, a fan or a cooker they do not need, give something away. Let's not be selfish. I demand you do it," Chavez said at a milk producing cooperative, in remarks released on Monday.
The anti-U.S. president who calls Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor denies he is turning the OPEC nation of avid consumers into another communist state as his critics say.
"I only want to be accompanied by true socialists," he said.
Chavez's critics complain his constant railing against U.S.-promoted consumerism contrasts with the behavior of senior government officials who can can be seen dining out at fancy restaurants or riding around in expensive cars.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Thursday, June 07, 2007
El President is giving me moonbat fever (FR mentioned!)
I don't necessarily agree with this column, but it's amusing.
Howie Carr:
I have just come down with a dread disease, one that I once believed struck only moonbats.
Bush Derangement Syndrome - BDS.
I am so far out of the BDS demo - I don’t have a trust fund, a ponytail or hot flashes. I have two jobs. I laugh at Deval Patrick and carbon credits. I do not go to movies made by Michael Moore or Al Gore. I have no bumper stickers saying either Kerry-Edwards or 1-20-09.
But BDS can sneak up on you faster than a resolution banning trans-fat in SUVs at Brookline Town Meeting. Like so many other Americans, I first tested positive for BDS on May 18. That was the day George Bush and Ted Kennedy announced their amnesty bill for 12 - or is it 20? . . . or 30? - million illegal aliens.
Perhaps you’re familiar with the early symptoms of BDS - as soon as you see George Bush on TV you reach for the remote control, because if you don’t, you know you’ll start yelling at the TV set, scaring the children yet again.
Is BDS fatal? Not usually, but it may soon claim its first victim: the presidential campaign of John McCain. He’s sinking like a stone in the polls and I suspect full-blown BDS. It wasn’t supporting George Bush’s war that doomed McCain, it was supporting his amnesty bill.
The BDS epidemic has swept what were once called the “red states” in record time. Do you realize that 61 million people voted for George Bush in 2004 and at last count only 53 will still admit to it? Er, the count just went down to 52, now that Lou from Waltham has just faxed in:
“Not only can I not stand Bush, I can’t take that puppet of his, Tony Snow.”
Here’s a joke from a BDS quarantine ward:
Q. How many Bush supporters does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Both of them.
I’m not the first person to admit contracting this debilitating illness. Former Bush supporters are coming out, you might say, all over the Internet. If you’re wondering whether you, too, are at risk for contracting BDS, ask yourself the following questions:
Have you recently screamed at an RNC telephone fund-raiser - all of whom were just fired because everyone in the Republican base has stopped giving money since “shamnesty”?
Do you find yourself calling the president “Jorge”?
Have you dreamed of the day Jeb Bush runs for president, so you can vote against him?
Have you asked yourself, “Where can I get me one of those Z-visas so I don’t have to pay back taxes?”
If you answered “yes” to more than one of the above questions, consult your physician immediately. Before you can say, “Mission accomplished!” you may find yourself repeating Ronald Reagan’s great line about the Democratic Party: “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.”
The right-wing Web sites have become self-help meetings, where the fallen-away wonder whatever possessed them to vote, twice, for a guy who has thrown in with Ted Kennedy, La Raza and Vicente Fox.
As Carbonado put it on Free Republic: “How bad was the other choice that an inept, tongue-tied goober like Dubya looked like the better choice?”
Inept tongue-tied goober - that passes for high praise these days for Bush 43.
OK, we got two good Supreme Court appointments, but one of them was over the objections of the inept, tongue-tied goober. The tax cuts worked, but they’re sunsetted. And the war on terror - how many more times can anyone afflicted with BDS listen to him talk about the terrible threat posed to Western Civilization by terrorists in Iraq, who kill an average of three Americans a day, after which he lauds those wonderful illegal aliens who, according to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), are killing an average of 25 Americans a day?
The FBI describes stopping the illegal gangbangers of MS-13 as the top priority. Jorge wants to give them amnesty if they sign a “renunciation of gang affiliation.”
Border security 5,000 miles away in Iraq: Job One for the U.S. military. Border security along the Rio Grande: Yawn.
Every time Bush goes out to the Rose Garden and calls his own voters “vigilantes,” BDS spreads. More people see Dick Cheney and immediately think “Neo-con chicken hawk.” They see Michael Chertoff and think “bearded little weasel.” They see Ken Mehlman and Lindsay Graham and they think - well, let’s not go there.
Millions of people feel bushwhacked. They’re bushed.
Bush Derangement Syndrome. It’s not just for moonbats anymore.
Turkish Mosque's Chief Threatens Violent Revolt in Amsterdam
The youth vote? Maybe in 2016 or 2020.
| Photo Credit: By Ricky Carioti -- The Washington Post Related Article: Hillary Fever Skips a Generation, page A02 |
Turkish Mosque's Chief Threatens Violent Revolt in Amsterdam
Now isn't this special?
THE HAGUE -- If Amsterdam city council bars construction of the Westermoskee mosque, a great demonstration of Turks from throughout Europe will be held. The possibility of this degenerating into violence cannot be ruled out, the Turkish organisation Milli Gorus warns.
The controversial Westermoskee in Amsterdam will be built come what may, said Fatih Dag of the Turkish mosque organisation in Trouw newspaper. If the government blocks its building, Milli Gorus will call on Turks throughout the whole of Europe to demonstrate. Dag hopes this would be a peaceful procession, but fears it could get out of hand. "Our people are emotional and someone crazy can just be walking among them," he said in the newspaper.
The building of the 42 metre tall, 18-million euros Neo-Ottoman Westermoskee was blocked months ago after Milli Gorus' orthodox German head office replaced management in Amsterdam. After that, reports surfaced that Milli Gorus had wheedled billions of euros out of Turks since the 1990s by having them invest in Islamic investment funds.
Amsterdam politicians advised against the building of the new Westermoskee in the 1990s for fears of the orthodox course, but after much lobbying, the project was last year dubbed a symbol of integration by the then Justice Minster Donner, who laid the foundation-stone. Last week, it was made known that municipal authorities and Milli Gorus had suspended their cooperation on the building anyway.
If the licence for the mosque is definitively withdrawn, this would be "extremely foolish," warns Dag. "I will then immediately call for a demonstration. If every Milli Gorus mosque in Europe sends a bus, it will certainly be busy. I have not tipped off Al Jazeera, but they will certainly get wind of it, and I will speak to them. That will go out to the entire Arabic world, cross my heart. All Muslims have a satellite dish, so they will see that a beautiful project for Muslims is being forbidden here."
"Do not forget", added Dag in Trouw, "that we began the project with a number of Turks, but with all the hindrance, it has now become a matter for many Muslims throughout the Netherlands. I expect a revolt among them, naturally within the legal boundaries, but still: Our people are more emotional than you Europeans. And there can be a crazy person among them."
Amsterdam's Mayor Cohen declined to comment on the apparent threats by Dag. According to his spokesman, the mayor does however want to hear "what is going on" personally from Dag.
Feisty Ga. Family Subdues Home Intruder
My kingdom for the video!
A robbery suspect was rescued by officers after his intended victims disarmed him, beat him with a metal broomstick and were about to whack him with a shovel, authorities said.
Police officers who were summoned to the home late Tuesday said they found the suspect, identified as Darrel Rolle, 27, lying on the living-room floor as Wu Ni's family held him down.
"He was so exhausted, we had to help him walk to the patrol car," Sheriff's Deputy Brian Barnes said.
Ni, a restaurant cook, told officers that he, his wife, his parents and other family members were returning to the home when he was confronted in the master bedroom by a man pointing a gun and shouting, "Give me the money!"
Ni said the man forced him to his knees and was taking cash from another family member when Ni grabbed his arm and took the gun away.
But that was just the start of the melee. According to the police report, Ni's parents and a cousin jumped on Rolle, and the combatants moved to the living room, where Ni's wife, Rong Lin, pummeled Rolle with a metal broomstick.
When the broomstick bent, Rong Lin got a shovel from the backyard, but Barnes and a second officer arrived before Rolle could get hit with the shovel, authorities said.
"When we walked into the living room, the family let Rolle go," Barnes said. "We were able to cuff him without incident."
The gun turned out to be a pellet gun, police said.
