Tuesday, April 10, 2007

"Nappy Headed Hoes"


Nappy describes hair texture "tightly coiled and or kinky hair. Some believe it was a term created by white people to bring African Americans down like the "n" word '******'.

A Hoe is a derogatory term for a woman, taken to mean that she is malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, unpleasant or sexually promiscuous.

I just had to comment on these remarks by Don Imus. The critics are right Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can go a little over board but this person called hard working female college athletes "nappy headed hoes". Ha Ha, what was he drinking? A reasonable comment for some singers whom I will not mention whom market themselves as such, but these respectable young women didn't deserve this label.

The coach called these racist and sexist remarks. I agree. Go Rutgers!
Update: 04/12/07
Statement from Steve Capus, President, NBC News
MSNBCSource: 11 April 2007

NBC News President Steve Capus released the following statement regarding comments made last week by Don Imus on his radio show regarding the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
Effective immediately, MSNBC will no longer simulcast the "Imus in the Morning" radio program. This decision comes as a result of an ongoing review process, which initially included the announcement of a suspension. It also takes into account many conversations with our own employees. What matters to us most is that the men and women of NBC Universal have confidence in the values we have set for this company. This is the only decision that makes that possible. Once again, we apologize to the women of the Rutgers basketball team and to our viewers. We deeply regret the pain this incident has caused.



WHO'S BEHIND CRIMINAL BOT NETWORKS?


Interesting Tech article. I don't know much about this stuff but why don't anti-spam, virus and spy ware companies assemble teams to target these internet criminals? Also once these hackers demand money to be transfered via bank accounts can't law enforcement cooperate internationally to track down these dudes? It is in the best interest of the online community and e-commerce for government and business to work together and give due attention to this issue.

"Posted: Tuesday, April 10 at 07:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan
They have infected perhaps 100 million computers with viruses, turning the PCs around the world into an army of willing criminal assistants known as “bots.” They are using those PCs to send out billions of spam e-mails and make millions of dollars by attacking Web sites and extorting their owners. They have even attacked the core computers that keep the Internet running smoothly. Who are they?

The answer to that question is elusive, but there are a few clues.
In part one of this series, we described the epidemic of hijacked computers that’s swept the Internet. Controlled by malicious programs, the computers are turned into robots, or bots, that are directed by criminals known as bot herders.

Part two looked at how profitable the bot business has become, leading hackers to engage in gang warfare in cyberspace for control of these hijacked computers -- a digital battle that has spilled out onto the Internet’s Main Street.

Today, we examine who is behind these networks of infected computers.
For years, computer hackers typically were precocious, anti-social teen-agers who committed digital violence just to get attention. But computer crime has grown up, and grown into a big business. Now it is used by highly organized gangs to steal millions of dollars.

The top gangs, most agree, are in Russia, Eastern Europe and Brazil, although there also are a few up-and-coming cybercrime syndicates in Asia.

Cybercriminals tend to be talented computer programmers who can make much more money stealing than working, the experts agree. There is so much money to be made in cybercrime that some observers speculate that terrorists are using it to raise money and support their organizations.
Computer security experts disagree on whether terrorists are involved in cybercrime, but there is one sure sign that computer crime has become a much more sober affair: Many experts interviewed for this story shied away from talking about the topic of who’s behind botnets, pointing to concerns for family safety.

"When I got into this, it was kind of a game," said one expert who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, it's very serious. I wouldn't want my name attached (to comments about the topic)."
That's a new sentiment in an industry that has often been criticized for using hyperbole to generate publicity.
Recruited by professionals
Bot herders are still typically young – perhaps 18 to 25 -- often only a little bit older than a teenage hacker, says David Marcus, security research and communications manager with McAfee. They are nearly always men. And they often live in an area where traditional, big-money computing jobs are difficult to find.
"There are limited ways to make money," he said. "This is the way for them to make a lot." Marcus said he thinks organized crime is behind a lot of bot activity, but Mafiosi aren’t coding Trojan horse programs. Instead, their money funds hacker operations and is used to recruit computer savvy youngsters, he believes.

CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
THE LOWDOWN ON 'BOTS'IS YOUR COMPUTER A CRIMINAL?FIVE TIPS TO BOLSTER VISTA SECURITY"They watch for bright kids and they start them on small tasks, like ‘Find me 100 passwords and I'll give you 1,000 rubles,’” he said.
In more aggressive recruitment programs, organized crime will actually pay for a computer geek to get through college, essentially a hacker scholarship, said Marcus.
Some say there are as many as 45,000 different botnets sending out spam and being used for other cybercrimes, but Professor Randy Vaughn of Baylor University said he believes there are as few as six or seven major bot gangs and as few as 1,000 criminals controlling all the infected computers.

“And the number of genuine genius bot programmers is probably much smaller than that,” he said. “In each group there are a few geniuses and there are a bunch of groupies who hang around on the botnet and attempt to gain credibility with the botnet operators.”
The groupies hope to learn enough that they can control their own vast botnets, but in the meantime they act as money handlers or perform other menial tasks for the “genius” programmers, Vaughn said.

E-commerce nightmare. Bot herders aren't necessarily spammers, but the two are often linked, as virtually all spam is now sent from hijacked computers, experts say.
The Spamhaus top 10 list of worst spammers is now populated by Russians, Ukrainians and a Chinese ring.

