Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - The_Professor

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19

3DHS / Connecting the Dots

« on: June 03, 2008, 11:58:17 AM »

Connecting the Dots on McClellan
Cal Thomas
Syndicated Columnist

May 30, 2008

There is more on the Scott McClellan tell-all book. First, his colleagues and superiors at the White House say he wasn?t in many of the meetings he describes and so was not a witness to those events or the decision-making process.

Second, the book publisher has ties to George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who supports moveon.org

Third, McClellan appears to have felt he was done wrong after being loyal to Bush starting when he was governor. Revenge could be a motive for this book.

Fourth, why did the book come out in the middle of the presidential campaign? Every Democratic leader and the two Democratic presidential candidates have praised the book. The media, which never believed what McClellan told them when he was press secretary, now embrace every word in his book because it plays into their political agenda.

Fifth, why did McClellan never raise any objections to the president?s Iraq policy while he was there? Why is he doing it now? Two answers: to damage Republican chances in the election and to make money while he can. If the book came out next year, it would have attracted less attention. Any questions?

3DHS / Americans in Mexico: Where Art Thou?

« on: June 03, 2008, 11:50:54 AM »

Is it safe and/or any less safe for Americans in Mexico now versus earlier?
White House, State, DOJ: No Further Data on Americans Killed in Mexico
Penny Starr
Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - The White House has joined the Justice Department and State Department in stating it has no information on arrests, prosecutions or convictions related to the murder or execution cases of 128 American citizens in Mexico from 2005 to 2007.

At a press briefing at the White House on Friday, Press Secretary Dana Perino told Cybercast News Service that the President Bush might now know about the travel alert issued in April by the State Department, which warned travelers that violence "equivalent to military small-unit combat" was taking place along the southern U.S. border with Mexico.

"I'm not sure if he does (know about the alert) or not," Perino said. "Obviously, State Department travel alerts come out quite often and I don't think he's alerted to every single one of them."

The alert, issued Apr. 15 and still listed as valid as of today, also says, "Dozens of U.S. citizens were kidnapped and/or murdered in Tijuana in 2007" and that "in some cases, assailants have worn full or partial police or military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles." (Read the travel alert.)

Cybercast News Service e-mailed a follow-up question to the White House press office on Friday asking if the president had assigned anyone in his administration to the task of making sure that justice is being served in the cases of Americans murdered in Mexico and, if so, what specifically had that person done to that end.

As of press time Monday, the White House had not responded to several requests for an answer. But the White House did join the Department of Justice (DOJ) in referring Cybercast News Service to the attorney general of Mexico for information on the status of the 128 murder and execution cases.

A call to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico also resulted in a referral to the Mexico Attorney General's office.

An e-mail and several phone calls to Fernando Castillo, public affairs officer for the Mexican attorney general, have not been returned. An embassy employee who identified herself as someone who works with the international press, told Cybercast News Service that the attorney general's office would only deal with federal crimes and that other criminal cases would come under the jurisdiction of the city or state where the alleged crime took place.

Cybercast New Service's question at a State Department press briefing on May 20 was answered with a link posted on its website of its report on non-natural deaths in Mexico from January 2005 to December 2007. An analysis of the report revealed that128 American citizens had been murdered or executed in Mexico over that time period. (Read the report.)

The report indicated that 667 Americans had been killed in Mexico by non-natural causes during the three years covered. An analysis showed that 128 of those deaths were listed as either "homicides" (126) or "executions" (2) and that a majority of those murders (68) had taken place in Mexican cities immediately on the U.S.-Mexico border. Another 12 Americans, the report indicated, were murdered in other locations in Mexican states bordering the United States.

In addition to the State Department's travel alert for Mexico, the department's Bureau of Consular Affairs maintains a Web page providing information for Americans considering travel to Mexico. "Low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals contribute to the high crime rate," the page warns. "U.S. citizen victims of crime in Mexico are encouraged to report the incident to the nearest police headquarters and to the nearest U.S. consular office."

The same page warns that Americans have been victimized by Mexican law enforcement officials.

"In some instances, Americans have become victims of harassment, mistreatment and extortion by Mexican law enforcement and other officials," it says. "Mexican authorities have cooperated in investigating such cases, but one must have the officer's name, badge number, and patrol car number to pursue a complaint effectively. Please note this information if you ever have a problem with police or other officials. In addition, tourists should be wary of persons representing themselves as police officers or other officials."

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11576696/

3DHS / California Court Strips Children of Right to Mother and Father

« on: May 17, 2008, 11:43:21 AM »

California Court Strips Children of Right to Mother and Father
Terence P. Jeffrey
Editor in Chief

(CNSNews.com) - In Thursday's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court stripped children of the right to be raised by a mother and a father.