Rolle was treated at a hospital for scratches and a bite on his ear and then taken to jail. He was charged with armed robbery, burglary and battery. Wu Ni was treated at the scene for cuts and a bite on his arm.
Hinesville police could not say Thursday whether Rolle had an attorney.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Disharmony: The New Tolerance (Left Wants To Force Heterosexuals To Accept Gays Alert)
Linda Carlson, hypocritical and disingenuous shrew of the week.
Last week, a lesbian filed suit against eHarmony.com because the online dating service does not fix up homosexual couples.
It is ugly to watch how a group that has been asking straight Americans for tolerance and understanding can turn on a dime, as members seek to punish and shut down those with heterodox opinions.
In the Bay Area, it is no secret. Here, tolerance is a one-way street. Equal rights for some mean fewer rights for others.
In February, after the breakup of a 10-year relationship, San Mateo County resident Linda Carlson signed on to eHarmony.
As her San Francisco attorney Jeremy Pasternak told me, Carlson was not trolling for a lawsuit, but "legitimately looking for love." When Carlson saw that she could only sign on as "a man seeking a woman" or "a woman seeking a man," she contacted the company in the hope that eHarmony would add a new category: a woman seeking a woman.
Having been rejected, Carlson could have decided to go to a dating site that accommodates lesbians. That would have been the tolerant thing to do.
Instead, she filed a lawsuit that charges that eHarmony violates California law by not serving individuals "based solely on their sexual orientation."
Carlson's suit, it should be noted, follows a 2006 suit filed by a lawyer because eHarmony, which boasts that an average of 90 eHarmony members marry each day, rejected him because he was married. But separated.
Married and litigious -- what a catch, girls.
Or as a company spokesman noted, "To be criticized for ensuring that we're doing the best job possible is most hurtful to our members."
When I asked why Carlson didn't simply go to another dating service, Pasternak evoked the image of Rosa Parks, noting that "nearly every step in civil rights law, you could have said the same thing."
In this case, Pasternak argued, eHarmony's "matchmaking services" make it different than other services.
He almost sounded like an ad as he claimed that other services do not compare to eHarmony, because, "There is a big difference between the sites that allow the customers to self-select who they are looking for" and a site that makes the decision "to exclude a minority group." But the answer isn't to make eHarmony be what it is not, but to let others create something like eHarmony for gays and lesbians.
Mark Brooks, spokesman for the gay online matchmaking service myPartnerPerfect.com, said of eHarmony: "I think they're having a bit of an unfair time of it. I think it's their right to have a niche focus, but they've not quite said the right thing, and their underlying tone has riled people up."
Some believe eHarmony is a target because founder Neil Warren is proud of his Christian faith. Such is the new McCarthyism.
And it doesn't matter that eHarmony stresses that it serves singles of many (and of no) religious persuasions. To the extent that critics mention Warren's faith, they are confirming the suspicion among social conservatives that more rights for gays mean fewer rights for the devout.
I should note that Pasternak did not mention Warren's religion. Even still, there is no getting around the selective intolerance of a lawsuit that targets a heterosexual dating service, while gay and other niche dating services abound.
The perfect match for this lawsuit might be Warren Olson, the editor of overlawyered.com -- or if you will, he quipped, "disharmony.com."
Olson noted that Carlson has "a much better chance with existing dating services." But she is suing, Olson noted, because diversity and tolerance have come to mean, "It's not just that you get the choices you want, but also choices you don't approve of have to be taken away."
And, "Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice."
The very term harmony evokes the sound of differing chords coexisting and making interesting music.
As for Carlson's lawsuit, it could result in a world where all dating services must serve the same people.
It's one note.
Scooter's Sentence (Satan wearing a parka--Estrich defends Libby!!)
I suppose I should be pleased about the tough sentence handed down by Judge Reggie Walton, sentencing the vice president's former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby to serve 30 months in prison. After all, he's a Republican, and I'm a Democrat; I'm an opponent of the war, and he worked for one of its architects. I'm certainly no fan of his boss, Dick Cheney, one of the toughest hardball players to occupy the office of vice president. Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was practically gloating this morning when asked to comment on the sentence, declaring it a victory for the rule of law.
Maybe.
Having taught law for more years than I want to count anymore, and criminal law in particular, I know all the arguments about how the rule of law depends on everyone telling the truth, cooperating with criminal investigations, not trying to protect their bosses or those around them. I understand that people in high places have as much responsibility, or more, than the rest of us to follow the law and give their evidence, and that when they don't, their years of public service are no excuse.
Being chief of staff for the vice president is a bruising job, but also an exciting one. If Scooter Libby hadn't messed up, he'd be sitting pretty in a high-priced law firm right now, making a fortune not because his legal skills were better than anyone else's, but because his contacts and connections were. So with the good goes the bad; with the visibility goes the scrutiny; with the fame comes the price. Valerie Plame's career has been ruined. Why shouldn't his be?
The only problem here is that there was no underlying crime. The answer to the question Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was initially appointed to investigate — had anyone violated the law in disclosing Ms. Plame's name in their effort to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's war policy — was no. No one violated what we used to call the "Agents Law." Dick Armitage, the guy who admits he gave out her name in the first place, isn't facing time; nor are Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or any of the reporters or news organizations who didn't hesitate to disclose her identity.
Libby is in trouble not for what he did, but because he wasn't as careful as the others during his interviews and grand jury testimony. If he'd just said, "I don't recall" a hundred times, or even invoked the Fifth (whether properly or not, following the Monica Goodling approach), he wouldn't be bankrupt, ruined, disgraced and heading to prison.
There is something troubling about prosecutors using perjury and obstruction of justice to turn into criminals people who haven't committed any other crime. Instead of using the grand jury as a tool for investigating other criminal activity, it becomes the forum for creating criminal conduct. The role of the FBI and federal prosecutors becomes one of creating criminals instead of catching them. Technically, I know, it's not entrapment, but it's still different than the usual business of tracking down those who have violated the law and punishing them for their bad acts. The investigation doesn't solve the crime; it creates it.
This time it was a pro-war Republican caught in the snare, which is why many liberals are cheering. But what goes around comes around, and I wonder if my friends would feel the same way if this technique were used to indict, convict and imprison one of our friends. As it might have been, during the Clinton years.
The whole phenomenon of special prosecutors turns the usual rules of investigating on their head. Instead of focusing on crimes, special prosecutors tend to focus on people themselves. Dig deep enough, ask enough questions, particularly under oath, and only those most experienced with the criminal justice system are likely to escape unscathed. Hardened criminals know enough to shut up. For others, the human tendency is to say too much, to shade the facts, to try to protect yourself and your colleagues, not necessarily from criminality, but from embarrassment. Lewis Libby is a lawyer, but he hadn't practiced in years, and neither had his wife. Unfortunately for him, it cost him plenty.
Graying duo keep passenger in check - The Boston Globe
So much wrong here... yet so much entertainment also. Shockingly, it involves Minneapolistan.
Shortly before landing, Bob Hayden and a flight attendant had agreed on a signal: When she waved the plastic handcuffs, he would discreetly leave his seat and restrain an unruly passenger who had frightened some of the 150 people on board a Minneapolis-to-Boston flight Saturday night with erratic behavior.
Hayden, a 65-year-old former police commander, had enlisted a gray-haired gentleman sitting next to him to assist. The man turned out to be a former US Marine.
"I had looked around the plane for help, and all the younger guys had averted their eyes. When I asked the guy next to me if he was up to it, all he said was, 'Retired captain. USMC.' I said, 'You'll do,' " Hayden recalled. "So, basically, a couple of grandfathers took care of the situation."
The incident on
Northwest Airlines Flight 720 ended peacefully, but not before Hayden, a former Boston police deputy superintendent and former Lawrence police chief, and the retired Marine had handcuffed one man and stood guard over another until the plane touched down safely at Logan International Airport around 7:50 p.m.State Police troopers escorted two men off the flight. Trooper Thomas Murphy, a State Police spokesman, said one of the men was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital for "an unspecified medical issue, possibly mental health."
He said State Police detectives will investigate whether the man's behavior should be treated as a medical or criminal matter. A second man escorted off the plane identified himself as the unruly passenger's brother. Murphy said police would not release the names of the men, who Hayden said appeared to be in their 30s or 40s.