Craig Schiller, a professor at Portland State University and author of “Botnets: The Killer Web Applications,” said those who designed the Internet wanted a system that would allow buyers and sellers to connect from around the globe. They had no idea that the network would become a platform for global crime, he said.
“This is the e-commerce that people dreamed about but didn't realize it was a nightmare,” said Schiller.
The arrest of three Russian bot herders last year offers a rare glimpse into the world where such nightmares are born.
Three men -- Alexander Petrov, Denis Stepanov and Ivan Maksakov – spent a year terrorizing e-commerce sites as part of a ring of 16 criminals. The ring used armies of computers to overwhelm gambling Web sites and other firms that could ill-afford Internet down time, then extorted money from the operators to halt the traffic flood.
Mikko Hypponen, a security expert at F-Secure, acted as a consultant to one victim, an online CD and DVD retailer. The store eventually paid a ransom of $40,000 to get its site back, he said.
In all, the hackers took in about $3.9 million in payments, according to evidence presented at their trial.
“And many companies invested much, much more paying to build a defense against these attacks,” Hypponen said. Russian media estimated the total damages caused by the group at $79 million.
The ransom money was wired in small amounts to 10 different bank accounts in Riga, Latvia, Hypponen said. So-called “money mules” – middle men who simply help move stolen money from one account to another, usually crossing borders along the way – picked it up from these accounts and wired the money to accounts in St. Petersburg or Moscow.
Another set of mules eventually brought the money to the small city of Balakov in western Russia. It was in Balakov that Maksakov, a 22-year-old student at the Balakov Institute of Engineering, Technology and Management, issued orders for the botnet attacks, according to Russian media reports. But while the orders were given in Balakov, the main computer server that controlled the attack was in Houston.
Russian police nabbed the threesome with the help of Scotland Yard by following the money trail, Hypponen said.
The three Russians were sentenced to eight years apiece in jail by a Balakov court last fall. But Hypponen said most of the gang remains at large, including several suspects in Kazakhstan.
Their exploits don’t rival those of Brazilian gangs, experts say. In 2005, more than 50 Brazilians were arrested after allegedly stealing $33 million with targeted, Trojan horse program that stole online banking passwords.
Domingo Montanaro, a computer forensics expert and banking consultant in Sao Paolo, Brazil, said Internet crime gangs there operate almost with impunity. In a recent case, he said, he helped nab a ring of 100 criminals that had gained access to 10,000 Brazilian bank accounts.
“Criminals in Brazil do some incredible stuff because police cannot fight them anymore,” he said. “They are not even using techniques to hide themselves. We only arrest maybe 3 or 4 percent of them.”
Driven by revenge
Some attacks are driven by revenge as well as financial gain.
Last year, a noted Russian spammer nicknamed PharmaMaster – he usually advertises pharmaceuticals – felt his business was endangered by a Silicon Valley anti-spam startup named Blue Security.
PharmaMaster initiated an attack that crippled Blue Security’s Web site. The firm countered by placing information about the attack on its corporate blog, hosted by popular blog site TypePad, owned by Six Apart Ltd. PharmaMaster then hired a bot herder to conduct a denial-of-service attack that shut down all of Six Apart’s blogs, including those hosted on its Typepad.com service.
Eventually, Blue Security surrendered and got out of the business of anti-spam software.
“PharmaMaster paid $1 million to take out Blue Security,” or about $2,000 an hour for the attack, said Schiller, the Portland State professor. “But (PharmaMaster) was making $3 million a month, so it was worth it.”
At the time, security experts said the Blue Security attack was so severe that only a few of the world’s largest corporations would have been able to withstand it.
Given the power that the bot herders wield, questions inevitably arise about whether terrorists are behind such crimes. There is no clear answer, and security experts are divided on the issue.
Terrorism link?
The discussion was energized by Gartner security analyst Avivah Litan last month, when she issued a report describing the recent arrest of about 50 hackers in Egypt and Lebanon.
“My hypothesis is that the computer brains are still in Russia and Eastern Europe, but some of their operations are being financed by terror organizations. I am hearing that,” she said. “If you were terrorists, wouldn’t you get in touch with these guys?”
Hypponen disagrees, saying there isn’t any evidence that terrorists are playing with bot networks.
“Sure it could happen some day. But I don’t have any information, or even any hearsay, that links this to terrorism,” he said.
There is plenty of evidence that organizations like al-Qaida are willing to use the Internet to get attention or to communicate, counters Schiller.
“I’d be surprised if (terrorists) weren’t using these (botnets),” he said. “In their charters they talk about using terrorism to further their aims. They are inclined to use technology against us; it is a huge force multiplier for them.”
Botnets are indeed a textbook example of a “force multiplier” -- one computer, telling 100 other computers, telling 10,000 others computers to attack someone or something.
That makes it inevitable that terrorists bent on disrupting communications and financial systems will at least attempt to harness their power.
But while terrorism’s link to botnets is tenuous at best, there is no doubt that real-world criminals already are using them to make big money. And given the alarm bells being rung in almost all corners of the computer security world, it seems likely that the botnet problem is going to get worse before it gets better. "

comments welcome

Will Bush Compromise on Iraq?

Political

Bush urges talks over war funding, warns clock is ticking
Source: Agence France Presse 04/10/2007
FAIRFAX, Virginia, April 10, 2007 (AFP) -

US President George W. Bush on Tuesday invited leading US lawmakers to talks to end a stalemate over funding the unpopular war in Iraq, warning there was no time to lose.

Leading Democrats, while not refusing the invitation outright, said they would reject any talks with preset conditions in the dispute over a war spending bill that includes a schedule for troop pullout from Iraq.

"When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste," Bush said, inviting "leaders from ... both political parties, to meet with me at the White House next week."

"I know we have our differences over the best course. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need," he said during a visit to war veterans in Fairfax, Virginia, close to Washington.

Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, are trying to end the war in Iraq by tying military funding to a withdrawal of US troops in 2008.

The House and Senate, which have both passed bills with different deadlines, must iron out the differences between their bills and send one to the president for his signature to become law.
With Iraq this week marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would reject any talks with preset conditions.

"The president is inviting us to the White House with preconditions. It's not the way we should operate. He must deal with Congress, we are an independent branch of government," Reid said.

The White House was careful to make clear that the invitation did not signal any readiness to compromise, and Bush repeated his vow to veto any legislation that ties release of war spending funds to a timetable for troop withdrawal.

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops, without an artificial timetable for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stressed that the president's invitation was "not a meeting in order to compromise."

"This is a meeting to discuss the way forward. Because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the president's veto. And at the same time they say that they want to fund the troops," she added.

"Maybe they need to hear again from the president about ... why he thinks that it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal."

In a joint statement Reid issued with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they said "any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions.

"The president is demanding we renew his blank check for war without end ... we renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."

Perino called the Democrats' statement "a knee-jerk reaction that's unfortunate."
Bush has called on a skeptical public to give his new "surge" strategy time to work, saying the commanders on the ground in Iraq were already seeing "encouraging signs" that an extra 25,000 troops being deployed in the country were helping to secure Baghdad.

"The Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush warned.

He said the military would soon notify Congress, which holds the power of the purse, that the army would need to transfer 1.6 billion dollars from other military accounts to cover the shortfall.

This was on top of 1.7 billion dollars already transferred in March, the president said.
If by May no bill on funding the war has been passed into law, the army could have to slow or freeze funding for depots where equipment is repaired and mull a delay to military training programs, Bush said.

"These actions are only the beginning. And the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be," Bush said.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Obama's Hilary Youtube video

Barrack Obama's campaign produced a negative video opposing Hilary Clinton on youtube. If this is the "hopeful" tone his campaign expects to take along with his zero results as a Senator then I'd advise Mr. Obama today to drop out of the race for president.