Most of the media coverage of the California Supreme Court's decision has focused on the court's declaration that there is a right to same-sex marriage. The ruling invalidated California's Proposition 22, a state ballot initiative that passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000, and which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

But the California Supreme Court decision goes beyond simply giving same-sex couples the right to call their unions a "marriage." It also strips children of the right not to be artificially conceived or adopted by people other than a mother and a father.

Indeed, the court does not recognize that children have any right whatsoever to a mother and a father.

In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to--and identical to--the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.

In making this argument, the court addresses biological parenthood as an accident of nature that can be swept aside by the court in its pursuit of what the court understands to be justice. To explain this vision of justice--and where children fit into this vision--the court equates same-sex couples to infertile heterosexual married couples.

"A person who is physically incapable of bearing children still has the potential to become a parent and raise a child through adoption or through means of assisted reproduction, and the constitutional right to marry ensures the individual the opportunity to raise children in an officially recognized family with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life," the court said.

Two homosexual men joining together and contracting to have a child artificially conceived, gestated and handed over to their custody, it concludes, is a question of the "liberty and personal autonomy" of the homosexual men, but not of the child who would be so conceived and raised.

"Finally, of course, the ability to have children and raise them with a loved one who can share the joys and challenges of that endeavor is without doubt a most valuable component of one's liberty and personal autonomy," said the court.

"Although persons can have children and raise them outside of marriage," the court said, "the institution of civil marriage affords official governmental sanction and sanctuary to the family unit, granting a parent the ability to afford his or her children the substantial benefits that flow from a stable two-parent family environment, a ready and public means of establishing to others the legal basis of one's parental relationship to one's children and the additional security that comes from the knowledge that his or her parental relationship with a child will be afforded protection by the government against the adverse actions or claims of others."

In constructing its vision for a new type of "family," the court rhetorically worked its way around the biological certainty (in a pre-human-cloning world) that all children have a mother and father (whether they are ever afforded the right to know them or not), by adopting a parental lexicon that features not moms and dads but "opposite-sex couples" and "same-sex couples."

"Extending access to the designation of marriage to same sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children," said the court.

"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples," said the court, "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children."

3DHS / McCain and the Conservatives

« on: March 11, 2008, 10:27:17 AM »

Comments are hereby solicited...
"John McCain is the Republican nominee. Nothing we can do will change that.

McCain likes to pose as a maverick, but he is a third generation Country Club Republican who grew up in Washington political society. He is solidly aligned with the Country Club Liberal wing of the party, which has never been much good for conservatives; and his personal history shows he will do much to remain in office, and one supposes that means he will do much to get it. He was a spoiled brat in his youth, but he did go to Annapolis, and he did not shirk combat duty. The Legions see him as one of themselves. If this sounds a bit like Mark Anthony, so be it; but he hasn't Anthony's brains or ruthlessness, which is just as well.

McCain cannot win without the support of the Conservatives. Indeed he cannot win without the enthusiastic support of the conservatives. He will also need the votes of the Republican party, the independent conservatives who will generally vote Republican, and some Democrats. In a word he?s going to need much of the old Reagan coalition; but like all the Country Club Republicans, he hasn?t any real troops. The liberal wing of the Republican Party is good at raising money and using hired campaign workers, but it hasn?t any real party building strength. It doesn?t inspire enthusiasm or zeal.

McCain will gather a number of centrist and conservative Democrats, and he will do that without any need for movement Conservatives to be involved; but without us he won?t be able to stir the base and get out the vote. Many will sit on their hands unless motivated by the conservatives.

He needs us. Now: what do we want?

We are not going to get a movement Conservative. McCain is no Goldwater and never will be. He is a Washington politician with deep ties to the liberal establishment and the country club Republicans. He is not merely soft but squishy on immigration, he is committed to an insane campaign reform effort, and he is not unfriendly to the self-contradictory notion of "Big Government Conservatism" and "Compassionate Conservatism" on a Federal level.

Note that I am not denouncing the idea of compassion. For a man to love his country, his country ought to be lovely, and no country is lovely when there are people in misery in its streets. Moreover, there are things government can do to make the country more lovely. However, these are seldom things that the National Government can do, and in fact it's not often the state governments can do much. These are matters for local government, and even more so for what Tocqueville called "the associations": non-government organizations in Tocqueville's America and long afterward up into my lifetime doing much of the relief work, civic improvement, hospitals and food services, clinics, shelters, missions: the YMCA and YWCA when they were real. The Boy Scouts, Lions, Eagles, Moose, Masons, Knights of Columbus, Rotary, Optimists -- you get the idea. To the extent that the Federal government acts with these it is to suppress them, and to replace them, and this is a disastrous trend for freedom. Having said that, I doubt that McCain will understand, agree, or even care. His view of Big Government Conservatism is not likely to be much different from that of Bush II.