Dean Breest, a spokesman for Northwest, confirmed that "there was an incident that required State Police to come on board the aircraft" but declined further comment.
Hayden said the unruly man's behavior upset some passengers. One told Hayden the man had said, "Your lives are going to change today forever," as he shouted and refused to take his seat before takeoff and at various times during the nearly three-hour flight. He said that at one point the man lay on his back and was screaming, moaning, and thrashing on the floor.
"Some people were crying," Hayden said. "I thought it might be a diversion. I kept scanning the back of the plane to see if anyone was going to rush forward. The flight attendants did a great job, literally surrounding the two guys who were making all the noise. I told one of the flight attendants I was a retired police officer and would be willing to assist, so we agreed on a signal."
When the captain announced preparations for landing, the man jumped up shouting, the flight attendant held up the handcuffs, and Hayden and the Marine came bounding down the aisle. Hayden said he and the retired Marine, whose name he never got, received an ovation from fellow passengers, and "some free air miles."
Hayden's wife of 42 years, Katie, who was also on the flight, was less impressed. Even as her husband struggled with the agitated passenger, she barely looked up from "The Richest Man in Babylon," the book she was reading.
"The woman sitting in front of us was very upset and asked me how I could just sit there reading," Katie Hayden said. "Bob's been shot at. He's been stabbed. He's taken knives away. He knows how to handle those situations. I figured he would go up there and step on somebody's neck, and that would be the end of it. I knew how that situation would end. I didn't know how the book would end."
Sentencing of Scooter Libby [THE FRED THOMPSON REPORT]
Ahhh... Fred.
The sentencing of Scooter Libby was the last in a series of acts that has resulted in a shocking injustice – one created by and enabled by federal officials. As I’ve been saying for many months, this is a “he said-she said” case about political infighting that would have never been brought in any other prosecutor’s office in America.
The CIA started the ball rolling by sending the Democratic partisan husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. Knowing an opportunity when he saw one, he returned and blasted the Bush Administration (the fact that he blatantly falsified a few important things along the way is another story). It should not have been a shock to CIA officials when people then asked, “Who is this guy and why was he sent to Niger?” The only mystery in Washington is why the CIA employee-wife’s name, Valerie Plame, took as long as it did to leak.
Nevertheless, the CIA demanded that the Department of Justice investigate the leak of her name (not surprisingly, the fact that the CIA was making such a request was leaked). This put pressure on the DOJ. The DOJ, in turn, promptly caved to the media and Congressional pressure to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Plame leak. However, there were two glaring problems for anyone with a sense of justice, or who may have gone to law school for one semester.
The Justice Department and the new Special Counsel knew that: 1.) The leaking of Valerie Plame’s name did not constitute a crime because she was not a “covered person” under the relative criminal statue and, 2.) They already knew the name of the leaker: State Department official Richard Armitage.
Yet small matters such as these do not matter much to Justice Department officials trying to cover their own fanny, or to a newly minted Special Prosecutor with a reputation to make and members of the media to satisfy.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded to make public statements and employ tactics that would have brought condemnation in any other setting. He moved heaven and earth for a year and a half in order to come up with some sort of “process” crime against a high-level Administration official -- so that he could try them in one of the most anti-Bush Administration places in America, Washington DC.
The best he could come up with was a man who was not well known to the public, but who was basically working two full-time jobs after 9/11 -- trying to prevent such a thing from happening again. The White House physician says that, “Mr. Libby worked himself to exhaustion day after day reviewing national intelligence estimates.” Of course, he had to make time for hours of testimony before Fitzgerald’s grand jury and Fitzgerald found inconsistencies. At trial, practically every government witness not only was inconsistent with other government witnesses, but was inconsistent with regard to their own prior testimony.
During his closing arguments, Fitzgerald did what has caused many a prosecutor to get a mistrial: He asked the jury to consider “facts” that had not been placed into evidence or proven in any way. It was so egregious it was even too much for the judge, who admonished him.
Mr. Libby was convicted of perjury and false statements. For sentencing, the federal probation office filed a statement that the applicable federal guidelines called for a sentence of from 15 to 21 months. He also identified several grounds for what is known in the law as a “downward departure” from that range. In this case, Mr. Libby had led an exemplary life, and had sacrificed in order to serve his country and will presumably lose his law license. In other words, under the law, the judge would have had ample reason for giving Mr. Libby less than 15 months, including probation.
Fitzgerald, seeing this probation report and reverting to form as someone without professional judgment or scruples when it comes to landing his prey, weighed in. Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald insisted that Valerie Plame’s status was irrelevant and that the defense could not use her status in any way. But now that it came time for sentencing, Fitzgerald insisted that her status be considered, and that Mr. Libby be treated as if he’d violated the law he’d never even been charged with.
Proving once again that Fitzgerald can get away with practically anything in Washington, the judge apparently accepted Fitzgerald’s argument, contrary to all notions of basic fairness. The judge rejected his own probation office’s recommendation, not only doubling the 15-month minimum to 30 months, but also fining Mr. Libby $250,000 and giving him 400 hours of public service. Apparently, the judge is going to make Mr. Libby start serving his sentence in the near future, before he can get his appeal heard.
Unfortunately, this is an example of what Washington is all about these days. All too often the intersection of politics, law and the media results in a lack of responsibility by practitioners in all three areas. Having all this crashing down on the head of one man and his family, in a time when national security leaks are published regularly on the front pages of the newspapers without consequence, will justifiably add to the cynicism and outrage on the part of all observers.
For the preamble to our Constitution, our founders stated explicitly the purposes for our Constitution. Listed even before providing for domestic tranquility or for the common defense was the establishment of justice. Official behavior, with regard to matters like the Scooter Libby case, are not what our framers had in mind. Now this excessive sentence, given by the Federal District Judge is just another in a long line of reasons why Mr. Libby should be pardoned.
Extraordinary letters in the laundry room
One of the greatest collections of historical letters ever amassed has been found in a laundry room. Susannah Morris was called in to examine the hoard after the death of the secretive collector and was astonished to be led not into a library or a safe room but to the basement.
In the laundry room, wedged between a washing machine and a tumble dryer, was a plain metal filing cabinet. Morris, who works for the auction house Christie's, opened it and could not believe her eyes.
Inside was the most remarkable collection of letters she had seen outside a national institution: a love letter by Napoloen; a diplomatic note to the king of France in the hand of Elizabeth I; a letter of condolence by John Donne; a tragic account written in 1545 by John Calvin, the theologian of the Reformation, about the suicide of a friend; and a withering letter by Charlotte Bronte on male shortcomings.
As Morris delved through files, where the papers were arranged by size rather than alphabet, date or subject, her eyes grew wider. There was a letter by Beethoven, one by Albert Einstein, by Isaac Newton, Hemingway, Frederick the Great, Darwin, Voltaire, Lewis Carroll, Pushkin, Monet, Churchill, Gandhi, Defoe, Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky. By the time she had finished her first trawl she had counted almost 1,000 letters written by the great monarchs, scientists, authors, painters, philosophers and musicians from the 15th to the 20th century in almost every European language.
After months of research Morris has valued the find, which is to be sold in separate lots at Christie's in London on July 3, at £2 million (Dh14.6 million).
Remarkable collection
She said yesterday: "It was an extraordinary find in such an improbable place. It is a history in miniature of the last 500 years of western civilisation and is the most remarkable collection on the market for a generation or more."
The man who spent half a lifetime putting it together was Albin Schram, who died two years ago. The son of an Austrian industrialist, he was born in Prague 1926 and, after the annexation of Czechoslavakia, he was conscripted into the Wehrmacht in 1943.
He was soon wounded and captured by the Russians and thrown into a prisoner of war (PoW) camp in Konigsberg but escaped and made his way on foot through Germany to rejoin his family in Vienna. He worked at the ministry of justice there but later went into banking and moved to Lausanne in Switzerland where he spent the rest of his life.