Snoop Dogg Says: ''F*ck Bill O'Reilly!'' TBOHipHop.net

Bill O'Reilly definately is a prick. Snoop Dog has a Constitutional right to own a gun.

Bill O'Reilly spends all this time critizing others while he is a sexual harraser. O'Reilly needs another job.

U.N. Climate Report on Global Warming


"There is a 90% of certainity behing global warming. " This finding was not produced by a meeting of tree huggers but it was reached through international consensus, including the United States.


After five days of debate and an all-night, down-to-the-wire battle, scientists and government officials from around the world agreed Friday to a new report outlining the effects of global warming on the planet.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations scientific group, released its findings Friday in Brussels, Belgium. Although haggling over the fine print diluted some of the original language, the final report is stark in its depiction of what's in store for the planet: flooding, droughts, extinctions of plants and animals, and high costs for everyone.


This is the fourth report from the U.N. climate panel in 17 years, and it has proved to be one of the hardest-hitting ones. The first chapter came out in February after tough negotiations. It said that scientists are more than 90 percent sure that humans are warming the planet.


In the latest report, the panel addressed the impacts of global warming, and what their assessment turned up is troubling: Many coastal communities will flood. Severe droughts will damage crops, and there will be stronger storms, hurricanes and heat waves. Many coral reefs will die, and many of the world's plants and animals will be at higher risk of extinction.


But scientists who wrote the report wanted to say they had "very high confidence" in their findings. That means they think they have a nine out of 10 chance of being right. That started a fight, according to Patricia Romero Lankao, one of the scientific authors, who works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.


"Some countries, like China and Saudi Arabia, didn't want to accept our statement that it was very likely that global warming was causing those impacts on physical and biological systems," Lankao said.


China is expected to pass the United States as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saudi Arabia owns the largest reserves of oil. Officials representing China and Saudi Arabia won that fight, striking the word "very" and reducing certainty to eight out of 10.


Lankao says European scientists also wanted to stress how seriously the economies of poor nations in particular would be damaged, and how little they actually contributed to warming compared to industrialized countries. Lankao says the U.S. delegation sought to tone down that language.
Despite the compromises, the final document makes it clear that big impacts are on the way, and that the world is already changing.


"Examples are earlier melting of lake ice in the Great Lakes and later freezing; plants, flowers blooming sooner; the migratory patterns of birds changing — mostly distinctly through the second half of the 20th century," says climate scientist Linda Mearns, also from the atmospheric center in Colorado, who contributed to the study.


Friday's report moves the climate debate into new territory, she added.
"The real heart of the climate change issue is now shifting more from the climate science, the physical science, and more into the impacts, and then also issues of mitigation, about how we reduce greenhouse gases," she said.


The IPCC report isn't all dire news. Some temperate regions, such as North America, will see longer growing seasons for crops, for example. But effects will differ regionally. In a study published this week in the journal Science, climate researcher Richard Seager at Columbia University says the southwestern United States could see the kind of long-term drought that caused the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.


"The overall pattern, if you were going to distill it down to something very simple, is that the drier regions get drier and the wet regions get wetter," Seager said.
Many of the hardest-hit regions are where the poor live — in Africa and in many other parts of the tropics. But climate scientist Mearns says wealthy countries such as the United States shouldn't think they'll escape.


"Poor populations within a country will probably suffer more," Mearns said. "And of course, one can take the example of Katrina — and the people who suffered most there were the poorer residents."
There's more to come from the U.N. panel. They'll report in May on what kinds of things can be done to lessen the impacts of climate change.

Commentary: The G.W. Bush administration asserts that technology will solve problems with climate change. Such a policy is baseless with no sincere intention to address the issue. At the end of 8 years of Republican governance the United States has produced nor promoted any significant technology to combat glaobal warming. Policy must be change now, it is possible for government and business to lead such a change in far less than 8 years.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

What’s up in Dubai




American business is far to concerned with setting up shop in Dubai (Middle East).

First they were involved in a political matter of controlling a U.S port . , then Halliburton moved its headquarters there and now GE is boasting of its investments in Dubai.

Call me a protectionist but I will be the first to say that globalization and outsourcing are robbing Americans of high paying jobs.

India clearing economic zones


Political


India to restart clearing economic zones
Source: Agence France Presse
04/05/2007


"NEW DELHI, April 5, 2007 (AFP) -

India lifted a freeze on scores of economic zones on Thursday imposed following deadly protests, but promised there would be no forcible acquisition of land for the enclaves.

The government suspended land clearances for special economic zones (SEZs) last month following clashes between protesting farmers and the police who were sent to clear land for a petrochemical hub in the Marxist ruled eastern West Bengal state.

Fourteen people were killed when police opened fire in Nandigram, a village 120 kilometres (75 miles) south of West Bengal state capital Kolkata.

"We are not stopping any (SEZ) process," Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said.

But following the protests at Nandigram and other proposed SEZ sites, Nath told reporters "no state can compulsorily acquire land from farmers" and said the onus had now shifted onto the developers.

Instead of the government acquiring land, promoters would have to approach landowners and acquire property at commercial rates.

The government said permission would be now be given for 83 SEZs and India's Board of Approvals will consider 162 SEZs which already have initial approval, along with 140 new applications.

Approval would be given to applications where there was no land dispute, the government said. 63 SEZs have already received final clearance.

The SEZ scheme to give foreign firms Chinese-style tax-free enclaves to push industrialisation has met with massive protests from landowners.

Nath also announced a cap of 5,000 hectares (12,350 acres) for SEZs.

The farmers' protests have sparked a debate over whether farmland should be used for industry in India, where some two-thirds of the billion-plus population live off agriculture.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last month that his government would not reverse plans to create SEZs although the federal government has promised to come up with a compensation package for displaced villagers.

In eastern Orissa state which borders West Bengal, 13 protesters died last January when authorities forcibly tried to clear land of tribal people.

Industry lobbies hailed the government's move, but the communists criticised it.

The Confederation of Indian Industry said it hoped it would "end the ambiguity about the future of SEZs."

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said the decision "will clear uncertainties and give a clear signal that SEZs are here to stay."

The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry president Venugopal N Dhoot said clearing the SEZ proposals "will accelerate economic activities for increased production and exports."

But India's Communist Party of India -- lending crucial support to the Congress-led government in New Delhi and partners of the Marxist administration in West Bengal -- slammed the decision.

"How can the empowered group of ministers take a decision in such an ad hoc manner" when a parliamentary committee is still debating the SEZ policy, a report quoted Communist Party of India's national secretary D Raja as saying.