However: he has made a bid for Conservative support. Part of that bid is a promise to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. If he will do that, much can be done to dismantle the bureaucratic suppression of the associations.

One great threat to local institutions is illegal aliens. Hospitals, privately funded by charities, are required to take all comers to emergency rooms: and soon they must close because they can't afford to be free clinics. Illegal immigrants swamp city services. San Diego is bankrupt because of illegals. Los Angeles is forced to raise taxes. Allies of the illegals take key positions in the California legislature and hold the people hostage. "We want more money," they say; and they will never give up.

McCain has horrible positions on border control and will never use ICE to deport illegals here. He wants and amnesty which would be a disaster. However: he has promised to secure the border first. I have no reason to believe that this former Legion officer is not a man of his word. He has pledged his word. We need him to confirm that offer: and if he does, we can consider the matter closed. He will not secure that border in 4 years; he cannot go for his amnesty until he has done that; and this is an end to the matter. This is the best the movement conservatives will get, and it is better than we have now with Bush II; what more do we want? A Democrat who will demand amnesty without securing the borders?

We will have to live with "campaign reform". We will have to live with fiscal irresponsibility and lack of enthusiasm for tax cuts. We will have to live with the notion of federal intervention by ham handed bureaucrats in our local affairs. Even there, though, McCain has said he is changing his position on spending and taxes.

What we need is a good negotiator to get a pact with McCain: what he will promise the conservative movement in exchange for our enthusiastic -- and I mean enthusiastic even if we must fake some of the enthusiasm -- support.

In particular we want a reiteration of promises already made: strict constructionist judges both on Supreme and lower courts; secure borders before any comprehensive immigration reform; and a bit more enthusiasm for tax cuts.

We can get all that, and it is far better than we will get from any Democrat. We should take it, and get to work.

PS: If we can get Fred Thompson for VP, it will certainly make it easier to generate some zeal."

--Jerry Pournelle

3DHS / Vermont mulls lower drinking age

« on: February 29, 2008, 12:45:19 PM »

Vermont mulls lower drinking age

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) ? More than two decades after the country established a uniform drinking age of 21, a nascent movement is afoot to allow 18- to 20-year-olds to legally buy alcohol under some circumstances.
Proponents say the higher age hasn't kept young people from consuming alcohol and has instead driven underage consumption underground, particularly on college campuses.

"Our laws aren't working. They're not preventing underage drinking. What they're doing is putting it outside the public eye," Vermont state Sen. Hinda Miller said. "So you have a lot of kids binge drinking. They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can't call because they know it's illegal."

On Thursday, a committee of the Vermont Senate approved Miller's bill to have a task force weigh the pros and cons of rolling back the drinking age and make a recommendation to the Legislature early next year.

Organizations and lawmakers in other states are toying with similar ideas.

In South Dakota, Flandreau lawyer N. Bob Pesall has drafted an initiative petition to allow 19- and 20-year-olds to legally buy beer no stronger than 3.2% alcohol.

In Missouri, a group is using the Internet social networking sites Facebook and Meetup to try to collect more than 100,000 signatures to get a measure on the ballot to lower the drinking age to 18.

In South Carolina and Wisconsin, lawmakers have proposed allowing active duty military personnel younger than 21 to buy alcohol. A similar proposal was rejected last year in New Hampshire.

And last year, former Middlebury College president John McCardell started Choose Responsibility, a non-profit that favors allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to legally buy booze once they've completed an alcohol education program.

"We don't simply advocate the lower age, but believe mandatory alcohol education and licensing with very strict enforcement for violations of the state's alcohol laws might work," McCardell said.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others call this folly to even consider, saying the higher age limit has saved thousands of lives since the 1984 enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The act required states to raise the age to 21 or lose federal transportation money. South Dakota was the last state to comply, in 1988.

Vermont voted to raise the age in 1985, and in the ensuing 20 years, alcohol-related traffic fatalities dropped by 40%, according to Vermont State Police.

"Is there any significant support in the U.S. Congress for changing the law? We don't see that," said Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD.

Typically, when states flirt with the idea, they quickly abandon it for fear of losing the highway funding, he said.

Vermont stands to lose about $17 million a year if it were to flout the federal government and lower the drinking age.

McCardell said an effort is underway to persuade Congress to grant waivers exempting states from financial penalty if they lower the age.