It was in 1973 when the collecting bug took hold and he made his first purchase, buying a 1795 love letter from Napoleon to his future wife, Josephine, one of just three known to exist from the period when they were engaged. It is fiercely passionate - they had had a quarrel the night before. Christie's have estimated it at £30,000 (Dh219,106) to £50,000 (Dh365,177). Much later Schram bought a letter from Josephine to her brother Eugene, written in 1807 during the build-up to her divorce from the emperor. It is a bitter commentary on her relationship with the Bonaparte family who detested her.
The most valuable item in the collection is Donne's letter of condolence in 1624 to Lady Kingsmill the day after the death of her husband. He says that man should not judge God's actions "although we could direct him to do them better".
Existence
Morris said that Schram never showed his letters to others nor wrote a catalogue of them. Even his family barely knew of their existence.
She said: "He would buy at all the European auction houses. I remember him coming to Christie's sometime ago. He was a white-haired, gentlemanly figure. In the early days he bid under the name Henry. He was marked out by an extremely stubborn bidding style.
"Only two weeks before his death he was handing out the last of a series of wish-lists which contained not only well-known figures as Walt Whitman and, rather oddly, Richard Nixon, but a series of eastern European authors and historical figures whose obscurity would have had the most learned polymath running for his biographical dictionary - Jan Zizka, for example."
Zizka, it transpires, is a Czech national hero from the 15th century.
Clinton: "Something Has to be Taken Away from Some People"
I love it when the Marxist speaks.
During a nationally broadcast forum Monday evening on faith and politics Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) attacked the free market and told listeners in that order to attain energy independence and provide universal health coverage, it would be necessary to “take away from some people.”
“An uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person,” Clinton said. “I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”
She went on, “The same with energy. You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
Clinton made these comments near the end of her allotted 15-minute portion of the event.
Clinton also said that “the adult society has failed” young people “who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture.”
“I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools and our government,” she said. “And I certainly think the free market has failed. We’ve all failed.”
The New York senator said something similar to “taking things away from some people” at a June 2004 private fundraising event in San Francisco. There, Associated Press reporter Beth Fouhy wrote that Clinton told attendees Democrats should take money back from taxpayers who benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts.
Clinton told her donors, “We're not coming to you, many of whom are well enough off that actually the tax cuts may have helped you, and say 'we're going to give you more.' We're saying, 'you know what, for America to get back on track and be fiscally responsible, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.”
She added, “We’re going to take things away form you on behalf of the common good.”
On the campaign trail, each of the three leading Democrats running for their party’s nomination for President, Clinton, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), have said he or she would repeal the Bush tax cuts to help finance universal health care.
The June 4 event was hosted by Sojourners, a social justice movement for progressive Christians. Founder Jim Wallis is the author of “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It.”
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien moderated the forum. It aired on that station Monday evening from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Edwards and Obama also participated.
Fred Thompson coming to Israel
Fred Thompson, US presidential hopeful and former star of the hit television series “Law & Order,” is scheduled to make his first visit to Israel in the coming days.
Thompson, who is said to have a fair chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, will meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and various other senior officials during his tour of Israel.
Of the dozen or so candidates contesting the nomination, Thompson is among the most supportive of Israel.
The former actor, who has also served as a US senator, bucked popular international sentiment by insisting in a hard-hitting editorial column that Israel has been almost too careful in its war on Palestinian terrorism.
“Israel is at war,” Thompson wrote for the conservative website Townhall.com. And the Jewish state has gone to “incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants.”
Thompson is also on record as supporting an Israeli military strike against Iran should international diplomacy fail to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear arms.
More liberal political elements in Israel fear Thompson may be too far to the right, and therefore end up harming Israel. During his time as a senator, Thompson was one of the sponsors of the Jerusalem Embassy Act demanding that the US government move its embassy to the Israeli capital in defiance of Palestinian claims to the city.
Mohammed likely to top British boys' names list by year-end
This is in England. (Good thing they're building that 70,000-seater mosque... = )
Mohammed will likely become the most popular name for baby boys in Britain by the end of the year, The Times newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing government data.
Though official records from the Office for National Statistics list the spelling Mohammed 23rd in its yearly analysis of the top 3,000 names given to children, when all the different spellings of the name are taken into account, it ranks second, only behind Jack, according to The Times.
There are various different spellings of the name because when it is transliterated into English from Arabic, families spell it as closely to their own pronunciations as possible.In total, 5,991 baby boys were given some version of the name Mohammed, with 6,928 baby boys named Jack.
Thomas was third with 5,921 names, with Joshua and Oliver rounding out the top five.
According to The Times, if the growth of the name Mohammed continues -- it rose by 12 percent last year -- the name will take the top spot by the end of this year.
'Open tent’ at Amherst Middle School (Saudi Night)
AMHERST— For one night, on May 9, the quaint colonial town of Amherst, New Hampshire, was transformed into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community, with the help of 80 seventh-graders at the Amherst Middle School. The weather cooperated, providing 85 degree temperatures to give an authentic Saudi feel to the evening.
More than 250 guests arrived at the open tent and were welcomed with an Arabic greeting of “Marhaba” by students at a Saudi customs desk.
During the check-in, guests selected a traditional Arabic name for their name badge and completed an actual Saudi customs form, which warned in bold letters “Death for Drug Trafficking ” at the top.
Once inside, guests were encouraged to circulate among 14 different stations created by the students.
The Arabic food-tasting station offered four entrées, curried chicken, lamb, tomato chicken with cardomom, and Moroccan chicken, served with pita breads, hummus, and couscous. Fresh fruits, cardomom coffees, and spice teas were also served.
Flowing fabrics hung from the ceiling separated the family and men-only dining sections. The tables were set on large rugs and lowered so that the diners sat on the floor.
Only the seventh-grade boys were allowed to host the food stations and the Arabic dancing, as the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles.
Dressed in traditional Arabic wear—long plaid kilts, white shirts and turbans—the boys offered food and entertained guests. The Arabic dancers enthusiastically performed to music and encouraged male visitors to join their dance.
Seventh-grade girls hosted the hijab and veil stations, where other female guests learned how to wear the required head covering and veils. An antique trunk full of black abayas worn by women, and white thobes worn by the men, were available for guests to try on.
Cultural items displayed throughout the room included Arabic books, games, food, and newspapers and magazines.
An Islamic religion station included a Muslim prayer rug with a compass imbedded in it to locate Mecca, readings on the Islamic faith, call to prayer items and prayer beads.
Younger visitors gravitated to the Arabic listening station, the Arabic coloring book stations and the mural, while visitors of all ages found the slide shows of Saudi Arabia to be captivating.
The “open tent” was created to encourage participants to reach out and learn from people around the world, and to promote curiosity and cultural understanding.
Second-grader Lucas Bellipanni tries on the traditional thobe, gutra and igal during the ‘Open Tent’ night at the Amherst Middle School.
AAHHHHH!
*runs screaming*
Pro-Illegal-Immigrant Crowd Gets Nasty
The immigration bill currently being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in the national media has caused a rift among conservatives and Republicans.
The Senate bill would provide immediate legal status for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.
Yet, proponents of the bill claim that there are no amnesty provisions in the bill. Instead, they claim that because there are only temporary, probationary visas in the bill and no illegal immigrant will be granted immediate citizenship or a special path to citizenship, no amnesty exists.
The debate over the amnesty bill has allowed the members of the hard-line, law-and-order side of the conservative base of the Republican Party to tout their national security, anti-illegal-immigration bona fides.
It has also revealed the ugly side of many amnesty supporters. The vitriolic and nasty rhetoric from many Republicans should help American citizens understand who has their best interests at heart.
Below are some of the good, bad and ugly statements made in the amnesty fight.
The Good
“Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of malice, and it’s being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept.”
—Peggy Noonan, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, May 25
“This administration has a case of ‘the slows’ on border enforcement. If we have border enforcement, we will be able at that point to start to regulate the internal problem that we’ve got....This 2,000-mile porous border, incidentally, is our biggest homeland security problem -- it’s not just an immigration problem, it’s a homeland security problem. We need to build the border fence. We need to have a Border Patrol that is big enough to get the job done, and we need to be able to ask people when they want to come into America, knock on the front door, because the back door is going to be closed.”
—Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.), South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate, May 15
“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new ‘Z visa’ does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today’s Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country’s illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority.”
—Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R.), statement on presidential campaign website, May 17
“The bill contains a new ‘Z visa’ that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty”
—Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), statement on Senate office website, May 17
“Amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants isn’t a ‘narrow slice’ Mr. President, it’s the whole darn pie. What part of illegal does the President not understand? The American people want us to secure the border and crack down on the No. 1 incentive for illegal immigration, which is illegal employment. They don’t want another amnesty.”
—Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), Austin American-Statesman, May 30
“We should scrap this ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders—or at least made great headway.”
—Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R.-Tenn.), op-ed on National Review Online, May 18
“Sen. McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it. The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security. If Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll-testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place.”
—Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), statement on House office website, May 17
The Bad
“I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”
—Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), interview with Vanity Fair, June 2007
“The bottom line here is that if the bill doesn’t pass, another 10 million illegal aliens are going to come here in the next five years anyway. So the chaos we have now will double. The new immigration bill is unfair to those who’ve obeyed the rules. It is dangerous if not tightly controlled. And it is definitely amnesty. But if the bill does not pass, things will get even worse in America.”
—Bill O’Reilly, Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor,” May 18
“The bipartisan immigration deal announced today is a step in the right direction toward reaching a final, comprehensive immigration bill....The agreement ... is an improvement from last year’s bill. The way you make good laws is to have people from both sides of the aisle come together, and this was a highly committed group that came together to work on these issues that aren’t in the best interest of any particular political party, but rather in the best interest of the American people.”
—Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.), statement on Senate office website, May 17
“For weeks, senators and administration officials worked to forge a bill that secures our border, creates workable and effective interior and workplace enforcement, realistically deals with the people illegally here, and designs a truly temporary worker program that responds to the nation’s fluctuating labor needs. In these meetings, Republicans insisted on achieving certain milestones in interior and border security. . . . Republicans also insisted on an effective and enforceable electronic employment verification system that would prevent employers from hiring illegal workers and provide stiff penalties for those who violate the law. . . . What we have shown is it that a bipartisan consensus is possible. The American people will have to determine if it is what they want. But for me, failing to try is not a solution.
—Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), op-ed in the Arizona Republic, May 20
“We support the immigration reform compromise worked out in the Senate for a few simple reasons. It strengthens our national defense. It makes our economy more competitive and flexible. It enhances the rule of law and promotes national unity.”
—Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R.) and former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, May 31
The Ugly
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill, that’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens....Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don’t like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.”
—President Bush, speech at the Glynco, Ga., federal law enforcement training center, May 29
“We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up!”
—Sen. Lindsay Graham (R.-S.C.), receiving an award from the National Council of La Raza, March 2007
“F*** you! I know more about [immigration reform] than anyone else in the room.”
—Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) to Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.), during a private negotiation meeting on the immigration bill, May 17
“Some people just don’t like Mexicans -- or anyone else from South of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans....Where once the xenophobes could advocate forced sterilization and eugenics coupled with virtually shutting off legal immigration from ‘undesirable’ countries, now they must be content with building walls, putting troops on the border, rounding up illegal aliens on the job and deporting them, passing local ordinances to signal their distaste for immigrants’ multi-family living arrangements, and doing whatever else they can to drive these people back where they came from.”
—Linda Chavez, nationally syndicated column, May 25
“I understand that some people think it’s not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed.”
—Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, interview with Newsweek, May 18
Sunni revolt against al-Qaida spreads
From crAP, believe it or not.
BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked suicide bomber struck a safehouse occupied by an insurgent group that has turned against the terror network. Friday's attack northeast of Baghdad killed two other militants, police said, the latest sign that an internal Sunni power struggle is spreading.
The U.S. military also announced the deaths of five more servicemen. At least 125 American troops were killed in Iraq in May, the third-deadliest month for U.S. forces since the war began more than four years ago.
May was also the third-deadliest for Iraqis since The Associated Press began tracking civilian casualties in April 2005. At least 2,155 Iraqis were killed last month, according to the AP count. The government figure put the number at 2,123, according to officials at the Interior Ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
The explosion in Baqouba came as Iraqi and U.S. troops fanned out in the Sunni stronghold of Amariyah in the capital, enforcing an indefinite curfew after heavily armed residents clashed with al-Qaida in Iraq fighters, apparently fed up with the group's brutal tactics.
"Al-Qaida fighters and leaders have completely destroyed Amariyah," said Abu Ahmed, a 40-year-old Sunni father of four who said he joined in the clashes. "No one can venture out, and all the businesses are closed. They kill everyone who criticizes them and is against their acts even if they are Sunnis."
Other residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution, said the clashes began after al-Qaida militants abducted and tortured Sunnis from the area. That prompted a large number of residents, including many members of the rival Islamic Army armed with guns and rocket-propelled grenades, to rise up against the terror network. U.S. forces joined them in the fighting Wednesday and Thursday.
Ahmed denied being a member of any insurgent group but said he sympathizes with "honest Iraqi resistance," referring to those opposed both to U.S.-led efforts in Iraq and to the brutal tactics of al-Qaida.
With the insurgency appearing increasingly fragmented, Iraqi officials congratulated Amariyah residents for confronting al-Qaida.
"Government security forces are now in control of the Amariyah district," Iraqi military spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi was quoted as saying by Iraqi state TV. He also lauded "the cooperation of local residents with the government."
U.S. and Iraqi officials have claimed recent success in the effort to isolate al-Qaida, particularly in the western Anbar province, where many Sunni tribes have banded together to fight the terror network.
A growing number of Sunni tribes have reportedly been turning against al-Qaida elsewhere as well, repelled by the terror network's sheer brutality and austere religious extremism.
The extremists also are competing with nationalist groups for influence and control over diminishing territory in the face of U.S. assaults, a situation exacerbated by the influx of Sunni fighters to areas outside the capital as they flee a nearly 4-month-old security crackdown.
But the clashes in Amariyah appeared to be the fiercest fighting between Sunni groups in the capital.
"I think this is happening because of al-Qaida's brutality," said Ehsan Ahrari, professor and specialist in counterterrorism at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. "They have been hurting the Sunni population in Iraq and that is coming back to hurt al-Qaida."
"The event itself is significant because it looks like the U.S. is making some breakthrough in terms of establishing consensus with the Sunni population," he said. "Of course we have to hold our breath and see, but this is important no doubt."
[excerpt]
Man Accused Of Pummeling Pregnant Wife Until Baby Died Won't Face Homicide Charges
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A Central Florida man who doctors believe beat his pregnant wife so severely that it killed their unborn baby will not be charged with homicide, according to authorities.
Investigators said Mohammad Khan was taken into custody this week after the alleged attack on his pregnant wife at a home in Windermere, Fla.
"It started as a verbal argument and through that argument became physical," Orange County sheriff's Sgt. Spike Hopkins said. "When I saw him, he didn't seem remorseful about the occurrence at all."
"(It's a story) that is upsetting to deputies involved the case," Local 6's Laura Diaz said. "The reason why police can't charge the man with murder is that his baby died in utero. His wife was 16 weeks along, not the required 26 weeks in order to file charges."
After his arrest, deputies said Khan told them he didn't know his wife was pregnant.
Kahn faces felony charges of aggravated battery on a pregnant woman.
In a statement, Khan's wife said she does not want police to prosecute her husband, the report said.
"She told police (that) her father told her it was her fault she lost the baby," Diaz said.
The woman's condition was not known Wednesday.
Olympic logo triggers epilepsy
I haven't bothered posting earlier regarding the ugliness of London's 2012 Olympic logo -- suffice it say it's fugly. However, now it's dangerous, too.
Maybe the Chinese should adopt a variation of it, since their directives about who should and shouldn't be allowed to attend includes certain handicapped types. How do Falun Gong members react to it? Or Catholics?
THE controversial 2012 London Olympics logo was rocked by another blow last night — after it was ruled too dangerous to view on-screen.
An animated version of the symbol used on TV and the internet had to be dropped because it could trigger fits in thousands of people.
The £400,000 logo, a graffiti-style spelling of 2012 in shades of pink, blue, green and orange, was branded “hideous” when it was launched on Monday.
And Olympics bosses were left squirming with embarrassment after an epilepsy group reported 12 cases of people collapsing through looking at it.