"We do not think that this sort of ad hoc decision ... will help in any way," Raja said. "

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Bush vs Reid on Iraq


While President G.W. Bush threatens a veto of legislation containing timetables for withdrawing soldiers out of Iraq, the Democratic Leader Senator Harry Reid finds his balls. His response to the President is a threat to completely cut off funding for the Iraq War. This is truly good politics. Much better than the corrupt rubber stamp Congress of old. I believe the Democrats are finally finding some back bone. "Give 'em Hell Harry"!


Political

Bush to push back at Democrats over Iraq deadline
Source: Agence France Presse 04/03/2007
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2007 (AFP) -


President George W. Bush is expected to remain defiant Tuesday one day after Democrats hardened their position on linking Iraq war funding to a troop pullout deadline.

Bush is scheduled to make a statement on the over-100 billion dollar Iraq and Afghanistan war budget legislation at around 10:10 am (1410 GMT) after weeks of demanding the funding without the Democrat's added requirement for a timetable to end the US presence in Iraq.

For weeks Bush has threatened to veto the legislation which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in two versions, and now awaits reconciliation into one bill before being forwarded to Bush.

On Monday Senate Democrats raised the stakes in the bitter fight themselves, unveiling a new bid to cut off nearly all funding for the Iraq war after March 31, 2008 if Bush vetoes the bill they plan to submit to the White House.

Co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Russ Feingold, the new Democrat measure would cut funding for most Iraq war operations after March 31, 2008, the date already set as a goal for withdrawal of most combat troops in the 122 billion war budget bill passed by the Senate.

It would permit funding only for operations against Al-Qaeda, training and equipping Iraqi troops and protecting US personnel and installations.

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said.

Feingold said in an email message to supporters that the bill would use "Congress's constitutional 'power of the purse' authority to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
"Our bill funds the troops, it just de-funds the war," he said.

The legislation, to be officially unveiled on April 10 when the Senate returns from its Easter break, would almost certainly face a veto by Bush.

But it is a high-stakes poker game: Democrats lack majorities required to overcome a Bush veto, and they are depending on widespread fatigue over the war to keep the public on their side.
But the White House is playing strongly to the public as well, declaring that Congress was going to deny US soldiers adequate funding to do their jobs, and meanwhile give the enemy a timetable to take over.

Vice President Dick Cheney warned Monday the United States faced defeat in Iraq if Democrats succeed in imposing withdrawal.

It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Cheney said in prepared remarks.
"When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy to simply watch the clock and wait us out," he charged.
"It's time for Congress to stop the political theater and send the president a bill he can sign into law."
But Democrats said it was necessary if Bush fails to bow to the public will.

"We'll fund the war in three month increments. We're going to keep you on a tighter string," said Senator Barack Obama.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the public no longer supported the war.
"As more and more Americans demand to see the troops get out of what is clearly a civil war, this administration stubbornly continues to stick its head in the sand," Manley said.
Democratic and Senate negotiators are spending the current recess in Congress reconciling the House and Senate versions of the budget bill that can be sent to Bush's desk.
The House version of the war budget contains a withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008.

Feature:Bush aide says faith was misplaced


I believe this article to be significant insight and persuading information in support of those of us who are so firmly opposed to the policies and presidency of G.W. Bush. These statements are from Matthew Dowd, a former lead participant in putting Bush into the White House. It seems that Dowd needed “spring cleaning for his soul”.


Matthew Dowd slams president's actions, isolationism
Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
Sunday, April 1, 2007


(04-01) 04:00 PDT Austin, Texas -- In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush's early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.


A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Bush's political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president's chief campaign strategist.


Looking back, Dowd now says his faith in Bush was misplaced.


In a wide-ranging interview in Austin, Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Bush's leadership.


He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Bush still approached governing with a "my way or the highway" mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.
"I really like him, which is probably why I'm so disappointed in things," he said. "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."


In speaking out, Dowd became the first member of Bush's inner circle to break so publicly with him.
He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Bush's presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Bush gain and keep power.


Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Sen. John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.


"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do -- to me, by God; other people call it karma -- is to restore balance when things didn't turn out the way they should have," Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."


Dowd's journey from true believer to critic in some ways tracks the public arc of Bush's political fortunes. But it is also an intensely personal story of a political operative who at times, by his account, suppressed his doubts about his professional role but then confronted them as he dealt with loss and sorrow in his own life.


In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Dowd's prematurely born twin daughters died; he and his second wife divorced; and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests to which anti-Bush fervor is so central.


Dowd, 45, said he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated. But, he said, he holds out no great hope that he will succeed.


Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Dowd's criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war. "It's an issue that divides people," Bartlett said. "Even people that supported the president aren't immune from having their own feelings and emotions."


He said he disagreed with Dowd's description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal. He said Dowd, a friend, has "sometimes expressed these sentiments" in private conversation, though "not in such detail."


Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Dowd's.


"It's almost like you fall in love," he said. "I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy's personality -- he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration."


Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president's closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.


He said he thought Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice." He was dumbfounded when Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


Several associates said Dowd chafed under Rove's leadership. Dowd said he had not spoken to Rove in months but would not discuss their relationship in detail.


Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial. "When you fall in love like that," he said, "and then you notice some things that don't exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say, 'No, no, no, it'll be different.' "


He said he clung to the hope that Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won re-election. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory. He describes the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, and the president's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester whose son died fighting in Iraq, as Bush entertained the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his ranch in Crawford as further cause for doubt.


"I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up," he said. "That it's not the same, it's not the person I thought."


He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.
"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," he said, "but bring the country together as a whole."


He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for "gentleness" in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to "do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of."


This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Edwards's Campaign Leads In Social Networking Sites



Political


Grass Roots Planted In Cyberspace; John Edwards's Campaign Leads the Field In Political Use of Social Networking Sites
Source: The Washington Post 03/30/2007

If there's a social networking site that John Edwards is not a part of, we'd like to know what it is, pronto.

No one's sure exactly what role these sites -- a.k.a. socnets -- will play in the upcoming election. But whatever it is, Edwards isn't taking any chances. The man's flooding the zone. He's on the big ones: Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, et al., where supporters and well-wishers are sending their best to his wife, Elizabeth. Writes a fan on MySpace this week: "Washington State sends you love and health. Lots of love to you and Elizabeth. Stay strong!!!" Edwards is also on some of the newest, somewhat obscure, mostly unheard of URLs. Blip.tv, anyone? He's there. 43Things.com? There, too.


In fact, the former senator is signed up in at least 23 socnets -- more than any other presidential candidate. And that's not counting John Edwards One Corps, his own networking site that campaign officials say has 20,000 members and 1,200 chapters across the country.