"If Congress would grant a waiver, the states would be willing to try something, and at least then we could get some evidence and see whether things are better or worse," he said Thursday.

Politically, it's a hard sell, in part because there are other public health hazards associated with excessive alcohol consumption, not just highway fatalities.

But proponents of a younger drinking age say alcohol-related highway fatalities were dropping before the legal drinking age was lowered, and argue underground drinking presents its own risks.

In 2006, 28.3% of youngsters aged 12 to 20 said they'd had a drink in the past month and 19% were defined as binge drinkers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The survey defined a binge drinker as someone who, in the past month, had drunk five or more alcoholic beverages within several hours.

Miller, a Democrat, says she isn't sure that lowering the drinking age is the answer, but calls the idea worth exploring.

Her bill, which calls for a report to the Legislature by Jan. 15, does not propose a specific drinking age, only sets up a five-member task force to study the implications of lowering the age from 21. The bill now goes to the full Senate.

State Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, chairman of the committee that approved the bill, said he would vote against lowering the age if he had to decide now.

But he said it's nonetheless worth looking into.

"I sense the Senate will buy into our rationale, that a law on the books for 20 years should have a look-see, to see if it's having its intended effect or should be modified," said Illuzzi, a Republican.

But critics are leery.

"I think it is irresponsible legislation, to be quite honest," said William Goggins, director of education and enforcement for the state Liquor Control Board.

"The facts speak for themselves," he said. "Once the drinking age was raised, the number of alcohol-related fatalities decreased. To me, saving lives is the grandest argument of them all."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-29-drinking-age_N.htm

3DHS / Hillary: Not Fair Because I'm a Girl

« on: February 29, 2008, 12:41:24 PM »

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender
February 28, 2008 8:44 PM

In an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden to air on this evening's "Nightline," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., says it's tougher for her to run as a woman than it is for her male opponent.

Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is. It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there. It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women.

"And I think women just sort of shake their head," Clinton continued. "My friends do. They say, 'Oh, my gosh, this is so hard.' Well, it's supposed to be hard. I'm running for the hardest job in the world. No one has ever done this. No woman has ever won a presidential primary before I won New Hampshire. This is hard. And I don't expect any sympathy, I don't expect any kind of, you know, allowances or special privileges, because I knew what I was getting myself into.

"Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field," she said, "but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."

Of course, it might be observed that it likely hasn't exactly been a complete walk in the park for an African-American to run for president, either.

But apparently Clinton thinks -- based on this comment -- that the "playing field" is easier for a black man than a white woman.

I also wonder if former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. -- and all the other men vanquished by Clinton (and Obama) so handily -- think that they had an easy go of it.

What do you think?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-playing.html

3DHS / House speaker seeks grand jury probe of 2 Bush aides

« on: February 28, 2008, 09:54:01 PM »

House speaker seeks grand jury probe of 2 Bush aides

Story Highlights
Officials are White House chief of staff and former White House counsel
House speaker: Officials unresponsive to Congress' probe of U.S. attorney firings
U.S. attorney general has already said he will not prosecute officials

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday requested that a federal grand jury be appointed to investigate whether a top White House official and former official should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.

In a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, Pelosi says White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers were unresponsive to Congress' probe of the 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys.

Mukasey already has said he will not pursue charges against the two.

The White House has argued that contempt laws don't apply to the president or any of his staffers who invoke executive privilege.

In a statement Thursday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Mukasey had received the letter. He repeated the attorney general's belief that "long-standing Department precedent" prevents him from forwarding charges to a grand jury against White House staff if the president has told them to claim executive privilege.

"The attorney general is reviewing the referral and we anticipate that he will provide further guidance when that review is completed," Roehrkasse said.

"There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so," Pelosi wrote in her letters.

"Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place."

"I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim," Pelosi wrote.

Earlier this month, the House voted to find Bolten and Miers in contempt of Congress and pursue charges against them.

The chamber's Republican minority staged a walkout before the vote.

A spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner issued a statement calling Pelosi's request a "partisan political stunt" and "complete waste of time."

"This sort of pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists does nothing to make America safer," spokesman Michael Steel said in the statement.

Miers refused to testify in the probe, which stemmed from the Justice Department's dismissals of federal prosecutors in eight cities. Bolten failed to produce documents in his possession, Pelosi's letter says.

The White House has insisted the firings were legal. But Democrats said the central questions behind the dismissals -- who decided the prosecutors should be ousted, and why -- remain unanswered.

Critics of the move have said prosecutors, including Republican appointees, who were not sufficiently supportive of Bush were targeted.

The House resolution authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce the subpoenas issued to Miers and Bolten once the Justice Department, as expected, refuses.