Epilepsy Action warned that 23,000 mainly young people in the UK were at risk from the TV and internet version.
They suffer from the photosensitive form of epilepsy and flickering images can trigger fits.
It is estimated there are 2.5million people worldwide with the condition — which could have left the Olympic Organising Committee facing massive injury lawsuits.
Epilepsy Action spokeswoman Ingrid Burns said: “The logo was not safe for people with photosensitive epilepsy.
“Within hours of it being launched we received 12 reports of people suffering seizures.
“This is extremely serious. Young people up to the age of about 19 are most at risk — and they are the logo’s main target group.” Leading epilepsy expert Professor Graham Harding said: “I can’t imagine how this slipped through.
“Thousands of people could have been affected. It’s serious and has to be corrected.”
London 2012 committee boss Lord Seb Coe defended the design, saying: “It won’t be to be everybody’s taste immediately, but it’s a brand we believe can be hard working.”
Oh, it's hard working all right.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Life with the Losers.As post-abortion theater, Knocked Up is encouraging. But . . . .
national review ^ | 6/4/07 | Kathryn Jean LopezIt’s a little bit of a stretch to find a whole lot to admire in this weekend’s box-office success Knocked Up. In it, as you can guess, the leading lady (not exactly the right word), Alison Scott, played by Grey’s Anatomy beauty Katherine Heigl, gets knocked up after a drunken one-night stand with an unemployed 23-year-old slacker super-sized bonger slob (Seth Rogan). The f-word works overtime in the script, there’s lying, and Ryan Seacrest.
And Ryan Seacrest may be the most admirable character in the movie — he makes fun of himself in his cameo. The fictional characters, on the other hand, are all self-obsessed — parents acting like children, grandparents appearing long enough to make clear these twenty- and thirty-somethings didn’t have the best examples growing up.
But when Ben’s slacker housemate (one of four, most of whom are mean and dirty, in all senses of the word) Jonah suggests the “A” word to father-to-be Ben Stone (who usually is stoned), his couch-potato crude loser friends can’t even contemplate the possibility. They even voice the word “kill.” Though Ben is very upset when Alison announces that her dozen or so drug-store pregnancy tests indicate she’s pregnant, he quickly realizes he reacted badly and slowly rises to the occasion — in the traditional ways, and also in ways you’d expect the director of The 40-Year-Old Virgin (Judd Apatow) to show you. When Joanna Kerns (formerly the mom on Growing Pains) tells her daughter Alison to do what her sister did — think of her career (she’s an on-air interviewer at E!) and have a “real baby” later, when the time is “right” — there’s no question you’re repulsed. Alison’s going to choose to keep the baby and — besides there being no movie if she doesn’t — she doesn’t even seem to seriously consider the option. There’s no anti-abortion speech, she just does it: She just chooses to take responsibility for her remarkably irresponsible night out. She calls Ben and he sweetly provides support, echoing the words of his thrice-divorced but loving father (played by Harold Ramis).
In Knocked Up abortion is presented as an option whose time has come and gone. You don’t get a baby “taken care of,” not when you can see the little one and her heartbeat on a monitor on the first post-conception doctor visit. Not when even loser Ben’s dad can tell him he’s the “best thing that ever happened” to him. Not when we know that Alison’s sister had an unexpected pregnancy, and that Alison wouldn’t have that beautiful but bratty six-year-old niece she loves.
That’s the refreshing part of the movie: There’s no question it embraces life. If you stretched optimism a little bit further you would see some kind of ode to marriage in it. First off, even Ben, whose only real relationship is with his bong, thinks he should “make an honest woman” out of Alison — proposing to her with an empty box and a promise that there’s a ring to come if he ever makes a killing off his “job” (a not-yet-launched website showing hot actresses in their movie nude scenes). And instead of laughing at the sitcom model of bitchy wife (played by Leslie Mann) abusing the nice-guy husband (Paul Rudd), we watch a mean wife nearly ruin her marriage. While hitting a club to celebrate her sister’s promotion (and her whole source of confidence being that she knows men there would want to have sex with her), she’s got her own husband so unhappy he feels the need to lie to her about his fantasy baseball league. (Not that he’s a model husband either; he lies about going to work when he’s actually going to a movie.)
The only reason we have hope for these characters is the baby, who only appears at the end. The baby doesn’t destroy Alison’s career. The baby nurtures a love between Alison and Ben, a very unlikely couple. The baby ultimately brings the unhappily married (for no real good reason) Debbie and Peter back together.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Confusing TV With Reality: NYT TV Writer Thinks Thompson is His TV Character
Proving that few people in the entertainment industry can tell the difference between reality and fantasy and in a perfect example of why people who write about entertainment should stay away from the topic of politics, The New York Times today has let lose one of the silliest, most confused political "editorials" yet published about Senator Fred Thompson's possible run for the White House. Fitting the he's-only-an-actor mode of considering his potential candidacy, TV writer Alessandra Stanley compounds a prosaic dismissal of the man with a complete inability to keep straight in her head which Fred Thompson she is talking about; the REAL Senator from Tennessee or the character he plays on a popular TV show.
Let's just say that sagacity and trenchant analysis is not in the offing in Stanley's "In Casting for President, Will Actor Rate a Callback?", where this TV writer jarringly fades from real life Thompson to the character he plays on TV's "Law and Order" repeatedly confusing the "lives" of the two then making assessments based thereupon that seem to come out of thin air... or the rarefied air in Stanley's mind, in any case.
Naturally, it all starts with a shot at Ronald Reagan as Stanley recounts the oft repeated Jack Warner comment when Reagan announced his run for Governor of California in 1966. “Jimmy Stewart for governor,” he said. “Ronald Reagan for best friend.”
After brief bios of the real Senator and his TV character, Stanley begins an attempt at political analysis that lands with a thud.
"Maybe it’s only fair that Mr. Thompson rides on the coattails of a fictional prosecutor...", she says of a possible Thompson candidacy. What she bases this on is anyone's guess for Senator Thompson has made no such effort to equate his candidacy to his TV role and few supporters have clamored to vote for "DA Arthur Branch" to date.
Stanley next shows that she seriously misunderstands what it is that makes the initial, high money contributors to any candidate decide to flock to that candidate's banner.
Mr. Thompson’s fame as an actor -- and the popularity of the character he has played since he left the Senate in 2002 -- could compensate for his late entry into the money-raising race. But he won’t necessarily persuade voters that he should be in the Oval Office.Now, it might be true that small donations might come from people who just like Thompson because of the TV character he plays, but high money contributors want and expect far more from a candidate than just a part-time TV gig. Ronald Reagan spent 20 years gearing up his run for the presidency, for instance, and spent many, many years garnering a contributor base all of whom gave to his campaign because of his ideas and abilities, not because they liked watching TVs "Wagon Train".
Amazingly, Stanley goes on to doubt that Americans will vote for Thompson because he had the temerity to leave the TV show on which he played a part in preparation to start his campaign for the Oval Office. She scoffs that Americans won't vote for him because Thompson has left the show when it is "struggling to survive." Here Stanley seems to be claiming that Thompson is some sort of traitor to the flailing TV show by leaving it at a time when the producers might need him and that this move might make people doubt his character.
Americans want their presidents to be loyal and steadfast. This week, Mr. Thompson said he asked Mr. Wolf to release him from his “Law & Order” contract — at a time when the 17-year-old series is struggling to survive. (Earlier this month, NBC came close to canceling it.)Stanley imagines that Thompson is showing this lack of "loyalty" because he has left the show and that this will affect how people view him as a candidate. How Stanley imagines Americans will equate the TV show's troubles with a Thompson departure is anyone's guess. Few people follow the ins and outs of the behind the scenes machinations of the TV industry and those who do would blame the show's producers, writers and directors instead of Fred Thompson.
Her next sentence is telling, showing she cannot tell Thompson from the character Arthur Branch.
Women may harbor doubts about his character’s character. Arthur has a weakness for the young, tall, gorgeous prosecutors in his office and for mentoring them through their cases.Huh? Are women too stupid to tell the difference between a TV character and a real man, Mz. Stanley?
She must think so.