On Wednesday night, One Corps held its first National House Party Day, with at least six gatherings in the Washington area. Holly Shulman threw a soiree in her cramped Northwest studio for eight friends and co-workers. "I'm on Facebook, I'm on MySpace, I'm on OneCorps," says the 24-year-old. "And Edwards is reaching out to all three groups."


All the presidential hopefuls are online. Everyone's got a Web site. A few hired full-time bloggers and videographers. Most have MySpace profiles, just a click away from "friending" a supporter. Yet Edwards has taken his Internet presence a step further, fully exploiting the unknown possibilities (and known pitfalls) of the social Web, online strategists say. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), judging by the number of friends on MySpace or number of views of his YouTube videos, may be the most popular online candidate, Republican or Democrat. But Edwards arguably has the most dynamic Web presence -- he's everywhere, doing everything.
Mathew Gross, Edwards's chief Internet adviser, says: "We're just all over the Net."
A good thing, a bad thing, who knows?


"I call it 'the throwing-spaghetti-on-the-wall' strategy. Try what you can. See what sticks," says David All, who runs the David All Group, an online consulting firm that works with Republicans. (All was communications director for Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga.). "He's leading the pack in this regard, and I think it's a smart move," All says of Edwards.


Adds Ruby Sinreich, an online consultant who works with nonprofits and writes the progressive blog OrangePolitics.com, "What you have to remember is that signing up for these social networking sites is free, and it shows that he's open to new ideas and open to the openness of the Internet. Look, voters are swayed by the people they know. That's not new. That's not about technology. But what we have now is a new technology that is all about building relationships."


Still, what's left unproven is how these online relationships translate to winning elections. Valdis Krebs, a social network analyst for 20 years and based in Cleveland, has closely followed how politicians are using the Web. He points to the lesson to be learned from Howard Dean, the first Internet candidate.


"Dean was good on technology, but he wasn't good at sociology. Take what happened in Iowa. Instead of capitalizing on the social networks that are already in Iowa, he brought in volunteers that he recruited on the Internet. The result: It was strangers talking to strangers," Krebs says. "So Edwards has to be mindful that being ubiquitous and staying connected online is one thing. It's quite another to mix the online and offline activism.


"But I do have to hand it to him. He's doing the most online."
Elizabeth Edwards is largely responsible for this. When their teenage son, Wade, died in 1996, Elizabeth Edwards turned to online support groups. A couple of years ago, staffers say she was the one who turned to her husband's team and asked, "What do you know about podcasting?"
"A lot of people are involved in some sort of online networking community, and going to Flickr, to wherever, is just like going to union halls and county fairs," says Gross, who launched Dean's campaign blog four years ago. "Not everyone is on the same group -- some are Facebook people, some are MySpace people -- and we have to go where the people are. And joining all these groups is really very much like retail politics circa 2007."


And as Gross is figuring out, online retail politics is also a lot of work.
A campaign staff member is assigned to maintain Edwards's presence on the socnets. Gross pitches in, too. And though the former senator's Facebook and Flickr profiles are regularly updated, some accounts -- on lesser-known sites such as essembly, a nonpartisan, political socnet, and TagWorld, a flashier, much smaller MySpace -- remain stagnant. Essembly has about 17,000 registered users, and TagWorld about 2 million.


It's the usual quantity vs. quality argument, Gross knows, and he says the challenge in all these sites is to "keep people engaged."
For the next 19 months. "

Monday, April 02, 2007

Reid co-sponsors bill to redeploy troops


"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that if President Bush vetoes a supplemental appropriations bill which includes a timetable for withdrawing troops then Iraq, then he will co-sponsor a bill which would cut off funding for the war in one year's time.

According to a press release sent to RAW STORY, the bill co-sponsored by ­U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) "requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week" and "ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008."

"I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation," Reid said. "I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period."

In the press release, Feingold added, "I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end. Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq."
In an op-ed at Salon.com today, Feingold compared his legislation to a bill sponsored in the 1990s to withdraw US soldiers from the conflict in Somalia.

"Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission," Feingold wrote. "That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions."

He added, "None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated."
Excerpts from the press release:
#
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services. "

HAITIAN MINDSET DIFFERENT BY COUNTY

Political

"HAITIAN MINDSET DIFFERENT BY COUNTY; BROWARD COMMUNITY NOT AS POLITICALLY ACTIVE
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 03/30/2007


When Haitian refugees reach the shores of Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, community leaders have traditionally rushed to the scene to serve as advocates.

But in Broward County, Haitians are more reserved. Many of those speaking loudest on behalf of the boatload of Haitians who landed on Hollywood's beach Wednesday are from Miami.
That's because Haitians in Broward -- many living in the western suburbs of the county -- tend to be less politically active and more concerned with upward mobility, said some Haitian community leaders. Those who are the children of Haitian immigrants have little connection to people escaping Haiti by boat. Their community is not consumed by the politics of their homeland, or organized to receive new arrivals.

"People are busier than in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, working two jobs," said the Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste, a Haitian Catholic priest now living in Fort Lauderdale. "In Broward they play low profile."

On Thursday, Haitian Women of Miami led protesters to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection center in Pembroke Pines, where officials held the refugees. They called for federal authorities to release the Haitians on their own recognizance and grant them due process.
Lavarice Gaudin, chairman of Veye Yo, a Miami group affiliated with the Lavalas political party of former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, said the growing Haitian population in Broward needs a political voice. He said his organization plans to develop programs to help mobilize the Broward community.

But Edna LaRoche, a spokeswoman for Minority Development and Empowerment Inc., the largest agency serving the Haitian population in the county, said Broward Haitians are not silent on such issues. They simply have a more subtle approach.

She said Minority Development asked elected officials Wednesday and Thursday to intervene on behalf of the Haitians.

"We do appreciate everything that the Miami community is doing, and we think that will have an effect," she said. "But by the same token, so will our efforts."

Miami-Dade has long been an entry point for Haitian immigrants.
Refugees came in droves when life under the regime of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier became unbearable, and settled in Miami's Lemon City, now known as Little Haiti. In the 1990s, another wave of refugees arrived when a military coup overthrew Aristide, the country's first democratically elected president.

Some also made it to the shores of Palm Beach County, where community activists in Delray Beach and other communities with large Haitian populations welcomed them, said Daniella Henry, a community activist who helped settle many through the Haitian Chamber of Commerce in Delray Beach.