The White House argues that forcing the aides to testify would violate the Constitution's separation of powers.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/congress.usattorneys/index.html

3DHS / An Astute Man has Passed

« on: February 27, 2008, 12:50:37 PM »

Writer William F. Buckley dies at 82
Conservative commentator gained acclaim for intellectual political writings

NEW YORK - Author and conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. has died at age 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges says Buckley died Wednesday morning at his home in Stamford, Conn. She says he had been ill with emphysema and was found dead by his cook.

Buckley became famous for his intellectual political writings in his magazine, the National Review, and his frequent television appearances, including on his own long-running ?Firing Line.?

3DHS / McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden

« on: February 27, 2008, 11:59:12 AM »

McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
Josiah Ryan

(CNSNews.com) - Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) supports a policy that has "essentially surrendered to Osama bin Laden," the leader of an anti-war veterans' group said on Monday.

Jon Soltz, a veteran of Iraqi Operation Freedom and the Kosovo campaign, is the co-founder and executive director of VoteVets.org. On Monday, as part of a conference call sponsored by anti-war liberals, Soltznoted that "90 percent" of the U.S. Army is in Iraq. "There is not one of our 42 combat brigades that could deploy anywhere in the world in the next 72 hours. What does America do when there is another Hurricane Katrina? What does America do on our border security issues?" Soltz asked.

Soltz noted that most U.S. troops are fighting far from the remote area where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is rumored to be hiding. "They [the U.S. Army] are stuck in Iraq at a time when Osama bin Laden is on the Afghan-Pakistan border," he said. "We have one tenth the amount of troops there than we have in Iraq, which is not related to the central front on the war on terror," Soltz said.

Soltz's VoteVets, which includes Iraq war critic Gen. Wesley Clark on its board of directors, is leading the liberal charge against decorated war hero John McCain, apparently operating on the theory that it takes a veteran to criticize a veteran. The group presses the point that even "patriotic Americans" and war veterans can and do oppose President Bush's war in Iraq -- and McCain's support for that war.

On Monday, VoteVets.org joined MoveOn.org in an effort to link the high cost of the war in Iraq with economic woes back home. MoveOn.org announced the lobbying and public education campaign on Monday in a conference call with reporters. (See story)

As part of the new effort, VoteVets has released an ad featuring an Iraq veteran with her infant son. The ad blasts Sen. McCain's stance that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for as long as they're needed there.

"This is my little boy," the veteran says in the VoteVets ad. "He was born a year after I came back from Iraq. What kind of commitment are you making to him? How about a thousand years of affordable health care, or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain? Or have you already promised to spend trillions -- in Baghdad?"

The ad will run on cable TV stations in the Washington, D.C., area.

Sen. John McCain has counseled patience -- and success -- in Iraq, saying the "costs of retreat" would bring chaos in Iraq as well as terrorists to U.S. soil.

On Monday, McCain admitted that the war in Iraq is one element by which his candidacy will be judged. At first he said he'd "lose" the election if the American people think the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.

Then McCain backed off his "stark" comment about losing: "Let me just put it this way," he said: "Americans will judge my candidacy on how, first and foremost, on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security." McCain said there's no doubt that how Americans judge Iraq will have a "direct relation to their judgment of me -- my support of the surge. Clearly I am tied to it to a large degree."

MoveOn.org recently endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. Obama has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq and a greater military commitment in Afghanistan.

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan," Obama said in a policy speech in September. "That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

Obama supports an immediate withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, and he stresses diplomacy over a military solution.

However, the Bush administration has long insisted that Iraq is a central focus in the global war on terror. Sen. McCain and other Republican leaders have supported that policy.

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addressed the liberal complaint that the Bush administration is fighting the wrong war.

"I am often asked, 'Well, we don't have Osama Bin Laden, do we?" McConnell said. "Well I assure you he is not staying at the Four Seasons in Islamabad. He is in some cold cave somewhere looking over his shoulder, wondering when the final shoe is going to drop. Going on offense is a big part of protecting America."

MoveOn.org has named McConnell as one of the four "top tier" legislators who stands in the way of the ending the Iraq war.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569185/

3DHS / Predator lawsuit

« on: February 27, 2008, 09:19:06 AM »

Judge approves "Predator" lawsuit against NBC Tue Feb 26, 5:50 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A $100 million lawsuit claiming that NBC prompted the suicide of a former Texas prosecutor who was caught up in its popular sting series "To Catch a Predator" is moving ahead after a ruling by a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday.

Louis Conradt, a 56-year-old assistant district attorney, shot himself in November 2006 after he was confronted at his Terrell, Texas, home by police officers. They were accompanied by an NBC news crew that was there to film his arrest.