Stanley next equates Thompson's character to former Reagan man Howard Baker's without much success. Stanley characterizes both Thompson and Baker as low-level bureaucrats and staff members. Perhaps the real reason she does so, though, is because, as Stanley recounts, Baker launched a failed bid for the presidency in 1980 and it seems that she wishes the same for Thompson. Her reasoning for likening the two is quixotic at best.
She also doubts Thompson's suitability to take the "leading man" role of the Presidency because he has had "supporting roles" on TV and in the movies as if those roles on film fully explain all we need to know about the man to rate his capacity to be president. Obviously Stanley thinks that we should rate our candidates by the roles a Hollywood casting director doles out to them.
Mr. Thompson may see himself as a commander in chief, but Hollywood has preferred to cast him as a senior White House aide or adviser. He played a White House chief of staff in the 1993 film “In the Line of Fire,” and the director of central intelligence in the 1987 thriller “No Way Out.” He wasn’t picked to play a president until 2005, in the HBO film “Last Best Chance,” which was more of a public-service film made with support from the Nuclear Threat Initiative and other foundations.Wait.... didn't HBO just cast Fred Thompson as President Grant in the TV film "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" as well?
Anyway, if it's possible, Stanley's analysis gets even more confused as she indiscriminately interweaves Thompson's real life with that of the character he plays on "Law and Order." The crowning piece of absurdity in her piece is the last two paragraphs.
Once candidates declare, their pasts are scoured for personal, often embarrassing details. Mr. Thompson has not only his own bachelor days in Washington; voters may also hold him accountable for Arthur’s past.So, because a TV character tells a story where he once dressed up as a clown to impress a lady we are to somehow hold that against a real man running for office?
That stately, Southern gentleman has a few peccadilloes of his own. On one episode, he confided to Jack that he once dressed up in a clown suit to serenade a girl who loved opera with snatches from Pagliacci. “She laughed, then she slammed the door in my face,” Arthur says ruefully. “My point is, guys do goofy things for girls whether they want them to or not.”
Shouldn't it be remembered that the man who won the Cold War, the man who helped spur the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the man responsible for the longest peace time economic boom in American history once played second fiddle to a monkey in a movie? Did THAT little bit of celluloid casting eliminate Ronald Reagan from being one of the most celebrated and able American presidents in our history?
Obviously film roles do not give us a full assessment of a man, not that Alessandra Stanley would know. For that matter, not that she would know much about politics, either.
I encourage Alessandra Stanley to stick to TV and the fantasy land it creates. Reality does not suit her at all. I'd also urge The New York Times to have better sense than to allow someone of Stanley's caliber to write so far out of her depth.
It really was cringeworthy and embarrassing to read.
Christian women warned to wear veil
A letter signed by the Mahdi Army linked to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Iraqi Shiite cleric who the United States considers the greatest threat to security in Iraq, warned Christian women in Baghdad to wear the veil as do Muslim women. It is the latest in a long string of abuses against Iraqi Christians, including rape, murder, kidnapping, extortion and forced conversions, AsiaNews reported Wednesday.
The letter, an English translation of which was published by Aina news agency Wednesday, said "Was the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her) unveiled so that Christian women be allowed to be unveiled? Was Fatima al-Zahra unveiled? And were the wives of the Caliphs in the First Caliphate or others unveiled? No, and then no ... Allah forbid and far be it from all of them." It then warns "She is an adulteress, and she even proclaims sinfulness, challenges and fights Allah and his Prophet and ignores and neglects religion."
Answering the question "What measure should be taken against a woman who disobeys her father, husband, or her guardian by not committing to the legal veil?" the letter said husbands and fathers "must guide and educate her religiously in order to convince her. If she is not convinced still, then they must imprison her at home and do not expose her to the forbidden interaction with men." Finally, it warns "special committees have been established to follow up on this matter."
Osama's House of Horrors
A great article; a great indictment of the LSM:
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | June 1, 2007 | Patrick PooleThe same media hacks that brought us countless images of Spc. Lynndie England doing her best John Dillinger imitation with an Iraqi prisoner while covering the Abu Ghraib scandal have suddenly gone mute on the release last week by US military officials of a graphic al-Qaeda torture manual that provides illustrations and instructions on how to use hammers, blow torches and meat cleavers to extract information from their victims in Iraq. This deliberate silence has been occurring as US forces are scouring Iraq looking for two US soldiers who presumably are being subject to the very tortures described in that manual and the body of one of their colleagues was discovered exhibiting signs of that same torture.
The manual was recovered earlier in the month when US soldiers conducted a raid on an al-Qaeda site northeast of Karmah. Freed during the raid were four men and a 13-year old boy – all of whom showed evident signs of torture. According to the military press release, the five individuals said that they had been beaten with chains, cables and hoses by foreign Arab fighters, presumably waging “defensive jihad” against innocent Iraqis. The illustrated torture manual was recovered on a computer found at the location.
But as Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters noted in a short item last week (“Will Media Report Al-Qaeda Torture Manual with Same Zeal as Abu Ghraib?”) and a follow-up post on Friday (“Media Totally Ignore Al-Qaeda Torture Manual”), the media establishment has barely noticed the story even though it features attention-grabbing images even more shocking than the Abu Ghraib abuses. Sheppard asked, “With this in mind, given the media’s fascination with what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib, is it safe to assume that the same level of attention will be given to what our enemy is doing? Or, would that be too much like journalism?”
To their credit, CNN made a brief mentioned of the discovery of the torture manual and the release of the Al-Qaeda captives in a May 23rd segment on “The Situation Room”. That was followed on Friday by a short article on the Fox News website, which was subsequently noticed by Gary Carney at the USA Today blog. CNN elaborated on the story again over the weekend, reporting that 42 al-Qaeda torture victims had been freed by US troops. But a search of the websites of the three major TV networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – as well as the major daily national newspapers – the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and the LA Times – finds not a single mention of the al-Qaeda torture manual.
Notwithstanding the slight coverage of this story by CNN, Fox News and USA Today, virtually every element surrounding this story is an indictment on the increasingly irrelevant Fourth Estate. The public was first made aware of this story and given access to the cartoon images of the torture manual by The Smoking Gun. That report was then linked to by the nemesis of the old media, the Drudge Report, and then picked up by most of the major conservative blogs and publications. But virtually no one would have known the story existed if we had to rely on the media establishment.
This raises an important question: what stories did the American people miss during the decades-long media establishment hegemony and how would our country have responded if it had been fully informed? There may be no way of every knowing.
The media establishment can’t claim ignorance about this story. The May 21st military press release that first made this information available was published by the Combined Press Information Center in the Baghdad Green Zone, where virtually all Iraq-based US journalists operate out of. And the issue of the torture manual was raised during a well-attended Pentagon press conference last Thursday with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace. Only one question was asked about the subject, however, with no subsequent follow-up (the transcript doesn’t indicate which journalist asked the question).
The indictment over the silence on this story doesn’t stop just at the US media establishment. As details slowly leaked out last week, the Center for Public Integrity, which promotes itself as “Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest”, published an article last week by Michael Bilton of the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” entitled, “US Treatment of Detainees Deplored”, where he expresses such outrages as the waterboarding of al-Qaeda operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and revisiting the Abu Ghraib scandal.
A check of the Amnesty International website directory for Iraq also finds no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda’s torture networks and methods. But a report from last year, “Beyond Abu Ghraib,” identifies the primary culprit of torture and abuse in Iraq – the US armed forces: “As Amnesty International has reported elsewhere, many of the abuses occurring today are committed by armed groups opposed to the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) and the Iraqi government that it underpins.”
The foreign press has also joined the conspiracy of silence on the al-Qaeda torture story. Two weeks ago, the BBC published a hand-wringing article, “US detainee mentally tortured”, about the horrors described by Majid Khan, an al-Qaeda operative imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay who was planning to conduct terrorist operations inside the US.
And what exactly were the horrible conditions and “mental tortures” that Mr. Khan was subject to? I’ll let the Beeb tell you:
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation.
This led him to attempt to chew through his artery twice, Mr Khan said.
Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap", the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce".
Unscented soap and half-inflated basketballs. Oh, the humanity! Someone call John Murtha! But gouging out eyeballs, drilling into skulls and blow torches applied directly to human skin by Mr. Khan’s al-Qaeda associates have thus far been too unimportant for the BBC to mention.