Those who settled in Miami in the 1970s and 1980s laid the foundation for grassroots leadership, which paved the way for Haitians to win political office and encouraged political activism.
But as many gained upward mobility, they migrated into Broward, settling in Miramar, Pembroke Pines, Pompano Beach and other areas.

Jean Jabouin, a Haitian radio talk show host who recently moved from Broward to Palm Beach County, said their lives are now far removed from the struggles in Haiti.

"Broward's population is a bit different. Reaction is not going to be same like in Miami-Dade or Palm Beach," he said. "It's a different phenomenon. As much as we say we can understand, we really can't understand how people would risk their lives to come here."

Attorneys fired over politics

Political

Attorneys fired over politics, ex-aide says
Source: St. Petersburg Times
03/29/2007

"WASHINGTON - Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery to Congress today.

In the remarks obtained by the Associated Press on Wednesday, Kyle Sampson maintains that adherence to the priorities of the president and attorney general was a legitimate standard.



Separately, the Justice Department admitted Wednesday it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

In a letter accompanying new documents sent to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, Justice officials acknowledge that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

In his remarks, Sampson speaks dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he says. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

Democrats have described the firings as an "intimidation by purge" and a warning to remaining U.S. attorneys to fall in line with Bush's priorities.

Sampson resigned this month because of the furor over the firings.

"Presidential appointees are judged not only on their professional skills but also their management abilities, their relationships with law enforcement and other governmental leaders and their support for the priorities of the president and the attorney general," Sampson says in his prepared remarks.

He strongly denies Democrats' allegations that some of the prosecutors were dismissed for pursuing Republicans too much and Democrats not enough in corruption cases.

The White House said it will withhold comment on Sampson's testimony until he testifies.

In a letter accompanying documents sent to lawmakers Wednesday, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production."

The Feb. 23 letter, which was written by Sampson but signed by Hertling, emphatically stated that "the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." It also said that "the Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Those assertions are contradicted by e-mails from Sampson to White House aide Christopher G. Oprison on Dec. 19, 2006, about a strategy to deal with senators' opposition to Griffin's appointment. In the e-mail, Sampson says there is a risk that senators might balk and repeal the attorney general's newly won broader authority to appoint U.S. attorneys.

"I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.," Sampson wrote. "

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Foley Back From Rehab


Is he cured from seeking out under-age interns?

"Foley Back From Rehab; Florida Considering Charges
March 28, 2007 5:00 AM

Brian Ross and Vic Walter Report:

Florida law enforcement officials are building a possible criminal case against disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley, R-Fla., based on sexually explicit instant messages that were sent from Pensacola, Fla., to an underage high school student, thereby falling under the state's tough law on Internet sexual predators, ABC News has learned.

"It's a broad statute, and it encompasses a lot of activity," said Maureen Horkan, the director of the Child Predator CyberCrime Unit in the Florida Attorney General's office.

Foley has begun to re-emerge publicly in Palm Beach, Fla., after spending weeks at an Arizona rehabilitation center for what his lawyer described as issues involving substance and his own alleged sexual abuse as a minor.

He was seen last week bicycling along South Ocean Boulevard wearing a helmet and bike racing outfit.

Unlike federal law, the Florida statute makes it a crime simply to use lewd or explicit language "that is harmful to minors."

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Rep. Vern Buchanan on Iraq


I recently expressed my desire to end the War in Iraq to Florida District 13 Rep. Vern Buchanan. Below is his response.

March 19, 2007


"Dear Mr. Brooks,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to President Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq . I have serious concerns over whether this increase will lead to a successful outcome.

The President's plan includes $5.6 billion for the troop increase and more than $1 billion in new economic aid for Iraq . It also calls for better performance by the Iraqi government to control its own security.

There is no question that Iraq needs to take responsibility for the protection of its own people. And that's not happening. At this moment, there are 27 trained and equipped Iraqi battalions sitting outside of Baghdad in peaceful areas of the country. These Iraqi forces need to be moved immediately into the fight in Baghdad .

In the meantime, I will carefully weigh the President's plan to determine whether it will lead to a stable Iraq and the swift and safe return of our troops. There are legitimate questions as to whether an infusion of American troops will help stabilize Iraq . I want to know if our military commanders and veterans think an increase in troops will help Iraq resolve its internal conflict.

Thanks again for contacting me. Your opinions help me to better serve you and all the people of southwest Florida . Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.



Sincerely,

Vern Buchanan

Member of Congress"

Tillman's mom: 'They were lying to us'




CNN) -- The mother of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former NFL player killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004, on Tuesday rejected the latest explanation from the U.S. military about her son's death.

"It became very obvious early on that they were lying to us," Mary Tillman said on ESPN Radio's "Dan Patrick Show." "They were only telling one side of the story. They weren't telling the other side."

The military reported Monday that nine military officers, including four generals, will face "corrective action" for making critical mistakes in the aftermath of the Army Ranger's death.

An investigation by the Army's inspector general and Criminal Investigation Command concluded officers in Tillman's chain of command knew almost immediately after his death that he had been killed by fire from his own platoon, but that information was withheld from his family for more than a month, in violation of Army regulations.

The investigation also concluded that inadequate initial investigations "contributed to the inaccuracies, misunderstandings and perceptions of concealment."

Tillman's mother was not convinced.

Everyone involved in the shooting knew almost immediately that her son had been shot three times in the head by his own troops, she said.

Yet, at the memorial service for her son in May 2004, the military said Pat Tillman had been killed by enemy fire, she said.

"That was not a misstep, that was not an error," she said. "This was an attempt to dupe the public and to promote this war and to get recruitments up, and that is immoral."

Mary Tillman called for a congressional hearing "to have it all aired out."

She added, "I really don't know what happened. We've been told so many different things."

Shot intentionally?
Mary Tillman said she was not excluding the possibility that her son was shot intentionally.

"Pat was used," she said. "Once he was killed, I think they saw this as an opportunity." She noted that April 2004 was the worst month up to that time in the year-old Iraq war, and the shooting occurred right after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

The latest investigation "only presented the points of view of the soldiers in the vehicle" who fatally shot her son and an Afghan soldier and wounded two others, she said.

"They never brought into play what the other witnesses said," Mary Tillman said.

She described as "shocking" the military's claim that no rules of engagement were broken.

The platoon members "fired at soldiers who weren't firing at them in areas where hands were waving and at a building," she said. "All of those things are breaking rules of engagement."

The soldier believed to have shot her son three times in the head was asked whether he had made a positive identification of the target before firing, she said. "This soldier said, 'No, I wanted to be in a firefight,' " she said. "That was a definite breaking of the rules of engagement."

She said the military is still spinning the story for its own gain.

"The first investigative officer, in his statement to the third investigative officer, said in his opinion, there was evidence of criminal intent, and he also used the term 'criminal negligence,' " Tillman said.

"Yet his report has been devalued because it doesn't go along with what they want out in the public eye."

In 2002, Pat Tillman, a safety with the Arizona Cardinals, turned down a multimillion-dollar contract offer and instead joined the Army, a decision he said was a response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

He was shot April 22, 2004, in a remote area near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Britain grapples with past on slavery


"Charge of the Buffalo Soldiers, 1863
In 1863, the Union Army began using emancipated slaves and other free black men as soldiers. This was a very controversial move, and one that did not enjoy much support in the North, or among the white troops. Thomas Nast, a visionary of his day, saw beyond the biases of the day, and saw that integration of blacks into the Union Army was a good thing. He created the illustration to your right to show that Negro Buffalo Soldiers could fight bravely alongside white troops. The image appeared in an 1863 edition of Harper's Weekly. "


Political
Britain grapples with past on slavery anniversary
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007
LONDON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -

Britain marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery this weekend with the government proposing an annual commemoration day -- but still refusing to make a full apology.
In contrast the Anglican church has made an unreserved mea culpa, and on Saturday Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will lead hundreds of people on a "Walk of Witness" marking the bicentenary.

"Some have said they see no need for the apology made last year by the General Synod for the role the Church played in the slave trade," said Williams.

"But when we acknowledge historic injustices inflicted in the name of the Church, this is a vital part of our life as members of the body of Christ," he wrote in a foreword to the programme for the walk.
The walk includes the culmination of the March of the Abolitionists -- a group of walkers who have worn yokes and chains during a 250-mile journey beginning in the northeastern city of Hull.
British merchants are believed to have transported nearly three million black Africans across the Atlantic between 1700 and the early 19th century.

Overall, some 21 million black Africans were transported by Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade from 1450 until 1850, according to historians. British merchants were the biggest participants, followed by the French and Dutch.

The 1833 Slavery Abolition Act outlawed slavery itself throughout the British Empire. However, slaves did not gain their final freedom until 1838.
But despite voicing its regret, the British government has never made a full, formal apology for its role in the trade.

Earlier this month British Prime Minister Tony Blair reiterated that he was sorry for Britain's role in the slave trade Wednesday, labelling it "entirely unacceptable."
On the eve of the anniversary, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said Britain is to hold an annual commemoration day to remember its role in the slave trade, as well as the fight to end it.
He told The Guardian daily that he expected the day would be sometime in June and said it could provide an opportunity for the country to consider how it could help modern day Africa.
Events are being planned to mark the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act here. It was passed on March 25, 1807, imposing a 100-pound fine for every slave found aboard a British ship.
"Like the Holocaust, we are learning to talk about the slave trade more openly and more honestly," Prescott told the daily.

"There is a sense of shock and horror at what went on in our history, and the sheer brutality of it ... We need to get the proper history told, including the good, the bad and the dreadful ...
"The legacy of this 200th anniversary should be a permanent date when we ask whether there is more we could do, so that every year, like (the) Holocaust, we remind people of the horrors."

Clinton promises universal health care



Political
Clinton promises universal health care if elected
Source: Associated Press Newswires 03/26/2007


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Monday to create a universal health care system if elected, saying she "learned a lot" during the failed health care effort of her husband's presidency.


"We're going to have universal health care when I'm president -- there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done," the New York senator and front-runner for the 2008 nomination said.
Clinton focused on health care issues during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" broadcast from the state where precinct caucuses will launch the presidential nominating season.
Asked how she could improve on her failed effort to reform health care during her husband's presidency, Clinton said pressure for change has built in the last decade and that would make tackling the issue easier.


"I believe the American people are going to make this an issue," said Clinton. "I believe we're in a better position today to do that than we were in '93 and '94. ... It's one of the reasons I'm running for president."


After the televised meeting, Clinton headed to a Des Moines elementary school to receive the endorsement of former Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie.


"Hillary Clinton has been tried and tested like no other candidate for president," Tom Vilsack said.
His wife added, "To me, this is not just an endorsement but a commitment."
Clinton said her relationship with the Vilsacks dates to her work in the 1970s with Christie Vilsack's late brother, lawyer Tom Bell.


"We will be crisscrossing Iowa and crisscrossing America," Clinton said.
In her earlier appearance, Clinton argued that health coverage has deteriorated over the last decade, and that's increased public pressure to act.


"The number of uninsured has grown," said Clinton. "It's hard to ignore the fact that nearly 47 million people don't have health insurance, but also because so many people with insurance have found it's difficult to get health care because the insurance companies deny you what you need."
Clinton opened her latest campaign swing with a live broadcast from the Science Center of Iowa, where she spoke to more than 200 activists at a town meeting about health care issues. It's an issue with which she is very familiar. After her husband won the White House in 1992, she headed an effort to put a universal health care system in place. That effort eventually collapsed under pressure in part from the insurance industry.


However, while Clinton said the issue continues to be a high priority for her, she has not offered up a specific plan. One questioner at the town hall meeting held up a copy of a DVD containing a detailed description of Democratic rival John Edwards' plan for universal health care, asking Clinton if she will also offer specifics.


The reason she hasn't "set out a plan and said here's exactly what I will do," Clinton said, is that she wants to hear from voters what kind of plan they would favor.
"I want the ideas that people have," said Clinton. She said any health care plan must deal with the reality that there's a unique climate in the country.


"We are bigger and more diverse and people like their choice," said Clinton.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic runningmate, has said it's inevitable that taxes would have to go up to finance an expensive health care plan. Clinton disagreed.
"We've got to get the costs under control," said Clinton. "Why would we put more money into a dysfunctional system?"


Clinton sidestepped a question on whether she'd consider Vilsack as a potential runningmate should she win the nomination.


"I am a very big fan of Governor Vilsack," Clinton said, adding that he has "the kind of practical but visionary leadership we need in our country."


Vilsack was the first Democrat to formally enter the 2008 presidential race in November, but he dropped out last month citing the difficulty in raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary to mount a credible bid.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Jennifer Hudson - And I Am Telling You

Damn this girl can sing! (Last music clip for the night - back to politics).

American Idol: Jennifer Hudson

Beyonce Threatens To Kill Jennifer Hudson

Just a little humor on Beyonce. Dream Girls 10 Stars

Beyon'ce

Gotta give it to Beyon'ce for trying. She still has nothing on vocals versus Jennifer Hudson.

JENNIFER HOLIDAY sings

To get off the political beat. For you music lovers Dream Girls is an awsome movie. 10 starts. Back flash Jennifer Holiday sings "I Am Telling You".

State by State 2008 Presidential Update




2008 Presidential Update - State by State



Checks and Balances Blog is predicting these states electoral votes will most likely go to these candidates bearing no “Dean” incidents. This is a non-partisan analysis.

Clinton: Arkansas, California, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Louisiana


Obama: Illinois


Giuliani: New Jersey


McCain: Arizona


Edwards: (none)

Mitt Romney: (none)

From my research, candidates showing a likely hood of winning 40% + of the vote were awarded that state. States where no candidates currently polling at 40 % or above were not included. I do believe there is a possible Gore factor that could entirely flip these predictions. New York and Connecticut are a toss up between Clinton and Giuliani. I predict the Republican Party would however never nominate R. Giuliani. Their nominee will be a strict conservative or even though a "maverick" a loyal Republican like John McCain. Therefore, predictions for the GOP nominee are less accurate.


-A.T. Brooks


Who Is Hillary Clinton?



U.S. HOUSE MOVES TO END WAR

WILL THE U.S. SENATE RESPOND IN KIND?

President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."

I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".


Political

US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -


The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.

"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.

"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.

"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.

Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.

"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.

But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.

"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.

The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.

It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.

If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.

The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.

The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.


NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027

Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.

U.S. political landscape tilting to Democrats



Political

U.S. political landscape tilts to Democrats; A new poll shows that more Americans are rejecting both the Republican Party and many of its broad conservative ideals. PUBLIC OPINION

Source: The Miami Herald 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON

President Bush's dream of leaving an enduring Republican majority as his political legacy is slipping from his grasp.

A new poll released Thursday confirms that the country's underlying political landscape has turned sharply against Bush's party and toward the Democrats on bellwether issues such as the use of military force, religion, affirmative action and homosexuality.

''It's going in the other direction,'' said Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center, which released the survey.

It's not going toward a Democratic majority. But there's no more progress toward a Republican majority.''

''But Democrats shouldn't start popping the champagne yet,'' said Steve Schier, a political scientist at Minnesota's Carleton College. ``This group . . . is still very much up for grabs.''

The idea of a durable political majority -- like the one the Republicans enjoyed for decades after the Civil War or that Franklin D. Roosevelt built for the Democrats in the 1930s and '40s -- might be a quaint notion in an era in which a third of the voters refuse to align with either major party for more than one election.

CONSERVATIVE HOPES
But Bush and his political advisor, Karl Rove, thought they had found the keys to securing what began as the so-called Reagan Revolution and seemed to gain strength with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

They called it ''compassionate conservatism,'' a blend of appeals to religious and economic conservatives coupled with a pitch to moderate, suburban independents for education revisions, tax cuts, Medicare expansion.

A solid Republican majority seemed within reach, especially after the country rallied behind Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush's Republicans defied history by gaining seats in the 2002 midterm congressional elections, which usually tilt against the president's party.

That year, the Republicans moved into a tie with the Democrats in terms of voters' self-proclaimed party identification, with 43 percent picking each party.

Now that's all gone.

NEW REALITY
Today, 50 percent of Americans call themselves Democrats or lean that way, while 35 percent favor the Republican Party.

''Over the past five years, the political landscape of the nation has shifted from one of partisan parity to a sizable Democratic advantage,'' the Pew analysis said. ``But the change reflects Republican losses more than Democratic gains.''

''That's due to dissatisfaction with the White House,'' Kohut added in an interview.
That dissatisfaction has grown as Americans have turned against the war in Iraq.

At the same time, the country is becoming more amenable to the Democratic view of such divisive issues as God, war and welfare, the Pew survey found:
The ranks of those who completely agree that prayer is an important part of their daily lives dropped from 55 percent in 1999 to 45 percent.

Those who think military strength is the best way to preserve peace dropped from 62 percent in 2002 to 49 percent.More people support affirmative action, up from 58 percent in 1995 to 70 percent today. The percentage of Americans who think the government should help needy people even if it increases the national debt rose from 41 percent in 1994 to 54 percent today.
Commentary: Promising changes for the Democratic Party. This report however lacks data on what parts of the country these shifts are occuring. Larger numbers nationally do not equate to a certainity of control of Congress or the White House.

BUSH DIGGS HEELS ON TESTIMONY

Political

BUSH DIGGING IN HIS HEELS ON TESTIMONY BY TOP AIDES
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON


"Ever since Republicans lost control of Congress, President Bush has known a fight like this could come.

The battle over the congressional inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors is not one of Bush's choosing. But now that it has been thrust upon him, Bush is defiantly refusing to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify publicly in an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors, and standing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In doing so, the president is sending a message to Democrats on Capitol Hill. He may be a lame duck and his poll numbers may be down, but he will protect those closest to him, defend his presidential powers and run his White House the way he sees fit in his remaining 22 months in office.

"George W. Bush will rue the day if he lets Al Gonzales go," said Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press secretary, "because that will be the first scalp that the Democrats on the Hill will gather and collect, and then the door will then be opened to show that if you can put enough pressure on President Bush, anybody can go. This is a crucial first test."

Bush is also waging what he views as an even bigger war over presidential prerogatives. He has moved aggressively to expand presidential powers -- asserting authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants and try suspected terrorists before military tribunals. To avoid divulging the membership of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, the administration even went to the Supreme Court. One Republican friend of Bush's said the president is trying to "take back control," adding, "he's pretty angry."

That was evident Tuesday evening in a news conference. It was held in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, but there was little diplomacy about it. A defiant Bush made clear that he was not going to allow Democrats on Capitol Hill to spend the rest of his term "dragging White House members up there to score political points, or put the klieg lights on."

Bush has offered to let Rove and three other officials, including Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, be interviewed by lawmakers, but only in private, without transcripts, and not under oath -- conditions that are not acceptable to Democrats. A Senate committee on Thursday approved three subpoenas to top administration officials, including Rove.

Bush says he's willing to go to court. Fleischer said Bush is convinced that presidential powers have eroded since Watergate, and that it is his duty to restore them for his successors.

"This is the White House that, under his leadership, didn't give up the energy records and took a beating for it," he said. "He's willing to lose the politics of these things, because he does have a longer view of the powers of the presidency and what it takes to protect them."

The president is all the more passionate about this particular fight because of the men at the center of it: Rove and Gonzales. Both have been part of the president's inner circle since his days as the governor of Texas. When Bush recently had a rare dinner out, he went to Rove's house, where the man who has been dubbed "Bush's Brain" served game from a recent hunting trip. "