"To Catch a Predator," a segment of NBC's "Dateline" newsmagazine program, lures men to a house with hidden cameras in the belief that they are about to have sexual relations with underage girls or boys. There, they are confronted by the program's host and promptly arrested. In Conradt's case, he was expecting to meet up with a 13-year-old boy.

Critics of the show say it is a form of entrapment, and they have questioned NBC's partnership on the series with an online vigilante group called Perverted-Justice.

Conradt's sister, Patricia Conradt, sued the network, saying "Dateline" was responsible for his death and the harm to his reputation. She grew up in the house where Conradt committed suicide.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, while dismissing some causes of action, said certain key claims in the complaint can proceed to trial, according to a 40-page ruling.

Chin let the case go forward on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of civil rights, saying if the allegations were proven, "a reasonable jury could find that NBC crossed the line from responsible journalism to irresponsible and reckless intrusion into law enforcement."

"Rather than merely report on law enforcement's efforts to combat crime, NBC purportedly instigated and then placed itself squarely in the middle of a police operation," the opinion read, "pushing the police to engage in tactics that were unnecessary and unwise, solely to generate more dramatic footage for a television show."

A spokeswoman for NBC, which is majority-owned by General Electric Co, said the company will continue to defend itself vigorously.

"We think the evidence will ultimately show that 'Dateline' acted responsibly and lawfully," spokeswoman Jenny Tartikoff said in an e-mailed statement. "The judge's ruling was based solely on the plaintiff's version of the facts. For purposes of this motion only, the judge was required, under the law, to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true."

NBC had argued that it owed Conradt no duty to protect him from suicide, according to the ruling.

Reuters

3DHS / Your tax dollars at work - or is it?

« on: February 27, 2008, 09:17:01 AM »

By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 52 minutes ago

MIAMI - A federal judge has closed portions of Miami's historic downtown courthouse after a report identified widespread mold infestation and ongoing water leaks, with one part of the basement termed "disgusting" by inspectors.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, the chief judge in Florida's Southern District, said in a memo that parts of the basement that house court records and a stairwell used by judges were being closed until further notice.

"The new steps we are taking may in fact be premature without further microbial testing, but nonetheless we intend to err on the side of caution," Moreno said in the memo dated Friday and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

Moreno took action after receiving last week a new U.S. Public Health Service study, which found mold throughout the 166,000-square-foot building that opened in 1933. Known officially as the David W. Dyer building, the courthouse is one of several in Miami's downtown federal judicial complex.

Across the street, a new 14-story courthouse sits unused, more than $60 million over budget and three years behind schedule. Electrical problems, hurricane damage and contractor disputes are blamed for the delay, which shows no sign of ending.

In the Dyer building, inspectors "observed multiple signs of suspect microbial growth and/or water damaged building materials," the Public Health Service report stated.

Employees have repeatedly complained about such health problems as sneezing, coughing, runny noses and lung irritation, as well as musty odors and water leaks. One law clerk in a second-floor office works from home because of "poor indoor air quality and mold," the report said.

The report also found that a basement sump pump room is "disgusting," has no ventilation and "is infested with pests." And a leaking toilet above basement space used as a gym by the U.S. Marshals Service has caused suspected mold growth on walls and elsewhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_us/troubled_courthouses

3DHS / WoW

« on: February 26, 2008, 11:29:03 PM »

I was contacted today by the folks behind World of Warcraft. They want me to evaluate this online gaming system. I am to create a series of characters and run them through the system and report on any and all observations, inconsistencies, etc. Strengths and weaknesses of the gaming system are also addressed.

I am hereby soliciting anyone's experience with this gaming system. And, if you are already playing the game, if you would like to team up while in that system, that would be good as well so I may record your impressions as well.

3DHS / Say it in Spanish. Say it with pride

« on: February 26, 2008, 02:47:47 PM »

Chavez fights use of English words
Banners exhort Venezuelans: 'Say it in Spanish. Say it with pride.'
The Associated Press
updated 9:15 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 26, 2008

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez?s government is taking its battle against U.S. ?imperialism? into Venezuelans? dictionaries, urging state phone company workers to avoid English-language business and tech terms.

Through a campaign launched Monday, newly nationalized CANTV hopes to wean employees and others from words like ?staff? (?equipo? is preferred), ?marketing? (?mercadeo?) and ?password? (?contrasena?).

Stickers and banners printed up by the company exhort Venezuelans to ?Say it in Spanish. Say it with pride.?