The events over the past week surrounding this story are indicative of why so many Americans are turning to alternative news outlets for reporting and commentary and why media establishment newsrooms are slashing staff to cut costs. But rather than cover the real important stories, such as the grotesque examples of the craven depravity of our sworn terrorist enemies, the Fourth Estate feels compelled to stick to their ideology and political bias than adjust to the information age – all while the truly independent and investigative media runs circles around them.
The silence of the lame continues.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Michael Yon : Online Magazine � Print � The Final Option
Click on the line above to read an absolute kickass war story.
My heart officially belongs to LTC Doug Crissman.
*sigh*
Man shot dead for bad singing in Philippine karaoke bar
Finally, a "Friday" story:
MANILA (AFP) - A jobless man was shot dead by a security guard for singing out of tune in a Philippine karaoke bar, police said Thursday.
Romy Baligula, 29, was halfway through his song on Tuesday night in a bar in San Mateo town, east of Manila, when 43-year-old security guard Robilito Ortega yelled that he was out of tune.
As Baligula ignored his comments and continued singing, Ortega pulled out his revolver and shot him in the chest.
Senior Superintendent Felipe Rojas said Baligula died instantly.
The security guard was detained by an off-duty policeman shortly after the shooting.
Deaths and violence are not uncommon in Philippine karaoke bars.
The popular Frank Sinatra song "My Way" has been taken off many karaoke bars in Manila after it was found to be the cause of fights and even deaths when patrons sang out of tune.
World Tribune — Al Qaida suspects sue Boeing, with ACLU's help
Political satirists, take the day off. The ACLU now officially works for Al Qaeda:
WASHINGTON — Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."
The suit charged that Jeppesen helped the CIA transport the three plaintiffs to secret locations in Egypt and Morocco, where the company knew they would undergo torture.
"American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. "Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.
The plaintiffs named in the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, were Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel and Ahmed Agiza. Britel and Mohamed were said to have been flown by the CIA to Morocco. Agiza was taken to Egypt.The suit said Jeppesen, based in San Jose, Calif., has been a key provider of flight and logistical support services for CIA aircraft in the rendition program. Since December 2001, the suit said, Jeppesen provided flight and logistical support to at least 15 CIA aircraft that conducted 70 rendition flights.
Jeppesen was said to have provided aircraft crew and flight planning services for the CIA program. The subsidiary also ensured customs clearance and security for CIA aircraft and crew.
"Jeppesen's services have been crucial to the functioning of the government's extraordinary rendition program," ACLU staff attorney Steven Watt said. "Without the participation of companies like Jeppesen, the program could not have gotten off the ground."
The suit was filed under the Alien Tort Statute, which permits aliens to bring claims in the United States for alleged violations that involve American citizens or assets. The statute accounts for torture.
In 2002, Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, was transported to Morocco, where he spent 18 months in prison in what the suit asserted included torture by the intelligence services of the North African kingdom. In 2004, he was taken by the CIA to a secret U.S. detention facility in Kabul, Afghanistan, and then to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he remains.
Britel was flown from Pakistan to Morocco in 2002. He was said to have remained in Morocco. Agiza was taken from Sweden to Egypt and remains in detention.
"For the first five weeks after his arrival in Egypt, Mr. Agiza was detained incommunicado," the suit said. "During his time and for some 10 weeks thereafter, he was repeatedly and severely tortured and denied meaningful access to consular officials, family members and lawyers."
RCTV, shut down by Hugo Chavez, moves to YouTube
From HotAir:
Take that, Venezuelan Fairness Doctrine.
CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) — Radio Caracas Television, the station silenced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, has found a way to continue its daily broadcasts — on YouTube, the popular video Web site.
Although the station is officially off the air, CNN’s Harris Whitbeck said its news department continues to operate on reduced staffing, and the three daily hour-long installments of the newscast “El Observador” are uploaded onto YouTube by RCTV’s Web department.
In addition, RCTV’s Colombia-based affiliate, Caracol, has agreed to transmit the evening installment of “El Observador” over its international signal. The program, which will run at midnight, could reach about 800,000 people in Venezuela.
Although this is drastically reduced from RCTV’s previous audience, its continued presence is a sign of hope for the staff.
“We’re just doing our job as journalists,” said an employee of RCTV. “As long as somebody is seeing us, we consider what we are doing to be valid.”
Update: amerpundit found the RCTV YouTube channel– it’s here.
Features : Radar Online
The whole thing's pretty great, but here are my three fave responses:
All Tongue
Gene Simmons opens wide on Iraq, racial profiling, and Hollywood idiotsBut it seems like these people are protesting the war, not protesting the troops.
I don't see the difference. Aid and comfort to the enemy is when you do it through media and there are big headlines like "We've Lost the War" and things like that. What makes you think that any graduate of any madrassa in the Middle East doesn't blow that up? In other words, make a big copy of it and show it to everybody.So someone like Sean Penn for instance ... you don't support what he's doing?
Oh, I think he's the enemy of Western civilization. I think he's a terrific actor, but a political knucklehead. By the way, the difference between the Warren Beattys and Sean Penns and perhaps the Hannitys in the salons of the world is very little. The people who hate you don't care what political side you're on. They make no distinction between far left and far right. They just hate you. It's so stupid. And the biggest problem, of course, is that media, no matter what you say, is skewed a certain way.I didn't know you were so political.
Oh I'm not shy. And by the way, I voted for Bill Clinton. But I also voted for George Bush.I believe that most people are like me, which is why sometimes Republicans get in and sometimes Democrats. Very few people are either like Hannity or Sean Penn. Most people are centrists, and by the way, I get along with Hannity just fine. On political issues, foreign policy specifically, O'Reilly and I get along just fine—we agree on foreign policy. I think the war's been handled poorly, but there's no choice. You gotta get there. The Second World War was handled terribly until D-day.
In terms of this Republican administration, some views about stem cell research, gay rights, separation of church and state, and on and on—I don't agree with any of them. But you can worry about the trees and the environment and gas emissions later. Right now there's a bigger problem, and it's a guy who doesn't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat; he wants to blow himself up and take you out. That's the problem.
Jordan: Stop Temple Mount digging
Why "moderate" Jordan has a dog in this fight is beyond me.
How holy is Jerusalem to Muslims?A Jordanian official called on Israel Wednesday to stop archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, the official Petra news agency reported.
Israel has been carrying out excavations on a ramp leading up to a disputed holy site. The digging has sparked clashes between police and Muslims in Jerusalem and touched off fierce criticism throughout the Muslim world.
"Israel must stop its continuous practices and measures to Judaize the city and change its Arab and Islamic characteristics," said Abdullah Kanaan, the head of Jordan's Royal Committee for Jerusalem's Affairs.
Muslims fear the work will harm Islamic shrines on the hilltop compound, which is known as the Temple Mount to Jews and the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims, and whose fate is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel insists the work would not harm Muslim holy sites and is meant to salvage archaeological finds ahead of the construction of a new pedestrian walkway up to the hilltop compound.
But Kanaan warned that "Israel's persistence to carry on with its measures will lead to more violence, terrorism and the determination of the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim peoples everywhere to fight the occupation.
If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam?
by Daniel Pipes
Guantanamo Saudi 'kills himself'
Love the quote marks Roto-Reuters gave this headline. Reuters is 'unbiased'.
A Saudi Arabian prisoner has died of an apparent suicide at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, the US military said.
"The detainee was found unresponsive and not breathing in his cell by guards. The detainee was pronounced dead by a physician after all lifesaving measures had been exhausted," the US Southern Command in Miami said in a statement.
The military did not indicate how the prisoner died nor release his name.
He is the fourth detainee to die of apparent suicide at the detention camp, which opened in January 2002 and holds about 380 foreign terrorist suspects on the US naval base in southeastern Cuba.
Three other prisoners – two Saudis and a Yemeni – hanged themselves with clothing and bedding in their cells last June and their deaths are still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
"The remains of the deceased detainee are being treated with the utmost respect. A cultural advisor is assisting the Joint Task Force to ensure that the remains are handled in a culturally sensitive and religiously appropriate manner," the Southern Command said.