The Communications and Information Ministry said in a statement that Venezuelans must recover Spanish words that are ?threatened by sectors that have started a battle for the cultural domination of our nations.?

Other English words targeted include ?mouse? (the company prefers ?raton?), ?meeting? (?reunion?) and ?sponsor? (?patrocinador?) ? all of which have become common in Latin American countries.

The leftist president has sought to counter what he calls U.S. cultural imperialism on all fronts, financing Venezuelan cinema as an alternative to the ?dictatorship of Hollywood? and forcing radio stations to play more Venezuelan music.

English is still taught in schools alongside other languages, however. And Chavez himself often breaks playfully into English during speeches, sometimes to salute his close friend, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, saying: ?How are you, Fidel??

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23350305/

3DHS / Obama seen as more likely to beat McCain

« on: February 26, 2008, 02:42:31 PM »

Poll: Obama seen as more likely to beat McCain
Senator builds commanding coalition but still shows signs of vulnerability
By Robin Toner and Dalia Sussman
The New York Times

updated 10:25 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 26, 2008
WASHINGTON - In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to defeat Senator John McCain, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

After 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, capped by a winning streak in 11 contests over the last two weeks, Mr. Obama has made substantial gains across most major demographic groups in the Democratic Party, including men and women, liberals and moderates, higher- and lower-income voters, and those with and without college degrees.

But there are signs of vulnerability for Mr. Obama in this national poll: While he has a strong lead among Democratic voters on his ability to unite and inspire the country, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is still viewed by more Democrats as better prepared for the job of president. And while he has made progress among women, he still faces a striking gender gap: Mr. Obama is backed by two-thirds of the Democratic men and 45 percent of the women. White women remain a Clinton stronghold.

When all voters are asked to look ahead to the general election, Mr. McCain, the likely Republican nominee, is seen as better prepared for the presidency, better able to handle an international crisis and more equipped to serve as commander in chief than either of the Democratic candidates. The poll provides a snapshot of Mr. Obama?s strength after this first, frenzied round of primaries and caucuses, which knocked seven of the nine Democratic candidates out of the race. For the first time in a New York Times/CBS News Poll, he moved ahead of Mrs. Clinton nationally, with 54 percent of Democratic primary voters saying they wanted to see him nominated, while 38 percent preferred Mrs. Clinton. A new USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday showed a similar result, 51 percent for Mr. Obama to 39 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

These national polls are not predictive of the Democratic candidates? standings in individual states, notably Ohio and Texas, which hold the next big-delegate primaries on March 4. Most recent polls there show a neck-and-neck race in Texas, with Mrs. Clinton having a lead in Ohio; her campaign advisers say that if she prevails next Tuesday the race will begin anew.

But the NYT/CBS News poll shows that Mr. Obama?s coalition ? originally derided by critics as confined to upper-income reformers, young people and African-Americans ? has broadened widely. In December, for example, he had the support of 26 percent of the male Democratic primary voters; in the latest poll, that figure had climbed to 67 percent.

?He?s from Illinois and I?m from Illinois and he reminds me of Abraham Lincoln,? said Dylan Jones, 53, a laborer from Oxford, N.C., who was interviewed in a follow-up to the poll. ?I can see him out there splitting rails. I don?t have anything against Hillary Clinton, so I guess it?s because he?s new blood.?

Similarly, Mr. Obama?s support among those with household incomes under $50,000 rose to 48 percent from 35 percent since December. His support among moderates rose to 59 percent from 28 percent. In contrast, Mrs. Clinton?s strength among Democratic men dropped to 28 percent from 42 percent in December; her support among voters in households making under $50,000 held stable.

Even among women, Mr. Obama made strides ? he had the support of 19 percent of white women in December, and 40 percent in the most recent poll. White women, however, remain Mrs. Clinton?s most loyal base of support ? 51 percent backed the senator from New York, statistically unchanged from the 48 percent who backed her in December.

?I like them both,? said Ann Powers, 63, a coordinator for special-education programs in Fort Dodge, Iowa. ?I just think he is too inexperienced and she?s dealt with more in the last 20 years.? Billie Stimoff, a 72-year-old retiree from Kodak, Tenn., said, ?It?s time to see what a woman can do because men sure have made a mess of things.?

The national telephone poll was conducted Feb. 20-24 with 1,115 registered voters, including 427 Democratic primary voters and 327 Republican primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all voters, plus or minus five percentage points for Democratic voters and plus or minus five percentage points for Republican voters.

The poll showed Republicans settling in with their likely nominee. Eight in ten said they would be satisfied if Mr. McCain wins their party?s nomination, although just 3 in 10 said they would be very satisfied. Nearly 9 in 10 said he was prepared for the presidency and more than 8 in 10 said they had confidence in his ability to deal with an international crisis, while a remarkable 96 percent said he would likely make an effective commander in chief.

But misgivings remain among those who describe themselves as conservative Republicans, with a majority of those voters saying his positions on the issues are not conservative enough.

On the Democratic side, primary voters indicated they saw few substantive differences between their candidates on issues like the war in Iraq and health care. Most Democratic voters have confidence in both candidates to handle the economy, the war in Iraq and an international crisis. And large numbers think it is likely that either candidate would make an effective commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama?s advantages are more apparent on other measures. Nearly 6 in 10 say he has the best chance of beating Mr. McCain, double the numbers who believed Mrs. Clinton was more electable. He is also viewed by more Democratic voters as someone who can bring about ?real change? in the way things are done in Washington and is willing to compromise with Republicans ?the right amount? to get things done.

Democratic voters are also more likely to say Mr. Obama cares a lot about them, inspires them and can unite the country. Sixty-three percent of Democratic voters said he cares a lot about them, while fewer than half think Mrs. Clinton does. Nearly seven in 10 say he inspires them about the future of the country; 54 percent say Mrs. Clinton does. Three-quarters say he would be able to unite the country as president; 53 percent say Mrs. Clinton would.

Mrs. Clinton also has her strengths: Her supporters are, in general, more committed; nearly 8 in 10 of Mrs. Clinton?s backers say they strongly favor her, while 6 in ten of Mr. Obama?s supporters strongly favor him. Only 18 percent of her supporters back her with reservations; about a third of Mr. Obama?s supporters said they had reservations about him.

Democratic women are also more likely to say that the news media have been harder on Mrs. Clinton than on other candidates: 56 percent felt that way, compared with 39 percent of the Democratic men. Both men and women were more likely to think the media have been harder on Mrs. Clinton than on Mr. Obama.

Not surprisingly, Democratic primary voters have an opinion on the appropriate role of the 795 super-delegates who could decide this year?s election; more than half said that these uncommitted delegates should vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23343454/

3DHS / Hillary Fading?

« on: February 26, 2008, 01:52:16 PM »

Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary
Clinton Lead Slipping in Ohio
Tuesday, February 26, 2008

With just a week to go until the crucial March 4 Democratic Presidential Primaries, Barack Obama continues to gain ground on Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows Clinton earning 48% of the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary vote. That?s unchanged from a week ago. Barack Obama?s support has grown to 43%. That?s up from 40% last week and 38% the week before.

Overall, Clinton?s lead is now just five percentage points in Ohio, down from an eight-point advantage last week and fourteen points two weeks ago.

Just 16% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters believe the North American Free Trade Agreement?NAFTA?is good for America. Fifty-five percent (55%) say the trade agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration is bad for the nation.

By a 53% to 14% margin, voters believe that Obama opposes NAFTA while there are mixed perceptions on where Clinton stands. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe she favors NAFTA, 31% believe she opposes it and 34% are not sure. This issue is critical in a state that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. Politically, these lower-income voters have generally supportive of Clinton throughout the primary season.

Clinton still leads among voters who earn less than $60,000 a year. Obama leads among higher income voters.

Clinton leads by eleven points among women but trails by four among men. A recent commentary by Susan Estrich wondered if the ?G-word??gender?is the reason for Clinton?s struggles.

Nationally, Obama leads Clinton in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. According to the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator, the Democrats have a modest early lead in the Electoral College.

In Ohio, Clinton is viewed favorably by 77%, down four points since last week. Obama has earned favorable reviews from 72%, up a couple of points over the past week.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Likely Democratic Primary Voters say that Clinton would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. That?s down five points from 82% a week ago.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) say the same about Obama. That?s up four points over the past week.

Ohio is one of two states that the Clinton campaign and many outside experts have deemed essential for the former First Lady to win is she is to have a chance of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. Texas, which also votes on March 4, is the other. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll in Texas shows the same trend in Obama?s direction. Heading into the final debate before Election Day, Clinton?s lead is down to just a single point in the Lone Star State.

Data from Rasmussen Markets suggests that Obama is now strongly favored to win the nomination.

Rasmussen Markets data immediately prior to the release of this polling data showed the race in Ohio to be a toss-up (current prices: Obama 48.1% Clinton 55.2% . Overall, in the race for the nomination, Obama is given a 82.3% chance to win while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 17.9%. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the Rasmussen harness competitive passions to provide a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of those surveyed were women, 44% were men.

Fourteen percent (14%) were under 30, 31% aged 30-49, and 51% were over 50.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of those surveyed were white while 83% were Democrats.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary