Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

prezveepsenator · Presidents, Vice-Presidents, & Senators

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 34
  • Category: Presidents
  • Founded: Jun 23, 2004
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 3981 - 4011 of 4268   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#3981 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sun Jun 5, 2011 3:17 am
Subject: Official: Powers transferred to VP after attack on President Saleh
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/04/yemen.unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Official: Powers transferred to VP after attack on President Saleh

By the CNN Wire Staff
June 4, 2011 6:41 p.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: President Saleh has arrived in Riyadh for medical treatment, a source says
  • Saleh's injuries from Friday's attack on his palace are worse than first thought
  • Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi has taken over, a Yemeni official says
  • All the key players in Sanaa have agreed to an open-ended ceasefire, the source says

(CNN) -- Effective Saturday night, Yemeni Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi took over Ali Abdullah Saleh's responsibilities as president, Yemeni government spokesman Abdu Ganadi told CNN.

The power transfer comes as a source close to the Saudi government said that the long-time Yemeni ruler arrived in Riyadh around midnight Saturday, a day after being hurt in an attack on a mosque in his palace.

Some Yemeni officials continue to insist that Saleh, who for months has resisted calls to step down, is still in Yemen. Yaser Yamani, Sanaa's deputy mayor, told Yemeni state TV Saturday night that "Saleh is still being treated in the military hospital in Sanaa."

Yet the Saudi source said that Saleh was immediately taken to a nearby hospital after his plane landed in Saudi Arabia.

A senior Yemeni government official had told CNN that Saleh was fine after sustaining a slight head injury in Friday's attack, and he gave a nationally broadcast speech later that night. But Saleh's medical condition is worse than originally thought, according to the Saudi source.

In response to that attack, Yemeni security forces on Friday pounded the home of Sadeq al-Ahmar, the tribal leader whose supporters are suspected of being behind the presidential palace offensive. The flurry of shelling left 10 people dead and 35 others wounded, according to Fawzi Al-Jaradi, an official with Hamil al-Ahmar, a Hashed tribal confederation led by Sadeq al-Ahmar.

The Saudi government source said Saturday that the Riyadh government has helped to broker an open-ended cease-fire aimed at ending spiralling violence in Yemen. Demonstrators have demanded Saleh's ouster for months, and fighting between Yemeni government forces and Hashed tribesemen has spiked considerably in recent weeks.

Key members of all pertinent parties agreed to the deal, with the signatories including Brig. Gen. Ali Mohsen al Ahmar, who defected to the opposition; Sadeq al-Ahmar, the Hashed and Hamil al-Ahmar leader; and Saleh's sons, representing the government. The Saudi source said that King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud have been heavily involved in setting up the framework for the cease-fire.

This is not the first time that the opposition and Saleh, who has led Yemen for 33 years, have seemingly agreed to a peace deal. The Gulf Cooperation Council, which consists of representatives from six neighboring nations, helped broker a pact that involved Saleh stepping down from power -- but that agreement ended up breaking down weeks ago.

Meanwhile, the popular unrest in the impoverished Arab nation continued Saturday.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators congregated Saturday in Sanaa's Change Square.

Meanwhile, in the flashpoint town of Taiz, protesters retook an iconic square in the city's center Saturday after government forces cleared it out last week. Eyewitnesses said security forces tried to disperse crowds of anti-government demonstrators by shooting at them and that at least two were injured.

Yemen's tough crackdown against peaceful protesters in Taiz prompted a new denunciation by Human Rights Watch, an international organization that monitors human rights violations.

"First the security forces kill and wound protesters, then they keep medical workers from treating the wounded and raze the protesters' camps to wipe out all traces of them," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

"Foreign countries need to respond. They should freeze the assets of the president and other top officials until these horrendous abuses stop and those responsible are brought to account," said Stork, whose group also called for the export bans on arms and security equipment to Yemen.

Friday's presidential palace attack illustrates the escalating violence.

A Yemeni official who asked not to be named told CNN that Saleh was in the mosque when two "projectiles" were fired during Friday prayers. He confirmed the death of Sheikh Ali Mohsen al-Matari and four bodyguards. State-run news agency SABA, citing a source in Saleh's office, said three guards and the sheikh were killed.

Others taken to Saudi Arabia for treatment include Prime Minister Ali Mujawar; deputy prime ministers Rashad al-Alimi and Sadeq Amin Abu Rasand; Shura Council Chairman Abdul Aziz Abdul Ghani; parliament speaker Yahya Al-Raee; and Shura Council Chairman Abdul Aziz Abdul Ghan.

In a televised speech Friday night, the president said the attack occurred as talks were taking place between himself and affiliates of Sadeq al-Ahmar, the Hashed tribal leader whose break with Saleh has been followed by spiraling violence.

Eyewitnesses, residents and government officials say Hashed tribesmen were responsible. But the spokesman for Sadeq al-Ahmar insisted this was not true.

"The Hashed tribesmen were not behind these attacks on the presidential palace and if they were, they would not deny it," Abdulqawi al-Qaisi said.

In his speech, the president said those behind Friday's attacks were not connected with the youth-led movement in Sanaa's Change Square. Rather, he said that "gangsters" perpetrated the strike as part of their bid to overthrow his government and destroy Yemen's economic achievements.

"I salute the armed forces everywhere and the courageous security forces who are keen on combating the attacks by a criminal gang that is acting outside of the law and is not affiliated with the youth's revolution present in Change Square," Saleh said.

Mohammed Qahtan, the spokesman for the Joint Meeting Parties, Yemen's largest opposition coalition, said "the attack on the palace was preplanned by President Saleh to make people forget about the attacks that he has committed over the last two weeks."

Qahtan said Saleh's forces have "bombarded most of the al-Ahmar family properties after the palace attack" and have killed hundreds over the past two weeks.

According to the independent International Crisis Group, tensions escalated May 23 when fighting erupted between military forces controlled by "Saleh's son and nephews and fighters loyal to the pre-eminent sheikh of the powerful Hashed confederation, Sadeq al-Ahmar."

While Saleh has been unpopular among many inside his country, he has been a longtime ally of the United States in the war against terror.

The United States has counted on his government to be a bulwark against militants, including al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but it believes he should transfer power in order to maintain stability in the country.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said on Friday that John Brennan, the president's homeland security adviser, traveled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for meetings with government officials to "discuss options to address the deteriorating situation" in Yemen.

Human Rights Watch has confirmed the deaths of 166 people in attacks by security forces and pro-government assailants on largely peaceful protesters since February. It said at least 130 people have died in heavy fighting since May 23, though it could not confirm how many of those were civilians.

CNN's Nic Robertson, Mohammed Jamjoom, Hakim Almasmari, Chris Lawrence, Jamie Crawford and Joe Sterling contributed to this report.



#3982 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2011 3:21 am
Subject: Unofficial count gives Humala narrow win in Peru
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/unofficial-count-gives-humala-narrow-win-peru-235433094.html

Unofficial count gives Humala narrow win in Peru

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Unofficial results showed leftist military man Ollanta Humala narrowly winning Sunday's bitterly contested presidential runoff against the daughter of disgraced former President Alberto Fujimori after promising the poor a greater share of Peru's mineral wealth.

Results announced by the independent election watchdog group Transparencia gave Humala 51.3 percent of the vote against 48.7 percent for Keiko Fujimori with more than 90 percent of the ballots counted. The error margin was one percentage point.

Official results were not expected until later Sunday night, but Transparencia's track record in previous elections is solid.

Rife with mudslinging and dirty tricks, the election was marred by doubts about both candidates' commitment to democracy. Fujimori's father is serving a 25-year prison term for rights abuses and corruption and she shares the same inner circle of advisers. Humala has been accused of violent excesses as an army counterinsurgency unit commander in the 1990s.

Humala, 48, allied himself closely with socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in his first run for the office in 2006, which he narrowly lost to Alan Garcia. This time he softened his radical rhetoric and disavowed Chavez, promising instead to follow Brazil's market-friendly model.

He failed to win over the business elite, however, which fears Humala will nationalize industries and expropriate private property. His champions were Peru's neglected — the one in three people who are poor, live largely in the Andean highlands, and have gained little or nothing from a mining bonanza that fueled economic growth average 7 percent a year since 2001.

Exit polls gave Humala better than 70 percent of the vote in four poor highland states including Puno, where Aymara Indians who object to a planned Canadian-owned silver mine suspended a nearly month-long highway blockade so people could vote. The protesters fear the mine will poison their water.

Fujimori, meanwhile, led in Lima, but by a modest margin.

"The prosperity is fundamentally confined to the coast," said Cesar Hildebrandt, a veteran journalist. "Everything along the (Pacific) ocean has gotten better. Everything in the Andean part is the same or worse."

Humala finished first in the election's April 10 first round, when three centrist candidates together split 45 percent of the vote. He got a big boost with the endorsement of fourth-place finisher Alejandro Toledo, Peru's president in 2001-2006. Earlier, Toledo had warned that a vote for Humala was "a jump into the abyss."

Had Toledo and the other two centrist candidates united behind a single candidate they could have kept Keiko Fujimori out of the runoff. But Peru is a country where personality decides elections rather than political party affiliations. Its parties are weak, its political class considered extremely corrupt.

That opens the door for outsiders like Humala and Fujimori's father, Alberto. He vanquished hyperinflation and fanatical Shining Path rebels during his autocratic 1990-2000 presidency.

A fifth of Peruvians revere the man, but his legacy of corruption hurt his daughter, a 36-year-old congresswoman. Humala harped on it. He vowed to throw corrupt politicians in jail and make it easier for citizens to recall their elected leaders.

Peru's best-known public intellectual, 2010 Nobel literature laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, said Humala's win "saved democracy."

"What's important is that we have been freed from the return to power of a dictatorship that was terribly corrupt and bloody," he told CPN radio. "We should congratulate ourselves and celebrate."

Both candidates promised a raft of giveaways for the poor, including free school meals and preschool care. Humala promised a government pension for all at age 65.

But, unlike his opponent, Humala also insisted on taxing windfall mining profits and exporting less natural gas so it is cheaper for Peruvians.

That got him the vote of Isabel Apaza, a 56-year-old street vendor.

"Peru has so many riches, so many natural riches from which the people earn a pittance," she said in Villa el Salvador, a poor, sprawling district of Lima.

Humala backed down during the runoff campaign from early calls for renegotiating free trade agreements and rewriting Peru's constitution to "create an economic regime with social justice as its objective."

Two weeks ago, he swore on the Bible to respect democracy and press freedom.

"I will be a president who acts only within the constitution and the rule of law," he said.

Humala insisted he'd steer Peru closer to the United States and Brazil than to Chavez's leftist camp, which includes Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, none of which currently have U.S. ambassadors.

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in Peru as an Organization of American States election observer, met with both candidates and said he didn't consider Humala another Chavez.

"He is a nationalist and an enigma with evolving views and a pragmatic streak," Richardson said. "I think he's educable and the business community should give him a chance."

Humala's spokesman, Daniel Abugattas, stressed Sunday that he wanted Peruvians to understand clearly that his boss has no intention of expropriating either land or businesses.

"National and international investment and private property are absolutely guaranteed," Abugattas said in a TV interview. "There will be no taxes on your chickens nor will your house be take away."

Skeptics fear Humala will put Peru on a course similar to the 1968-75 leftist military dictatorship of Gen. Juan Velasco, for whom Humala expressed esteem during the 2006 race.

At stake, for starters, is the potential for losing more than $40 billion in investment pledged over the next decade to develop Peru's mines of gold, silver, copper and other metals.

"He's going to change the constitution and stay in power. And the investors are going to go away, too," said Luis Rodriguez, a Villa El Salvador street vendor who voted for Keiko Fujimori.

But more voters apparently feared a rerun of the autocratic, kleptocratic regime of Alberto Fujimori. Many believed he ran his daughter's campaign from a Lima police compound where he enjoys spacious quarters and frequent visitors.

Human rights questions also dog Humala, however.

He was accused but never tried for rights abuses as a counterinsurgency commander in the 1990s. And in a radio address from Korea, where he was military attache, he encouraged a 2005 revolt against Toledo by his now-imprisoned brother, Antauro, that claimed the lives of four policemen.

Juan Antonio Herrera, a 64-year-old bookkeeper, called Humala "a simple soldier without schooling. He nearly committed a coup d'etat."

___

Associated Press writers Carla Salazar and Franklin Briceno contributed to this report.


#3984 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2011 12:49 pm
Subject: For Prayer Event, Perry Teams With Controversial Group
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-political-news/prayer-event-perry-teams-with-controversial-group/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions



#3985 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Jun 9, 2011 4:02 pm
Subject: Mexico, 13 other nations say Utah illegal immigration law could strain diplomatic relations
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705374152/Mexico-13-other-nations-say-Utah-illegal-immigration-law-could-strain-diplomatic-relations.html

Mexico, 13 other nations say Utah illegal immigration law could strain diplomatic relations

Published: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 11:19 p.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — More than a dozen Latin and South American countries have joined Mexico in expressing potential international fallout over Utah's illegal immigration enforcement law.

In a court brief filed Tuesday, the Mexican government lists several reasons for its opposition to HB497, including impeding diplomatic relations, hindering trade and tourism and possible harassment of Mexican citizens.

"Mexico respectfully submits that if HB497 is allowed to take effect it will have significant and long-lasting adverse impact on U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations, and on Mexican citizens and other people of Latin American descent present in Utah," court documents say.

The brief supports a class-action lawsuit the ACLU of Utah and the National Immigration Law Center filed against the state last month, contending the measure passed by the Utah Legislature and signed into law in March is unconstitutional and will lead to racial profiling. A federal judge temporarily put the law on hold and will consider arguments this summer for an injunction to stop enforcement until the case is decided.

Attorneys for the state were originally scheduled to file their response to the lawsuit Wednesday, but were granted a 30-day extension.

Mexico, in the brief, asks the judge to issue the injunction and declare HB497 unconstitutional. Salt Lake attorney Lon A. of Jenkins along with three lawyers form the New York firm Dewey & LeBoeuf submitted the 13-page document.

Jenkins referred questions to the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.. An embassy spokesman did not return a phone call seeking comment Wednesday.

According to the brief, officials at the highest level of the Mexican government followed the passage of Utah's illegal immigration enforcement bill.

In a separate motion, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay ask to join the brief.

"Similar to Mexico, the governments have a substantial and compelling interest in ensuring that their respective bilateral diplomatic relations with the government of the United States are transparent, consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the action of individual states, in this case Utah."

Through HB497, Utah "directly interferes" with the State Department's ability to conduct foreign affairs and policy, the brief says.

Ron Mortensen, founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, called the notion that the law would disrupt U.S.-Mexico relations a "bunch of baloney."

"If we intervened in their internal affairs, they would have been screaming Yankee imperialism at the top of their lungs," he said. "What they're saying basically is we will maintain our borders but the United States should allow open borders for our people."

The Utah bill and Arizona's SB1070 spurred "copycat" legislation in other states that, according to the brief, could result in a "dangerous patchwork" of inconsistent state immigration laws.

The Utah law requires police to verify the immigration status of people arrested for felonies and class A misdemeanors and those booked into jail on class B and class C misdemeanors. It also says officers may attempt to verify the status of someone detained for class B and class C misdemeanors.

Mexico, according to the brief, is "deeply concerned" the law would lead to harassment of Mexican citizens and people who look Hispanic. "Given the growing number of the Hispanic population, it is imperative that immigration enforcement be carried out in a way that is fair to all individuals regardless of their ethnic origin."

E-mail: romboy@..., Twitter: dennisromboy



#3986 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:21 pm
Subject: Lawmakers sue Obama over Libya
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html

Lawmakers sue Obama over Libya
By: Reid J. Epstein
June 15, 2011 12:06 PM EDT

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a
lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress
when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We
have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of
these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the
10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

The White House is expected on Wednesday to deliver to Congress a
much-anticipated report detailing military activity in Libya.

According to Kucinich, the suit will challenge the Obama administration’s
“circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as
the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the
use of military force abroad.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said at his daily press briefing that he is
aware of the lawsuit and said the forthcoming report to Congress would resolve
questions in it.

“We feel very confident that we will be able to answer the questions that
Congress has,” he said.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on background, dismissed the
Kucinich lawsuit, but declined to address it directly.

“I don’t think we should comment specifically about lawsuit,” the official
said.

But former Rep. David Skaggs (D-Colo.), the co-chairman of the Constitution
Project’s War Powers Committee, called the Kucinich suit “right on the
merits” but certain to be dismissed on procedural grounds because courts have
determined members of Congress do not have standing to file such suits.

The suit comes a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent Obama a
letter claiming that military action in Libya will violate the 1973 War Powers
Resolution if it does not end by Friday, 90 days after it began.

The Kucinich-Jones group also includes Democrats John Conyers of Michigan and
Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republicans Howard Coble of North Carolina,
John Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Ron Paul of Texas, Tim
Johnson of Illinois and Dan Burton of Indiana.

#3987 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:50 am
Subject: My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant

One August morning nearly two decades ago, my mother woke me and put me in a cab. She handed me a jacket. “Baka malamig doon” were among the few words she said. (“It might be cold there.”) When I arrived at the Philippines’ Ninoy Aquino International Airport with her, my aunt and a family friend, I was introduced to a man I’d never seen. They told me he was my uncle. He held my hand as I boarded an airplane for the first time. It was 1993, and I was 12.

Ryan Pfluger for The New York Times

Staying Papers The documentation that Vargas obtained over the years — a fake green card, a fake passport, a driver’s license — allowed him to remain in the U.S. In Oregon, a friend provided a mailing address.

Photograph from Jose Antonio Vargas

Pre-Flight In the Philippines with his mother, who was supposed to follow him to the United States but never did.

Photograph from Jose Antonio Vargas

Benefactors Vargas with the school officials Rich Fischer and Pat Hyland at his high-school graduation.

Photograph from Jose Antonio Vargas

After his college graduation with his grandfather, Lolo, who provided most of his resources for his journey to America.

Above A doctored version of this card has helped keep Vargas in the United States. The magazine has blurred his number in the photo.

Readers' Comments

My mother wanted to give me a better life, so she sent me thousands of miles away to live with her parents in America — my grandfather (Lolo in Tagalog) and grandmother (Lola). After I arrived in Mountain View, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay Area, I entered sixth grade and quickly grew to love my new home, family and culture. I discovered a passion for language, though it was hard to learn the difference between formal English and American slang. One of my early memories is of a freckled kid in middle school asking me, “What’s up?” I replied, “The sky,” and he and a couple of other kids laughed. I won the eighth-grade spelling bee by memorizing words I couldn’t properly pronounce. (The winning word was “indefatigable.”)

One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby D.M.V. office to get my driver’s permit. Some of my friends already had their licenses, so I figured it was time. But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of U.S. residency, she flipped it around, examining it. “This is fake,” she whispered. “Don’t come back here again.”

Confused and scared, I pedaled home and confronted Lolo. I remember him sitting in the garage, cutting coupons. I dropped my bike and ran over to him, showing him the green card. “Peke ba ito?” I asked in Tagalog. (“Is this fake?”) My grandparents were naturalized American citizens — he worked as a security guard, she as a food server — and they had begun supporting my mother and me financially when I was 3, after my father’s wandering eye and inability to properly provide for us led to my parents’ separation. Lolo was a proud man, and I saw the shame on his face as he told me he purchased the card, along with other fake documents, for me. “Don’t show it to other people,” he warned.

I decided then that I could never give anyone reason to doubt I was an American. I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it.

I’ve tried. Over the past 14 years, I’ve graduated from high school and college and built a career as a journalist, interviewing some of the most famous people in the country. On the surface, I’ve created a good life. I’ve lived the American dream.

But I am still an undocumented immigrant. And that means living a different kind of reality. It means going about my day in fear of being found out. It means rarely trusting people, even those closest to me, with who I really am. It means keeping my family photos in a shoebox rather than displaying them on shelves in my home, so friends don’t ask about them. It means reluctantly, even painfully, doing things I know are wrong and unlawful. And it has meant relying on a sort of 21st-century underground railroad of supporters, people who took an interest in my future and took risks for me.

Last year I read about four students who walked from Miami to Washington to lobby for the Dream Act, a nearly decade-old immigration bill that would provide a path to legal permanent residency for young people who have been educated in this country. At the risk of deportation — the Obama administration has deported almost 800,000 people in the last two years — they are speaking out. Their courage has inspired me.

There are believed to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. We’re not always who you think we are. Some pick your strawberries or care for your children. Some are in high school or college. And some, it turns out, write news articles you might read. I grew up here. This is my home. Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as one of its own.

 

My first challenge was the language. Though I learned English in the Philippines, I wanted to lose my accent. During high school, I spent hours at a time watching television (especially “Frasier,” “Home Improvement” and reruns of “The Golden Girls”) and movies (from “Goodfellas” to “Anne of Green Gables”), pausing the VHS to try to copy how various characters enunciated their words. At the local library, I read magazines, books and newspapers — anything to learn how to write better. Kathy Dewar, my high-school English teacher, introduced me to journalism. From the moment I wrote my first article for the student paper, I convinced myself that having my name in print — writing in English, interviewing Americans — validated my presence here.

The debates over “illegal aliens” intensified my anxieties. In 1994, only a year after my flight from the Philippines, Gov. Pete Wilson was re-elected in part because of his support for Proposition 187, which prohibited undocumented immigrants from attending public school and accessing other services. (A federal court later found the law unconstitutional.) After my encounter at the D.M.V. in 1997, I grew more aware of anti-immigrant sentiments and stereotypes: they don’t want to assimilate, they are a drain on society.They’re not talking about me, I would tell myself. I have something to contribute.

To do that, I had to work — and for that, I needed a Social Security number. Fortunately, my grandfather had already managed to get one for me. Lolo had always taken care of everyone in the family. He and my grandmother emigrated legally in 1984 from Zambales, a province in the Philippines of rice fields and bamboo houses­, following Lolo’s sister, who married a Filipino-American serving in the American military. She petitioned for her brother and his wife to join her. When they got here, Lolo petitioned for his two children — my mother and her younger brother — to follow them. But instead of mentioning that my mother was a married woman, he listed her as single. Legal residents can’t petition for their married children. Besides, Lolo didn’t care for my father. He didn’t want him coming here too.

But soon Lolo grew nervous that the immigration authorities reviewing the petition would discover my mother was married, thus derailing not only her chances of coming here but those of my uncle as well. So he withdrew her petition. After my uncle came to America legally in 1991, Lolo tried to get my mother here through a tourist visa, but she wasn’t able to obtain one. That’s when she decided to send me. My mother told me later that she figured she would follow me soon. She never did.

The “uncle” who brought me here turned out to be a coyote, not a relative, my grandfather later explained. Lolo scraped together enough money — I eventually learned it was $4,500, a huge sum for him — to pay him to smuggle me here under a fake name and fake passport. (I never saw the passport again after the flight and have always assumed that the coyote kept it.) After I arrived in America, Lolo obtained a new fake Filipino passport, in my real name this time, adorned with a fake student visa, in addition to the fraudulent green card.

Using the fake passport, we went to the local Social Security Administration office and applied for a Social Security number and card. It was, I remember, a quick visit. When the card came in the mail, it had my full, real name, but it also clearly stated: “Valid for work only with I.N.S. authorization.”

When I began looking for work, a short time after the D.M.V. incident, my grandfather and I took the Social Security card to Kinko’s, where he covered the “I.N.S. authorization” text with a sliver of white tape. We then made photocopies of the card. At a glance, at least, the copies would look like copies of a regular, unrestricted Social Security card.

Lolo always imagined I would work the kind of low-paying jobs that undocumented people often take. (Once I married an American, he said, I would get my real papers, and everything would be fine.) But even menial jobs require documents, so he and I hoped the doctored card would work for now. The more documents I had, he said, the better.

While in high school, I worked part time at Subway, then at the front desk of the local Y.M.C.A., then at a tennis club, until I landed an unpaid internship at The Mountain View Voice, my hometown newspaper. First I brought coffee and helped around the office; eventually I began covering city-hall meetings and other assignments for pay.

For more than a decade of getting part-time and full-time jobs, employers have rarely asked to check my original Social Security card. When they did, I showed the photocopied version, which they accepted. Over time, I also began checking the citizenship box on my federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. (Claiming full citizenship was actually easier than declaring permanent resident “green card” status, which would have required me to provide an alien registration number.)

This deceit never got easier. The more I did it, the more I felt like an impostor, the more guilt I carried — and the more I worried that I would get caught. But I kept doing it. I needed to live and survive on my own, and I decided this was the way.

Mountain View High School became my second home. I was elected to represent my school at school-board meetings, which gave me the chance to meet and befriend Rich Fischer, the superintendent for our school district. I joined the speech and debate team, acted in school plays and eventually became co-editor of The Oracle, the student newspaper. That drew the attention of my principal, Pat Hyland. “You’re at school just as much as I am,” she told me. Pat and Rich would soon become mentors, and over time, almost surrogate parents for me.

After a choir rehearsal during my junior year, Jill Denny, the choir director, told me she was considering a Japan trip for our singing group. I told her I couldn’t afford it, but she said we’d figure out a way. I hesitated, and then decided to tell her the truth. “It’s not really the money,” I remember saying. “I don’t have the right passport.” When she assured me we’d get the proper documents, I finally told her. “I can’t get the right passport,” I said. “I’m not supposed to be here.”

She understood. So the choir toured Hawaii instead, with me in tow. (Mrs. Denny and I spoke a couple of months ago, and she told me she hadn’t wanted to leave any student behind.)

Later that school year, my history class watched a documentary on Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco city official who was assassinated. This was 1999, just six months after Matthew Shepard’s body was found tied to a fence in Wyoming. During the discussion, I raised my hand and said something like: “I’m sorry Harvey Milk got killed for being gay. . . . I’ve been meaning to say this. . . . I’m gay.”

I hadn’t planned on coming out that morning, though I had known that I was gay for several years. With that announcement, I became the only openly gay student at school, and it caused turmoil with my grandparents. Lolo kicked me out of the house for a few weeks. Though we eventually reconciled, I had disappointed him on two fronts. First, as a Catholic, he considered homosexuality a sin and was embarrassed about having “ang apo na bakla” (“a grandson who is gay”). Even worse, I was making matters more difficult for myself, he said. I needed to marry an American woman in order to gain a green card.

Tough as it was, coming out about being gay seemed less daunting than coming out about my legal status. I kept my other secret mostly hidden.

 

While my classmates awaited their college acceptance letters, I hoped to get a full-time job at The Mountain View Voice after graduation. It’s not that I didn’t want to go to college, but I couldn’t apply for state and federal financial aid. Without that, my family couldn’t afford to send me.

But when I finally told Pat and Rich about my immigration “problem” — as we called it from then on — they helped me look for a solution. At first, they even wondered if one of them could adopt me and fix the situation that way, but a lawyer Rich consulted told him it wouldn’t change my legal status because I was too old. Eventually they connected me to a new scholarship fund for high-potential students who were usually the first in their families to attend college. Most important, the fund was not concerned with immigration status. I was among the first recipients, with the scholarship covering tuition, lodging, books and other expenses for my studies at San Francisco State University.

As a college freshman, I found a job working part time at The San Francisco Chronicle, where I sorted mail and wrote some freelance articles. My ambition was to get a reporting job, so I embarked on a series of internships. First I landed at The Philadelphia Daily News, in the summer of 2001, where I covered a drive-by shooting and the wedding of the 76ers star Allen Iverson. Using those articles, I applied to The Seattle Times and got an internship for the following summer.

But then my lack of proper documents became a problem again. The Times’s recruiter, Pat Foote, asked all incoming interns to bring certain paperwork on their first day: a birth certificate, or a passport, or a driver’s license plus an original Social Security card. I panicked, thinking my documents wouldn’t pass muster. So before starting the job, I called Pat and told her about my legal status. After consulting with management, she called me back with the answer I feared: I couldn’t do the internship.

This was devastating. What good was college if I couldn’t then pursue the career I wanted? I decided then that if I was to succeed in a profession that is all about truth-telling, I couldn’t tell the truth about myself.

After this episode, Jim Strand, the venture capitalist who sponsored my scholarship, offered to pay for an immigration lawyer. Rich and I went to meet her in San Francisco’s financial district.

I was hopeful. This was in early 2002, shortly after Senators Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, and Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, introduced the Dream Act — Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors. It seemed like the legislative version of what I’d told myself: If I work hard and contribute, things will work out.

But the meeting left me crushed. My only solution, the lawyer said, was to go back to the Philippines and accept a 10-year ban before I could apply to return legally.

If Rich was discouraged, he hid it well. “Put this problem on a shelf,” he told me. “Compartmentalize it. Keep going.”

And I did. For the summer of 2003, I applied for internships across the country. Several newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe and The Chicago Tribune, expressed interest. But when The Washington Post offered me a spot, I knew where I would go. And this time, I had no intention of acknowledging my “problem.”

The Post internship posed a tricky obstacle: It required a driver’s license. (After my close call at the California D.M.V., I’d never gotten one.) So I spent an afternoon at The Mountain View Public Library, studying various states’ requirements. Oregon was among the most welcoming — and it was just a few hours’ drive north.

Again, my support network came through. A friend’s father lived in Portland, and he allowed me to use his address as proof of residency. Pat, Rich and Rich’s longtime assistant, Mary Moore, sent letters to me at that address. Rich taught me how to do three-point turns in a parking lot, and a friend accompanied me to Portland.

The license meant everything to me — it would let me drive, fly and work. But my grandparents worried about the Portland trip and the Washington internship. While Lola offered daily prayers so that I would not get caught, Lolo told me that I was dreaming too big, risking too much.

I was determined to pursue my ambitions. I was 22, I told them, responsible for my own actions. But this was different from Lolo’s driving a confused teenager to Kinko’s. I knew what I was doing now, and I knew it wasn’t right. But what was I supposed to do?

I was paying state and federal taxes, but I was using an invalid Social Security card and writing false information on my employment forms. But that seemed better than depending on my grandparents or on Pat, Rich and Jim — or returning to a country I barely remembered. I convinced myself all would be O.K. if I lived up to the qualities of a “citizen”: hard work, self-reliance, love of my country.

At the D.M.V. in Portland, I arrived with my photocopied Social Security card, my college I.D., a pay stub from The San Francisco Chronicle and my proof of state residence — the letters to the Portland address that my support network had sent. It worked. My license, issued in 2003, was set to expire eight years later, on my 30th birthday, on Feb. 3, 2011. I had eight years to succeed professionally, and to hope that some sort of immigration reform would pass in the meantime and allow me to stay.

It seemed like all the time in the world.

 

My summer in Washington was exhilarating. I was intimidated to be in a major newsroom but was assigned a mentor — Peter Perl, a veteran magazine writer — to help me navigate it. A few weeks into the internship, he printed out one of my articles, about a guy who recovered a long-lost wallet, circled the first two paragraphs and left it on my desk. “Great eye for details — awesome!” he wrote. Though I didn’t know it then, Peter would become one more member of my network.

At the end of the summer, I returned to The San Francisco Chronicle. My plan was to finish school — I was now a senior — while I worked for The Chronicle as a reporter for the city desk. But when The Post beckoned again, offering me a full-time, two-year paid internship that I could start when I graduated in June 2004, it was too tempting to pass up. I moved back to Washington.

About four months into my job as a reporter for The Post, I began feeling increasingly paranoid, as if I had “illegal immigrant” tattooed on my forehead — and in Washington, of all places, where the debates over immigration seemed never-ending. I was so eager to prove myself that I feared I was annoying some colleagues and editors — and worried that any one of these professional journalists could discover my secret. The anxiety was nearly paralyzing. I decided I had to tell one of the higher-ups about my situation. I turned to Peter.

By this time, Peter, who still works at The Post, had become part of management as the paper’s director of newsroom training and professional development. One afternoon in late October, we walked a couple of blocks to Lafayette Square, across from the White House. Over some 20 minutes, sitting on a bench, I told him everything: the Social Security card, the driver’s license, Pat and Rich, my family.

Peter was shocked. “I understand you 100 times better now,” he said. He told me that I had done the right thing by telling him, and that it was now our shared problem. He said he didn’t want to do anything about it just yet. I had just been hired, he said, and I needed to prove myself. “When you’ve done enough,” he said, “we’ll tell Don and Len together.” (Don Graham is the chairman of The Washington Post Company; Leonard Downie Jr. was then the paper’s executive editor.) A month later, I spent my first Thanksgiving in Washington with Peter and his family.

In the five years that followed, I did my best to “do enough.” I was promoted to staff writer, reported on video-game culture, wrote a series on Washington’s H.I.V./AIDS epidemic and covered the role of technology and social media in the 2008 presidential race. I visited the White House, where I interviewed senior aides and covered a state dinner — and gave the Secret Service the Social Security number I obtained with false documents.

I did my best to steer clear of reporting on immigration policy but couldn’t always avoid it. On two occasions, I wrote about Hillary Clinton’s position on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. I also wrote an article about Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, then the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who was defending his party’s stance toward Latinos after only one Republican presidential candidate — John McCain, the co-author of a failed immigration bill — agreed to participate in a debate sponsored by Univision, the Spanish-language network.

It was an odd sort of dance: I was trying to stand out in a highly competitive newsroom, yet I was terrified that if I stood out too much, I’d invite unwanted scrutiny. I tried to compartmentalize my fears, distract myself by reporting on the lives of other people, but there was no escaping the central conflict in my life. Maintaining a deception for so long distorts your sense of self. You start wondering who you’ve become, and why.

In April 2008, I was part of a Post team that won a Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings a year earlier. Lolo died a year earlier, so it was Lola who called me the day of the announcement. The first thing she said was, “Anong mangyayari kung malaman ng mga tao?”

What will happen if people find out?

I couldn’t say anything. After we got off the phone, I rushed to the bathroom on the fourth floor of the newsroom, sat down on the toilet and cried.

 

In the summer of 2009, without ever having had that follow-up talk with top Post management, I left the paper and moved to New York to join The Huffington Post. I met Arianna Huffington at a Washington Press Club Foundation dinner I was covering for The Post two years earlier, and she later recruited me to join her news site. I wanted to learn more about Web publishing, and I thought the new job would provide a useful education.

Still, I was apprehensive about the move: many companies were already using E-Verify, a program set up by the Department of Homeland Security that checks if prospective employees are eligible to work, and I didn’t know if my new employer was among them. But I’d been able to get jobs in other newsrooms, I figured, so I filled out the paperwork as usual and succeeded in landing on the payroll.

While I worked at The Huffington Post, other opportunities emerged. My H.I.V./AIDS series became a documentary film called “The Other City,” which opened at the Tribeca Film Festival last year and was broadcast on Showtime. I began writing for magazines and landed a dream assignment: profiling Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg for The New Yorker.

The more I achieved, the more scared and depressed I became. I was proud of my work, but there was always a cloud hanging over it, over me. My old eight-year deadline — the expiration of my Oregon driver’s license — was approaching.

After slightly less than a year, I decided to leave The Huffington Post. In part, this was because I wanted to promote the documentary and write a book about online culture — or so I told my friends. But the real reason was, after so many years of trying to be a part of the system, of focusing all my energy on my professional life, I learned that no amount of professional success would solve my problem or ease the sense of loss and displacement I felt. I lied to a friend about why I couldn’t take a weekend trip to Mexico. Another time I concocted an excuse for why I couldn’t go on an all-expenses-paid trip to Switzerland. I have been unwilling, for years, to be in a long-term relationship because I never wanted anyone to get too close and ask too many questions. All the while, Lola’s question was stuck in my head: What will happen if people find out?

Early this year, just two weeks before my 30th birthday, I won a small reprieve: I obtained a driver’s license in the state of Washington. The license is valid until 2016. This offered me five more years of acceptable identification — but also five more years of fear, of lying to people I respect and institutions that trusted me, of running away from who I am.

I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore.

So I’ve decided to come forward, own up to what I’ve done, and tell my story to the best of my recollection. I’ve reached out to former bosses­ and employers and apologized for misleading them — a mix of humiliation and liberation coming with each disclosure. All the people mentioned in this article gave me permission to use their names. I’ve also talked to family and friends about my situation and am working with legal counsel to review my options. I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story.

I do know that I am grateful to my grandparents, my Lolo and Lola, for giving me the chance for a better life. I’m also grateful to my other family — the support network I found here in America — for encouraging me to pursue my dreams.

It’s been almost 18 years since I’ve seen my mother. Early on, I was mad at her for putting me in this position, and then mad at myself for being angry and ungrateful. By the time I got to college, we rarely spoke by phone. It became too painful; after a while it was easier to just send money to help support her and my two half-siblings. My sister, almost 2 years old when I left, is almost 20 now. I’ve never met my 14-year-old brother. I would love to see them.

Not long ago, I called my mother. I wanted to fill the gaps in my memory about that August morning so many years ago. We had never discussed it. Part of me wanted to shove the memory aside, but to write this article and face the facts of my life, I needed more details. Did I cry? Did she? Did we kiss goodbye?

My mother told me I was excited about meeting a stewardess, about getting on a plane. She also reminded me of the one piece of advice she gave me for blending in: If anyone asked why I was coming to America, I should say I was going to Disneyland.

Jose Antonio Vargas is a former reporter for The Washington Post and shared a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings. He founded Define American, which seeks to change the conversation on immigration reform. Editor: Chris Suellentrop (C.Suellentrop-MagGroup@...)


#3988 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:53 pm
Subject: New York governor signs law approving gay marriage
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110625/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork;_ylt=AmfwknIYgL3nSH9e524LbI.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJqZm50ZmpqBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNjI1L3VzX2dheW1hcnJpYWdlX25ld3lvcmsEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDbmV3eW9ya2dvdmVy


New York governor signs law approving gay marriage

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – Governor Andrew Cuomo made same-sex marriages legal in New York on Friday, a key victory for gay rights ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

New York will become the sixth and most populous U.S. state to allow gay marriage. State senators voted 33-29 on Friday evening to approve marriage equality legislation and Cuomo, a Democrat who had introduced the measure, signed it into law.

"This vote today will send a message across the country. This is the way to go, the time to do it is now, and it is achievable; it's no longer a dream or an aspiration. I think you're going to see a rapid evolution," Cuomo, who is in his first year of office, told a news conference.

"We reached a new level of social justice," he said.

Same-sex weddings can start taking place in New York in 30 days, though religious institutions and nonprofit groups with religious affiliations will not be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. The legislation also gives gay couples the right to divorce.

"I have to define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality and that equality includes within the definition of marriage," Republican Senator Stephen Saland said before the bill was passed. He was one of four Republicans to vote for the legislation.

Cheers erupted in the Senate gallery in the state capital Albany and among a crowd of several hundred people who gathered outside New York City's Stonewall Inn, where a police raid in 1969 sparked the modern gay rights movement.

"It's about time. I want to get married. I want the same rights as anyone else," Caroline Jaeger, 36, a student, who was outside the Stonewall Inn.

But New York's Catholic bishops said they were "deeply disappointed and troubled" by the passage of the bill.

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman," the state's Catholic Conference said in a statement.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for gay marriage who lobbied state lawmakers in recent weeks, said the vote was an "historic triumph for equality and freedom."

"Together, we have taken the next big step on our national journey toward a more perfect union," he said in a statement.

ELECTION ISSUE

President Barack Obama, who attended a fund-raiser in New York on Thursday for Gay Pride Week, has a nuanced stance on gay issues. Experts say he could risk alienating large portions of the electorate if he came out strongly in favor of such matters as gay marriage before the 2012 elections.

During the 2008 election, Obama picked up important support from Evangelicals, Catholics, Latinos and African-Americans, some of whom oppose gay marriage, which has become a contentious social issue being fought state-by-state.

In California a judge last year overturned a ban on gay marriage, but no weddings can take place while the decision is being appealed. It could set national policy if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey approved civil unions. The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004.

But gay marriage is banned in 39 states.

In New York a recent Siena poll found 58 percent of New Yorkers support gay marriage, while nationally the U.S. public is nearly evenly split, with 45 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed, according to a Pew Research poll released last month.

New York City's marketing and tourism group NYC & Company said it was gearing up to turn the city into "the gay weddings destination." "The new legislation is good news for the City's $31 billion travel and tourism industry," said NYC & Company Chief Executive George Fertitta.

New York's Democrat-dominated Assembly voted 80-63 in favor of gay marriage last week and passed the amended legislation on Friday 82-47.

A key sticking point had been over an exemption that would allow religious officials to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings. Most Republicans were concerned the legal protection was not strong enough, so legislative leaders worked with Cuomo to amend his original bill.

"God, not Albany, settled the definition of marriage a long time ago," said Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a Pentecostal minister and the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

However, fears of a slew of litigation arising from a possible religious exemption to New York's proposed same-sex marriage law are not borne out by experience with similar laws in other states, legal experts say.

(Additional reporting by Phil Wahba, writing by Michelle Nichols, editing by Anthony Boadle and Philip Barbara)


#3989 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Fri Jul 1, 2011 6:09 pm
Subject: Report: US weapons enrich cartels' power
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18385482

Report: US weapons enrich cartels' power
by Diana Washington Valdez \ El Paso Times
Posted: 07/01/2011 12:00:00 AM MDT

Mexican drug cartels are having no trouble stocking up on military-grade weapons
trafficked illegally from the United States to continue waging their bloody turf
battles, according to a recent congressional report titled "Outgunned."
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating arms
trafficking in the wake of revelations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives' "Fast and Furious" operation resulted in the slaying of
U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.
Operation Fast and Furious would allow a person to buy a weapon on behalf of
someone who could not and then trace where the weapon went, but many weapons
were lost during tracking and wound up in the hands of organized criminals to
kill or kidnap people. Two of those weapons were found at the scene of Terry's
slaying.
"This is an issue of particular concern to me and my constituents who have
witnessed, and in many circumstances been directly impacted by, the incessant
violence in our sister-city Ciudad Jurez," said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes,
D-Texas. He went to Mexico on June 24-25 to speak with Mexican and U.S.
officials about what can be done to stem the flow of arms into Mexico.
"As the owner of multiple firearms myself, I value my Second Amendment rights,
but we must strike a balance between the need to respect gun ownership rights
and the need for sensible measures to meet the current security challenges
confronting the United States and Mexico," said Reyes, a former Border Patrol
chief.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the House committee's ranking member, convened a forum
Thursday in Washington, D.C., to continue gathering information on the issue.
According to Cummings' committee's "Outgunned" report, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata was murdered Feb. 15 in Mexico, allegedly with a
Romarm-Cugir Draco weapon that was traced back to a dealer in Texas.
The weapon "has the same firing capacity as the AK-47, can hold a 75-round drum
magazine, and can penetrate protective vests," the report said.
Closer to El Paso, several officials of Columbus, N.M., including the former
mayor, a village trustee and the former police chief, and a firearms dealer in
Chaparral, N.M., are accused of illegally providing or facilitating the
smuggling of weapons to people in Mexico.
According to court records, weapons trafficked by the suspects in the New Mexico
case were found at crime scenes in Jurez and in Palomas, Chihuahua. One of the
suspects allegedly took some of his orders from an inmate of Cereso prison in
Jurez.
Mexican President Felipe Caldern told a joint session of Congress in May that
80 percent of the 75,000 guns and assault weapons that officials seized in his
country in the past three years came from the United States.
According to another report released June 13 by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., "Military weapons are readily available for civilian purchase. ...
Many of these are imported from former Eastern bloc countries and then can be
bought by straw purchasers and transported to Mexico.
"Some importers bring rifle parts into the United States and reassemble them
into military-style firearms using a small number of domestically manufactured
components." Dr. Arturo Cervantes, an official in Mexico's Ministry of Health,
told the House committee headed by Cummings that Mexico had 34,550 homicides
from 2006 to 2010, and that drug-related killings also increased during that
time, from 2,773 in 2007, to 5,661 in 2008, then to 8,281 in 2009.
The homicide rate in Mexico has also increased, to 18.4 from 8.4 per 100,000
people since 2007. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for
Mexicans between the ages of 15 and 44. Most of the victims were killed by
gunfire.
"In Ciudad Jurez," Cervantes said, "the (homicide) rate has increased from 14.1
to 170.4 per 100,000 people."
Guns from the United States were used to kill 111 U.S. citizens in Mexico last
year, a 70 percent increase from four years before that, the House report said.
ATF Agent Peter Forcelli, who testified for the House committee, said that
current U.S. gun laws are toothless, but "some people view this as no more
consequential than doing 65 in a 55 (mph zone)."
For example, the report said, U.S. federally licensed dealers are required to
report multiple purchases of handguns, not long guns, including .50-caliber
semiautomatic rifles and multiple AK-47 variants that are favored by
international drug cartels.
Reyes testified, "As a result of legislation favored by the (National Rifle
Association) and passed by Congress, our agents are prohibited from inputting
gun ownership information into a computerized database that would find records
quickly and efficiently when tracing a firearm.
"Clearly, we are relying on antiquated methods to fight an evasive enemy. But,
sadly, the greatest obstacles hindering our ability to confront these challenges
are the result of our own creation," Reyes said.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a national
gun-rights advocacy group, issued a statement and accused the Cummings forum of
playing politics.
"It's a Capitol Hill kangaroo court with the singular goal of deflecting public
attention away from the Justice Department's horrible mishandling of a
gunrunning sting that has flooded Mexico with guns," said Alan Gottlieb, the
organization's chairman. " 'Operation Fast and Furious' is a product of the
Obama administration, and Cummings is running interference for the White House
and Attorney General Eric Holder.
"The real culprits here are the ATF officials and people in the Justice
Department who either approved this operation or knew about it and allowed it to
happen, and everybody knows it."
Cummings plans to offer recommendations that will give U.S. law enforcement the
tools they need to effectively confront arms trafficking.
Diana Washington Valdez may be reached at dvaldez@...; 546-6140.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Preferred guns
Mexican drug cartels prefer these weapons to carry out their activities:
Bushmaster XM15 rifle
Romarm-Cugir 7.62 x 39mm rifle
FN 5.7 x 28mm pistol
50-caliber Barrett or Beowulf rifle
DPMS .223 rifle
Beretta Model 92 pistol
Taurus PT 9mm pistol
Colt .38 Super pistol
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

#3990 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:15 pm
Subject: Stunning Thai election win brings hope of stability
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/thaksin-sister-prepares-lead-thailand-stunning-win-0154287\
12.html

Stunning Thai election win brings hope of stability
By Michael Perry
10 mins ago

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand's powerful military accepted Monday a stunning
election victory by the party of fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra, adding to a new sense of stability in a country plagued by unrest
since his ouster in a 2006 coup.
A day after the decisive win by Puea Thai Party headed by Thaksin's youngest
sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, the military agreed not to intervene or stop her
from forming a government, according to the outgoing defense minister.
"I can assure that the military has no desire to stray out of its assigned
role," said General Prawit Wongsuwan, a former army chief close to military
leaders involved in the 2006 coup that removed Thaksin.
"The army accepts the election results," he told Reuters.
Puea Thai's absolute majority of 264 seats in the 500-seat parliament makes it
hard for Thaksin's rivals to stop the 44-year-old businesswoman becoming
Thailand's prime minister, which would have ignited protests by her red-shirted
supporters who clashed with the army last year in Bangkok.
"Winning by a big margin eases the problem of the military intervening and makes
it easier for them to form a government and implement all their policies," said
Kongkiat Opaswongkarn, chief executive of Asia Plus Securities.
Yingluck, who will be Thailand's first woman prime minister, said she would form
a five-party coalition controlling 299 seats, or about 60 percent of parliament,
giving her a strong hand to fulfill her election promises.
Under the Thai constitution, the first sitting of the lower House of
Representatives to choose the next successor as prime minister must be convened
30 days after the election.
Yingluck plans to roll out a long list of Thaksin-style populist programs that
could fuel spending and inflation in Southeast Asia's second-largest economy -
from subway extensions to big wage increases and various giveaways aimed at
boosting spending power, especially in rural areas.
Thai stocks jumped more than 4 percent as the scale of her victory persuaded
some investors that Thailand could be more stable after the six-year crisis
marked by a blockade of Bangkok's two airports, the occupation of Government
House by protesters, an assassination attempt and bloody street rallies.
Thailand's baht currency rose 1 percent to a one-week high against the dollar on
hopes foreign investors would return following $1.4 billion of outflows of
global capital since the election season revved up in May.
REBUKE OF ELITE
The vote is an unexpectedly strong rebuke to the traditional establishment of
generals, old-money families and royal advisers who backed Prime Minister
Abhisit Vejjajiva. It suggests broad support for policies championed by Thaksin,
a divisive figure elected prime minister twice, in 2001 and 2005.
Supporters say Thaksin revolutionized Thai politics with pro-business reforms
and populist policies aimed at eradicating poverty. Critics accuse him of
authoritarianism, crony capitalism and of undermining Thailand's revered
monarchy.
"Puea Thai's big victory eases tensions for now but Thailand is still
vulnerable," said Kan Yuanyong, director of the Siam Intelligence Unit, a
consultancy. "They will wait for Puea Thai and Thaksin to slip up, then we'll
see them strike back."
Kan predicted anti-Thaksin yellow-shirt protesters would once again flood the
streets if Yingluck seeks an amnesty clearing her brother of corruption charges
and bringing him back to Thailand from self-imposed exile in Dubai.
The yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy, a motley collection of
businessmen, academics and royalists, emerged in 2005 to help topple Thaksin and
two pro-Thaksin governments.
Thaksin told reporters he no longer desired to be prime minister and wasn't
trying to reclaim $1.4 billion of assets seized when a Thai court convicted him
of tailoring government policies to benefit his family business interests.
"Don't worry about it. I'm not starving," he said of his frozen assets when
asked by journalists at his villa in Dubai, where he lives to avoid a two-year
jail term for graft charges he says was politically motivated.
"I want to retire," he added. He has said he will "wait for the right moment" to
come home. "Going back is not necessarily going to be going back into politics.
I may turn pro in golf," he said with a laugh.
INFLATIONARY BACKLASH
Thaksin brushed aside concerns of an inflationary backlash from his younger
sister's campaign promises, including a roughly 40 percent rise in the minimum
wage due to take effect in January. Higher inflation would be offset by growth,
he said.
Yingluck dismissed criticisms over the cost of her policies such as free tablet
PCs for nearly a million children.
"We know what to do. We'll reduce costs for people and we know how to generate
the income that we'll give back to them," she told Reuters.
Economists said the policies may force the Bank of Thailand to raise interest
rates for a longer period than had been expected to control any increase in
inflation.
But they said billions of extra dollars pumped into Thailand's rural economy
will stimulate consumption. Under Thaksin, money funneled into villages through
a debt moratorium for farmers and cheap loans had a knock-on effect on the whole
economy, fuelling a boom in household spending.
A burst of spending could weaken Thailand's fiscal position depending on how it
is implemented, Takahira Ogawa, analyst at credit-ratings agency Standard &
Poor's Corp, told Reuters.
Under Thaksin, Thailand's economy grew on average by 5.7 percent a year between
2002 and 2006, compared with growth of 2.2 percent in 2001 and the economic
turmoil of the late 1990s. But his policies also drove up household debt and did
little to fundamentally alter income gaps between rich and poor.
The stridently anti-Thaksin Nation newspaper accepted the result but pulled no
punches on the challenge ahead.
"The election is over but the hatred remains," it headlined its leader column.
"It's time for ordinary Thais to take reconciliation into their own hands."
Yingluck's red-shirted supporters accuse the rich, the establishment and army
top brass of breaking laws with impunity -- grievances that have simmered since
the 2006 coup -- and have clamored for the return of Thaksin.
Her critics say she is a simple proxy for Thaksin, who they accused of abusing
his electoral mandate to dismantle constitutional checks and balances while
cementing his own authoritarian rule while in power from 2001 to 2006.
Abhisit announced Monday his resignation as party leader.
His legacy is unclear. Backed by the army, he put down a protest movement by the
red shirts sin Bangkok last year and 91 people lost their lives. Nearly 2,000
were injured. But he was also lauded by economists for steering Thailand out of
the financial crisis.
(Additional reporting by Panarat Thepgumpanat and Martin Petty in Bangkok and;
Praveen Menon in Dubai; Editing by Michael Perry)

#3991 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:47 pm
Subject: If Dewhurst Isn't Lt. Governor, Who Might Be Next?
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-senate/lieutenant-governor/if-dewhurst-isnt-lt\
-governor-who-might-be-next/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_c\
ampaign=News%20Alert:%20

If Dewhurst Isn't Lt. Governor, Who Might Be Next?
by Ross Ramsey
4 hours ago

The next lieutenant governor of Texas, a state with 25 million residents, could
be chosen by just 16 people.

If Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst moves into another job — and he’s got two ways to
do that — the 31 senators will elect one of their own to serve the rest of his
four-year term.

They did it before, when George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, and
then-Lt. Gov. Rick Perry moved into the Governor’s Mansion. Bill Ratliff, a
Republican state senator from Mount Pleasant, was elected by his colleagues to
preside over the Senate.

Mr. Dewhurst is supposed to be lieutenant governor until January 2015, but
he’s expressed interest in running for the United States Senate and will
announce his intentions this month. He’s widely expected to run. He sent
supporters an e-mail in June hyping the pending announcement, and while he
didn’t come right out and say he’s running for Senate, any other
announcement would leave a reader saying that was a mighty misleading e-mail.

If he doesn’t run, or if he does run and doesn’t win, there’s still a
chance to move up. If the governor decides to run for national office, and if he
wins, the lieutenant governor will succeed him in the state’s top office.

Want to really stretch out the speculation? What if both run, and both win?
Senators would elect a lieutenant governor, who would be acting governor, and
would have to elect another lieutenant governor to preside over the Senate.

Are they thinking about it? Sure. They’re politicians, and they’re
ambitious, and they see great historical figures in their mirrors when they put
on makeup or shave every morning.

Succession was part of the undercurrent in the last days of the special session
that ended last week. The sanctuary cities bill urged by the governor stalled in
the House, and lawmakers made a late attempt to tack it onto a must-pass school
finance and budget bill. Republican senators blocked it, saying the bill was
controversial and risky enough without the added weight of sanctuary cities. In
the aftermath (and partly to save face for House leaders who couldn’t advance
the original bill), Mr. Perry singled out Senator Robert Duncan, Republican of
Lubbock, as the assassin.

“Because of this action, the special session will not provide our peace
officers with the discretion they need to adequately keep Texans safe from those
that would do them harm,” Mr. Perry said in a press release, after pointing
the finger at Mr. Duncan. Others, including Mr. Dewhurst, jumped to Mr.
Duncan’s defense. That was the public play.

To some in the Senate, it was a signal from Mr. Perry to fellow conservatives
that Mr. Duncan isn’t his choice if the Senate has to pick a successor for Mr.
Dewhurst. Outside groups were deeply involved in the race for Speaker of the
Texas House at the beginning of the legislative session, and there’s no reason
to believe they’d stay out of a race for lieutenant governor. The swipe at Mr.
Duncan, in that interpretation, was a signal for those groups.

Another reading was that Mr. Duncan killed the bill to build support among
Democrats in the event that he does run for the job.

Whatever really happened, the conspiracy theories are evidence that the
political class is thinking about what’s next, and who’s next, in the lineup
of Texas politics.

State senators, often at odds with the lieutenant governor and, in some cases,
given to sniping at him behind his back, gave him a valedictory ovation at the
end of the special legislative session. They know he might not be back in the
chair again, and wanted to give him a warm salute.

They were covering their bets. Politics is a risky enterprise, after all, and
the safest prediction is that the state’s top officeholders in January 2013
will be the two people the voters chose, and not former state senators elevated
by 16 of their colleagues.

#3992 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Tue Jul 5, 2011 5:25 am
Subject: Tanks surround Syrian city of Hama after protests
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/tanks-surround-syrian-city-hama-protests-014631702.html

Tanks surround Syrian city of Hama after protests
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis | Reuters – Mon, Jul 4, 2011

AMMAN (Reuters) - Syrian tanks surrounded Hama on Tuesday, residents and
activists said, threatening a large-scale assault on the city after the biggest
protests against President Bashar al-Assad's rule.
Hundreds of youths blocked roads leading to the city's main residential
neighborhoods with garbage containers, wood and metal to try to prevent a
possible advance. Inhabitants joined in their shouts of "God is greatest," from
balconies and rooftops, residents said.
Tanks and armored vehicles moved overnight to the edges of the city, including
30 seen near a flyover on a road leading west, they said, a day after hundreds
of troops and security police entered Hama at dawn in buses, killing at least
three people in raids on main neighborhoods.
Hama, scene of a bloody crackdown by Assad's father nearly 30 years ago, has
witnessed some of the biggest demonstrations and highest death tolls in Syria's
14-week uprising, inspired by revolts across the Arab world.
"Assad may wait to see whether large-scale protests in Hama continue. He knows
that using military aggression against peaceful demonstrations in a symbolic
place like Hama would lose him support even from Russia and China," Syrian
activist Mohammad Abdallah told Reuters from exile in Washington.
The two countries have opposed a United Nations Security Council resolution
proposed by the West against Syria, helping Assad withstand mounting
international isolation.
Abdallah said using tanks to attack Hama would "totally discredit" a promise by
Assad to seek dialogue with his opponents. Troops and armor were already
assaulting villages and towns in the Jabal-al-Zawya region, north of Hama, which
had also seen large protests against Assad's 11-year rule, he said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said tanks stormed the town of Kfar
Nubbul early on Tuesday "without meeting a single shot in the town that has seen
peaceful protests since the beginning of the uprising."
One month ago, security forces shot dead at least 60 protesters in Hama,
activists said. The security presence later eased and last Friday a crowd of at
least 150,000 people rallied in a central Hama square demanding Assad go,
according to activists.
The following day, Assad sacked the provincial governor and on Monday residents
said troops and police poured into Hama to carry out arrests.
The three people killed by the security forces included a 13-year-old boy and a
man whose body had been dumped in the Orontes river, a doctor in Hama said.
Residents said some of the soldiers and police opened fire in residential
neighborhoods and carried out arrests across the city.
BURNING TYRES
Young men, some carrying stones, blocked roads leading to central neighborhoods
with burning tires and garbage containers, they added.
Rami Abdelrahman, president of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told
Reuters that at least 250 people were arrested across Hama on Monday.
"The regime could not stand the large, peaceful protests and the fact that the
governor did little to stop them. It has decided to subdue Hama one way or the
other," he said.
The authorities have banned most international media from operating in Syria
since the protests began in March, making it difficult to verify reports from
activists and authorities.
Rights groups say Syrian security forces have shot dead at least 1,300 civilians
across the country since the protests started and arrested over 12,000, with
several troops and police officers killed for refusing to fire at civilians.
Authorities say 500 police and soldiers have been killed by gunmen, who they
blame for most civilian deaths.
Assad has promised a national dialogue with the opposition to discuss political
reform in Syria, which has been under the iron rule of the Baath Party for
nearly 50 years.
Many opposition figures reject dialogue while the killings and arrests continue.
The United States said last week Assad was running out of time to allow a
serious political process, and would otherwise face increasingly organized
resistance.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, an ally of Assad who has grown more
critical, said in May: "We do not want to see another Hama massacre" and warned
the Syrian leader that it would be hard to contain the consequences if it were
repeated.
Assad's father Hafez al-Assad, who ruled Syria for 30 years until his death in
2000, sent troops into Hama in 1982 to crush an Islamist-led uprising in the
city, where the Fighting Vanguard, the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood,
made its last stand.
That attack killed many thousands, possibly up to 30,000, and one slogan
constantly shouted by Hama protesters in the last several weeks was "damn your
soul Hafez," a reminder of the scar still etched in the memory of the city of
650,000 people.
(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

#3993 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:43 pm
Subject: Does John Boehner know what paychecks are made of?
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/08/does-john-boehner-know-what-paychecks-are-made-of/

Does John Boehner know what paychecks are made of?

JUL 8, 2011 09:25 EDT

It’s incredibly difficult to work out what is the most depressing part of today’s truly gruesome jobs report. The shrinking number of people in the labor force? The rise in U-6, broad underemployment, to 16.2%? The sharp spike in the newly unemployed? The downward revisions to April and May? The downtick in total hours worked? Maybe it’s the way that people leaving government jobs, for whatever reason, are finding it impossible to find new jobs in the private sector.

For me, it’s none of these things — it’s not, in fact, anything inside the report at all. Instead, it’s the reaction to the report from John Boehner:

“The American people are still asking the question: where are the jobs? Today’s report is more evidence that the misguided ‘stimulus’ spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country. Legislation that raises taxes on small business job creators, fails to cut spending by a larger amount than a debt limit hike, or fails to restrain future spending will only make things worse – and won’t pass the House. Republicans are focused on jobs, and are ready to stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have and make serious changes to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. We hope our Democratic counterparts will join us and seize this opportunity to do something big for our economy and our future, and help get Americans back to work.”

Opinions of the budget deficit and the national debt differ — some people think they’re a huge and important issue which needs to be dealt with in an urgent and serious way, while others think that the whole issue is overblown and that the debt is doing little if any harm at all to the US economy. But whichever side you stand on that debate, it’s downright bonkers to think that, at the margin, government spending reduces job creation, while pushing for ever-larger spending cuts is the way to be “focused on jobs”.

As Paul Krugman has explained extremely well, the economics of the deficit are not entirely obvious, and the president is no natural Keynsian.

The president just doesn’t like the kind of people who tell him counterintuitive things, who say that the government is not like a family, that it’s not right for the government to tighten its belt when Americans are tightening theirs, that unemployment is not caused by lack of the right skills. Certainly just about all the people who might have tried to make that argument have left the administration or are leaving soon…

To commenters saying that I need to have dinner with the president, or vice versa — been there, done that, didn’t help.

But if Krugman’s Keynsianism is unintuitive, the Republican stance on jobs is downright incomprehensible. Paychecks are made of money: they’re spending. If you spend less, you get fewer and smaller paychecks.

“Spend less money, create more jobs” is the kind of world one normally finds only in Woody Allen movies, and it’s a profoundly unserious stance for any politician to take. Spending cuts, whether they’re implemented by the public sector or the private sector, are never going to create jobs. And there’s simply no magical ju-jitsu whereby government spending cuts get reversed and amplified, becoming larger private-sector spending increases.

Boehner’s rhetoric, here, is a cynical play on our nation’s economic illiteracy. But the jobs crisis is far too big and too important to become a tactical political football. Now more than ever, it’s the job of government to come together and to do something constructive to create high-quality, long-term employment. Fast. Instead, the House majority is giving us aggressively harmful stupidity. Today’s a bad day in the annals of job statistics. But it’s equally bad in the annals of public service.


#3994 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:13 pm
Subject: The Republic of South Sudan – the roadmap to independence
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/08/south-sudan-independence-history

The Republic of South Sudan – the roadmap to independence

A new chapter in the geopolitical tale of two countries opens on Saturday as South Sudan gains nationhood. But how did we reach this point?

MDG : View over the Suez Canal
The Suez Canal – and the fight between Britain and France over the route to India – is the historical root to the events taking place in Sudan this week. Photograph: Getty Images

When the European governments sliced up Africa at the end of the 1800s, the vast, arid zone of the Sahara and the Sahel was intended to be French. But a plan by France to build a huge dam for irrigation on the Nile, which would have diverted the water, alarmed the British.

The British panicked that any diversion would result in the Nile no longer reaching Cairo. Egypt was the door to India, and the route to India had to be British controlled.

To ensure this door remained open, the thinking went that Egypt must remain under British influence to control the eastern Mediterranean and the newly acquired Suez Canal. As Egypt depended on the Nile, so the Nile – right up to its source in Uganda – must also be British.

After a stand-off in southern Sudan, the French withdrew and Britain took over the Nile basin and created Sudan.

Britain also pursued its mission to abolish slavery in Africa. That meant stopping its Egyptian allies and the northern, Arabised Sudanese Muslims enslaving the black African southerners.

So the British ruled Sudan as two separate territories until 1946. In the north they simply retrained the class of civil servants who had served the Ottoman Empire and the Islamist ruler known as the Mahdi. In the south they ruled through the chiefs and kings of more than 200 ethnic groups. Northerners were not allowed to spread Islam in the south but Christian missionaries were encouraged. Only in the north did the British instigate any development. The south was ruled but left to rot.

In the lead-up to independence in 1956 southern army officers – still referred to as Abayid, slaves by some northerners – rebelled. This turned into a full-scale battle for independence six years later and it lasted until a peace treaty in 1972.

But the south and southerners were still discriminated against, and a new rebellion started in 1983. Officially this was not for independence but for a united, secular, democratic Sudan. The rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement had many northern followers in the early days. But, apart from John Garang, its leader, all the SPLM members I have spoken with admitted in private that the ultimate solution was separation and independence of the south.

In Khartoum, the capital, you would have barely known there was a war on. The chattering classes rarely spoke about it, the newspapers rarely reported it. But on the outskirts of the city, vast shanty towns made of cardboard and plastic sheeting grew like fungus.

More than a million southerners camped out on the fringes of the city, having fled the war zones and living on handouts from aid agencies. The only thing the government did for them was occasionally to send in the police to bulldoze their settlements, driving the people further out into the desert.

In the south, the war was like a boxing match on a football pitch. In the rainy season the SPLA fighters would attack small towns, lay mines on the roads and ambush vehicles. In the dry season, the government troops would advance out of the towns and drive the SPLA back into the bush or across the border into Ethiopia which supported the SPLA.

No development took place. There were few schools, almost no hospitals or medical centres and no roads or economic development. Outside the war zones people lived much as they had for thousands of years, many probably unaware they were in a country called Sudan.

In the war zones thousands of young men were seized by the SPLA and force-marched across the border into Ethiopia to be trained as fighters. Others were forcibly recruited in the Sudan government army. Today the human condition in South Sudan is appalling. Infant mortality rates are estimated to be around 150 per thousand births, the worst in the world.

One effect of 9/11 was that the US started looking for solutions to conflicts throughout the world that involved Islamist fundamentalism.

The brutal, but smart and pragmatic, regime in Khartoum was now courted, and a peace process began. Oil had just begun to flow and the revenues were pouring into Khartoum's coffers.

The faction in the capital who preferred to establish an Islamic state in the north and let go of the south dominated those who wanted to retain a united Sudan at all costs.

The US-brokered talks between the government and the SPLA culminated in a peace agreement in 2002, though how many in Khartoum took independence seriously is doubtful. The southerners felt they had won and in the referendum early this year voted almost 100% for independence.

The new government has almost no capacity to run a village, let alone a country. The political bosses are almost all former military men best known for their duplicity and greed and all of them bedevilled by tribalism and factionalism. Throughout the war many of them changed sides, some several times, taking money and positions from the Khartoum government whenever it suited them. Grotesque palaces are sprouting up around Juba, the new capital. The long-suffering population is as poor as ever, uneducated with little access to trade or markets.

Landlocked and desperately poor, South Sudan is also at the heart of a troubled zone with not a single decent road to the outside world. Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army is still on the rampage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic to the west.

To the east there are periodic uprisings in Ethiopia's south-west provinces. And to the north lies their old enemy which has its hands on the oil tap and the oil revenue. The pipeline goes north-east to the Red Sea but now most of the oil lies under the south.

And the border is not yet agreed. The border regions that supported the SPLA are now being ethnically cleansed by Khartoum's army.

Khartoum will almost certainly ensure that the south remains divided by funding and arming enemies of the new government.


#3995 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:00 am
Subject: Phone-hacking whistle-blower found dead
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/18/uk.phone.hacking.hoare/index.html?hpt\
=hp_t1

Phone-hacking whistle-blower found dead
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 18, 2011 5:27 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Hoare was recently injured in an accident, The Guardian reported
NEW: Was Coulson unaware of the pinging? "Bollocks," Hoare told The Guardian
The death is "not thought to be suspicious," police say
Hoare told the New York Times the phone hacking included celebrities' phones
London (CNN) -- One of the first journalists to go on the record and allege
phone hacking at News of the World was found dead Monday, the British Press
Association said.
Sean Hoare, a former News of the World employee who said Andy Coulson
"encouraged" phone-hacking, "was discovered at his home in Watford,
Hertfordshire, after concerns were raised about his whereabouts," the press
association said.
"The death is being treated as 'unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious,'
" the report quoted Hertfordshire police as saying.
The Guardian reported that Hoare had recently injured his nose and his foot in
an accident. It was unclear whether those injuries were linked to his death.
Hoare had publicly accused News of the World of phone-hacking and using
"pinging" -- a method of tracking someone's cell phone using technology that
only police and security officials could access -- according to the New York
Times.
Hoare was one of the few sources who allowed his name to be used when speaking
to the Times last year for an investigative report about allegations of
phone-hacking by the British tabloid.
In his remarks, he specifically accused Andy Coulson -- former editor of News of
the World, who went on to become Prime Minister David Cameron's communications
director -- of wrongdoing.
The Times described Hoare as a "onetime close friend of Coulson's."
"The two men first worked together at The Sun, where, Hoare said, he played tape
recordings of hacked messages for Coulson," the Times wrote in its report last
September. "At News of the World, Hoare said he continued to inform Coulson of
his pursuits. Coulson 'actively encouraged me to do it,' Hoare said."
The report added that Hoare said he was "fired during a period when he was
struggling with drugs and alcohol. He said he was now revealing his own use of
the dark arts -- which included breaking into the messages of celebrities like
David and Victoria Beckham -- because it was unfair for the paper to pin the
blame solely on" one reporter who covered the royal family.
"Coulson declined to comment for this article but has maintained that he was
unaware of the hacking," the report said.

Coulson worked for Cameron until the police launched their new phone-hacking
investigation in January, then resigned, still protesting his innocence, but
saying he had become a distraction for the prime minister.
Last week, the Times reported that Hoare, a former show-business reporter for
News of the World, also described "pinging" by the newspaper. "Pinging" is a
term for locating a person using his or her cell phone number -- something that
only law enforcement and security officials are allowed to do, the paper
reported
Hoare "said that when he worked there, pinging cost the paper nearly $500 on
each occasion," the Times reported.
A second former editor at the paper backed Hoare's account, speaking
anonymously, the Times reported.
The Times reported that people on the police payroll were bribed to use the
technology to pinpoint people's locations, according to the two former News of
the World journalists.
The Guardian newspaper also spoke to Hoare last week. He told them the idea that
Coulson wasn't aware of pinging "bollocks," noting that "the chain of command is
one of absolute discipline" at News of the World.
Hoare "repeatedly expressed the hope that the hacking scandal would lead to
journalism in general being cleaned up and said he had decided to blow the
whistle on the activities of some of his former News of the World colleagues
with that aim in mind," the Guardian reported Monday.
"He also said he had been injured at a party the previous weekend while taking
down a marquee erected for a children's party. He said he had broken his nose
and badly injured his foot when a relative accidentally struck him with a heavy
pole from the marquee," the report said.
Hoare emphasized that he was not making money from telling his story, the
Guardian reported.

#3996 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:36 am
Subject: Texas spending kept rising for years with Perry as governor
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/16/3225809/texas-spending-kept-rising-for.h\
tml

Texas spending kept rising for years with Perry as governor
Posted Monday, Jul. 18, 2011

BY AMAN BATHEJA
abatheja@...

Gov. Rick Perry's political stock has soared in recent months as he has traveled
the country touting a decade of fiscal restraint in Texas under his leadership.

Last month, Perry made Texas history by signing a two-year state budget that
cuts overall spending for the first time in over 40 years.

Perry has long promoted the state's fiscal record as a model for the country and
a key to why Texas has weathered the recession better than most other states. He
has opposed new taxes and been vehemently anti-Washington, and his message is
drawing interest among Republican primary voters nationwide.

Yet before the latest one, the Texas budget had consistently grown during
Perry's time as governor, with total spending rising faster than inflation and
population growth, state data show.

What's more, spending through 2011, adjusted for population and inflation, rose
more on average while Perry has been in charge than it did under his
predecessor, George W. Bush, according to a Star-Telegram analysis.

In the past, Perry has criticized Bush for not controlling spending while
governor.

"Let me tell you something," Perry told a small group of Iowa Republicans in
2007 while campaigning for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was running
for president. "George Bush was never a fiscal conservative. ... I mean, '95,
'97, '99, George Bush was spending money."

When Bush was governor, total state spending rose 13.3 percent every two years
on average. Adjusting the figures for population growth and inflation, that
growth rate was 2.3 percent.

Perry took the reins in December 2000. From then until 2011, spending increased
an average of 16.8 percent every two years. Once adjusted for population and
inflation, that rate falls to 4.2 percent. Adjusted spending figures in the
just-passed 2012-13 budget are not yet available.

If Perry runs for president, his fiscal record in Texas is sure to draw more
scrutiny, just as it did for Bush.

In the final months of the 2000 presidential election, then-Vice President Al
Gore pointed to the growth of the Texas budget under Bush to argue that he and
President Bill Clinton had more experience at reducing the size of government.

Perry's office and some budget experts say the entire state budget is not a fair
gauge of a governor's fiscal record, since portions such as federal funding are
not under his direct purview.

"Lawmakers and the governor have no control over that," Perry spokeswoman
Catherine Frazier said.

Fed largely by state taxes and fees, general revenue has typically made up
roughly half the Texas budget. It's the part of the budget that lawmakers spend
most of their time arguing over during legislative sessions. Much of the rest of
the budget is tied by provisions in federal law and the Texas Constitution.

When general revenue spending is examined by itself, the trends match better
with the fiscal conservative image that Perry promotes. Though general revenue
spending has grown with nearly every budget since Perry took office, it actually
fell over the last decade an average of 0.6 percent every two years once those
numbers are adjusted for inflation and the state's booming population growth. It
rose during Bush's tenure.

"Obviously fiscal restraint is always something the governor has made a
priority," Frazier said. "He's the only Texas governor since World War II that
has cut general revenue spending."

That distinction is one that Perry has touted repeatedly in recent years, from
campaign commercials to the biography on the governor's office website.

Mike Hailey, who runs the Austin political site Capitol Inside and served as Lt.
Gov. Bob Bullock's press secretary, said that general revenue spending is "a
more telling gauge" of a governor's fiscal record but that the rest of the
budget is relevant as well.

He also noted that the Legislature chose to accept billions in federal stimulus
money in 2009, which temporarily pumped up spending.

Different times

During their periods as governor, Perry and Bush have faced very different
political and economic environments. For the nearly six years that Bush had the
job, Democrats controlled at least one chamber of the Legislature. Since 2003,
Republicans have held majorities in both the House and Senate.

Many Texas Democrats praised Bush's ability to work with both parties.

"If you compare the budgets of both governors based on keeping Texans with
services and doing tax cuts, you'll find that Bush did both, whereas you'll find
all Rick Perry did is cut spending and cut services," said state Rep. Garnett
Coleman, D-Houston, who has served in the House since 1991.

Talmadge Heflin, director of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation's
Center for Fiscal Policy, served in the Texas House from 1983 to 2005 as a
Republican and has been chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

"I don't think it's just Perry has been a Bush 2," Heflin said. "Perry's had a
different approach to government even though both have been more on the
conservative side than the moderate side."

Heflin said Perry has done a better job controlling spending than Bush, but he
criticized lawmakers' use of accounting gimmicks to avoid deeper cuts in recent
years. Like Perry, he has advocated for the Legislature to cap spending at the
rate of population growth plus inflation.

"That does allow for infrastructure growth," Heflin said. "It just doesn't allow
for bringing a bunch of new programs in."

Both governors also worked amid very different economic conditions.

"Gov. Bush enjoyed a time of steady economic growth, even overheated growth if
you include Texas' part of the 1990s tech bubble," said Terry Clower, an
economist at the University of North Texas.

Perry, meanwhile, has been governor during two recessions and major changes in
key federal programs.

"In many ways, these differences make budget performance over these two
governorships a matter of comparing apples to oranges," Clower said.

Federal funding

While the governor clearly has significant sway over the general revenue portion
of the budget, his or her power over the rest of it is less clear. Federal
funding has routinely made up about a third of the budget over the last decade.

Heflin said state officials have chased federal funds too aggressively, ignoring
that they often prompt more state spending and can impede private-sector growth.
He has argued that the state took too much stimulus money in 2009.

Frazier made clear that Perry is aware of the balancing act that comes with
federal funds.

"Texas taxpayers send that money to Washington," Frazier said. "We deserve to
have our fair share back as opposed to seeing that money go to other states. But
there is that separate concern that federal spending has grown out of control
and needs to be reined in."

Aman Batheja, 817-390-7695

#3997 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:30 pm
Subject: Violent Blast Rocks Government Quarter in Oslo
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,776033,00.html#ref=nlint

07/22/2011
 

Explosion in Norway

Violent Blast Rocks Government Quarter in Oslo

Photo Gallery: Explosion in Oslo
Photos
AP / Scanpix

A violent blast has damaged government buildings in central Oslo, killing at least two people and injuring several. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has described the situation as "very serious." Police have confirmed the blast was caused by a bomb.

Info

The center of the Norwegian capital Oslo was a scene of devastation on Friday afternoon following a violent explosion which killed at least two people and injured several. Police confimed that the blast was caused by "one or more" bombs and urged people to leave central Oslo.

The explosion blasted windows out of buildings in the city's government quarter. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was safe, however, according to a government spokeswoman. The prime minister was not in the government building when the explosion happened.

"This is very serious," Stoltenberg later told Norwegian TV2 television in a telephone call. He did not disclose his location, explaining that police has advised him against doing so, but said that all government ministers appeared to be safe. It was too early to say if the explosion was a terrorist attack, he said.

Several government buildings were damaged in the explosion, which happened at 3:26 p.m. local time and was heard for kilometers around. The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported chaos in the streets near the site and people covered in blood. "It smells like sulphur," one reporter at the scene said.

It seemed likely that the death toll would continue to rise. One reporter was quoted on the Aftenposten website as saying, "I saw dead people." Senior Norwegian government official Kristian Amundsen told the BBC that people were trapped in the buildings affected by the blast. The situation was the worst his country had seen, he said.

Images from the scene showed streets full of debris from the explosion and buildings with all their windows blown out. Clouds of smoke hung over the city center. Police have closed off streets leading to the site. Oslo police said the office of the broadcaster TV2 was sealed off after a suspicious package was found. The city's main train station was also evacuated by police.

There was at least one wrecked vehicle at the site, leading to speculation that a bomb may have been planted inside. No group has yet claimed responsibility for the explosion. Aftenposten has reported that officials are concerned that there could be additional bombs that have not yet detonated.

Completely Gutted

The building housing Norway's largest tabloid paper, VG, was also heavily damaged, a journalist from the Norwegian broadcaster NRK reported. She said she saw people lying "in pools of blood on the street." The newspaper's offices have been evacuated. Images shown by NRK showed the ground floor of Norwegian government headquarters -- a 20-storey highrise -- to be completely gutted.

"I was at the site just a few minutes after the explosion and saw countless injured people on the sidewalks and in the area of the government quarter," said Jarle Brenna, a journalist for the VG website.

Several terror experts have speculated that the blast could be the work of terrorists. "It is difficult to imagine this not being a terror attack," said Norwegian terror expert Tore Bjrgo. "This is Norway's greatest symbol of political power."

Norway has faced several homegrown terror plots in recent years linked to al-Qaida. Last week, an Islamist cleric in the country was charged for making death threats against Norwegian politicians should he be deported from the country. There are over 400 Norwegian troops currently stationed in Afghanistan as part of NATO operations there.

Al-Qaida has long warned of a revenge attack in Scandinavia ever since a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over five years ago. In its propaganda, al-Qaida makes little distinction between the Scandinavian countries. There have been several attempted attacks against Muhammad caricaturists in Denmark. Last December, a suicide bomber with ties to radical Islamists blew himself up in the Swedish capital Stockholm, though nobody was injured in the explosion.

cgh -- with wire reports


#3998 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:09 pm
Subject: Fwd: Congressional Reform Needed
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
  
"A lie can travel halfway round the world while truth is putting on its shoes!"      Mark Twain 
A day without work is a day without food! 
  
This is bipartisan in nature and is going to both Democrat and Republican. We should all seriously consider helping with the change suggested below.


This is something I will fight for and I hope you will too. This is short so please read it all the way through, and then forward. You will be glad you did. 
 
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people  demanded it.  That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of  the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list;  in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.  This is one idea that really should be passed  around.

Congressional Reform Act of  2011

1.   No Tenure / No  Pension.
     A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2.   Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.  All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system and Congress participates with the American people.  It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.  The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.  Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The  Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then 
go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the  U.S.) to receive the message.  Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!

If you agree with the above, pass it on.   If not, just delete.

You are one of my 20+.  Please keep it going.

#3999 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:00 pm
Subject: The Cult That Is Destroying America
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/

July 26, 2011, 5:09 PM

The Cult That Is Destroying America

Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.

And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.

No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.

And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.


#4000 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:26 pm
Subject: Fw: [utepprogressives] "Texas Democrats' conservatism widespread" by Jason Stanford/American-Statesman
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 


--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Rick Kisséll <rick@...> wrote:

From: Rick Kisséll <rick@...>
Subject: [utepprogressives] "Texas Democrats' conservatism widespread" by Jason Stanford/American-Statesman
To: "Know Justice Know Peace Yahoo Group owner" <knowjusticeknowpeace-owner@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 11:12 AM

 

Texas Democrats' conservatism widespread outside of Austin

by Jason Stanford
Austin (Texas) American-Statesman
7/27/11

Shortly after the 2006 gubernatorial election, a young Democratic activist invited me out for coffee to tell me how I screwed up as the campaign manager for Democrat Chris Bell. And such was my fragile state after the grueling, two-year campaign that I accepted.


It wasn't that the Democratic donor base had abandoned its party's nominee in favor of Comptroller Carole Strayhorn, who had abandoned her own Republican Party to run against Rick Perry.


And it wasn't that satirist Kinky Friedman had made cynicism cool and captured thousands of disaffected white Democrats.


It was that he thought Chris Bell wasn't liberal enough.


"You should have had Chris Bell be for gay marriage. I just think Chris Bell could have really gotten Democrats excited if he had come out for legalizing gay marriage," this guy told me.


I certainly made mistakes as Bell's manager in 2006, but to cast Bell as the standard-bearer for gay marriage a year after Texans voted a ban on same-sex unions into the state Constitution by a 3-to-1 margin would have been a huge political mistake. But when you live in Austin, it's an easy one to make.


Democratic primaries in Austin can be as humorless and judgmental as telling a bride that she doesn't deserve to wear white.


We inflict purity tests on one another's partisan fidelity that Barack Obama couldn't pass. But in a city where every other car on MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) has an Obama bumper sticker, it's easy to forget that all Democrats in Texas aren't as liberal as we are.


They're not even all Democrats. I did a statewide campaign in 2008 that polled Democratic Primary voters and found that only 73 percent of them were actually Democrats.


Texas Democrats are more conservative than anyone in Austin might imagine.


Bryan Dooley, a Democratic pollster with Hamilton Campaigns out of Florida, says that Texas Democrats are more conservative than Democrats in Georgia, but more moderate than Democrats in Alabama and Mississippi.


Yet most Austin Democrats have no problem demanding that their statewide candidates take positions to the left of Nancy Pelosi and think the reason we don't win is that we didn't yell loudly enough.


You can rally at the Capitol on a sunny day and think the blue skies go all the way from El Paso to Texarkana, but Texans get pretty conservative when you leave Austin's city limits.

As much as we might hate to admit it, Austin Democrats might have more in common with our moderate Republican neighbors than with our partisan brothers from out of town.


Here in Austin, we all know Republicans who are pro-choice. But in Texas, 43 percent of Democratic primary voters are anti-abortion rights. In Austin, we get excited when we discover that our new carpet was made from recycled two-liter bottles and get angry at the thought that the Formula One racetrack might pollute our air.


Yet 30 percent of Texas Democrats think environmental regulations hurt the economy.

Despite what my friend said, 45 percent of Texas Democrats in 2008 would choose a candidate who opposes gay marriage and favors civil unions over one who supports gay marriage.


Dooley, the Democratic pollster, says Texas Democrats continue to fit the mold of Southern conservatives because socially conservative Hispanics and blacks replaced the Dixiecrats.


The conservatism of Hispanics is clearest — and most surprising — when you look at the immigration questions in that 2008 poll.


It found that a third of Hispanics supported building a border wall, and that was the good news for liberals.


Fully 35 percent of Hispanics voting in the Texas Democratic primary opposed giving preventive health care to illegal immigrants because it could provide an "incentive for illegals to have children here."


That's right. More than a third of Texas Hispanic Democrats were worried about anchor babies.


"Texas is an example of why it is a myth that Southern conservative Democrats are disappearing," Dooley said. "They exist. They are just becoming more brown and less white."


You can't fix all the problems of Texas Democrats in one column, but a good place to start would for Team Blue — and this includes me — to be as accepting of ideological diversity as we are of racial diversity.



Stanford is an Austin political consultant.





http://www.statesman.com/opinion/texas-democrats-conservatism-widespread-outside-of-austin-1662487.html

























#4001 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:42 pm
Subject: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/07/how-to-turn-republicans-and-democrats-into-americans/8521/

How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans

AN INSIDER’S SIX-STEP PLAN TO FIX CONGRESS

By Mickey Edwards

IMAGE CREDIT: TOPOS GRAPHICS

ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED, American voters went to the polls in November 2010 to “take back” their country. Just as they had done in 2008. And 2006. And repeatedly for decades, whether it was Republicans or Democrats from whom they were taking the country back. No matter who was put in charge, things didn’t get better. They won’t this time, either; spending levels may go down, taxes may go up, budgets will change, but American government will go on the way it has, not as a collective enterprise but as a battle between warring tribes.

If we are truly a democracy—if voters get to size up candidates for a public office and choose the one they want—why don’t the elections seem to change anything? Because we elect our leaders, and they then govern, in a system that makes cooperation almost impossible and incivility nearly inevitable, a system in which the campaign season never ends and the struggle for party advantage trumps all other considerations. When Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House, the leader of the lawmaking branch of government, she said her priority was to … elect more Democrats. After Republican victories in 2010, the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said his goal was to … prevent the Democratic president’s reelection. With the country at war and the economy in recession, our government leaders’ first thoughts have been of party advantage.

This is not an accident. Ours is a system focused not on collective problem-solving but on a struggle for power between two private organizations. Party activists control access to the ballot through closed party primaries and conventions; partisan leaders design congressional districts. Once elected to Congress, our representatives are divided into warring camps. Partisans decide what bills to take up, what witnesses to hear, what amendments to allow.

Many Americans assume that’s just how democracy works, that this is how it’s always been, that it’s the system the Founders created. But what we have today is a far cry from what the Founders intended. George Washington and James Madison both warned of the dangers posed by political parties. Defenders of the party system argue that parties—including Madison’s own—arose almost immediately after the nation was founded. But those were not parties in the modern sense: they were factions uniting on a few major issues, not marching in lockstep on every issue, large and small. And while some defend the party system as a necessary provider of cues to voters who otherwise might not know how to vote, the Internet and mass media now make it possible for voters to educate themselves about candidates for office.

What we have today is not a legacy of 1789 but an outdated relic of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when Progressives pushed for the adoption of primary elections. By 1916, all but a handful of states had instituted the “direct primary” system, under which a party candidate was selected by a public vote, rather than by party leaders in backroom deals. But the primaries, and the nominating conventions, were open only to party members. This reform was supposed to give citizens a bigger role in the election process. Instead, the influence of party leaders has been supplanted by that of a subset of party activists who are often highly ideological and largely uninterested in finding common ground. In Delaware in 2010, a mere 30,000 of that state’s nearly 1 million people kept Mike Castle, a popular congressman and former governor, off the general-election ballot. In Utah, 3,500 people meeting in a closed convention deprived the rest of the state’s 3 million residents of an opportunity to consider reelecting their longtime senator Robert Bennett. For most of the voters who go to the polls in November, the names on the ballot have been reduced to only those candidates the political parties will allow them to choose between. Americans demand a multiplicity of options in almost every other aspect of our lives. And yet we allow small bands of activists to limit our choices of people to represent us in making the nation’s laws.

I am not calling for a magical political “center”: many of the most important steps forward in our history have not come from the center at all, including women’s suffrage and the civil-rights movement, and even our founding rebellion against the British crown. Nor am I pleading for consensus: consensus is not possible in a diverse nation of 300 million people (compromise is the essential ingredient in legislative decision-making). And I’m not pushing for harmony: democracy depends on vigorous debate among competing views. The problem is not division but partisanship—advantage-seeking by private clubs whose central goal is to win political power. There are different ways to conduct elections and manage our government—and strengthen the democratic process. Here are some suggestions designed to turn our political system on its head, so that people, not parties, control our government.

Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.

State and local governments have abdicated their responsibility to oversee America’s election process. Not only have they turned the job over to political parties, but they take money from taxpayers to pay for these party functions. Because activists who demand loyalty and see compromising as selling out dominate party primaries and conventions, candidates who seek their permission to be on the November ballot find themselves under great pressure to take hard-line positions. This tendency toward rigidity—and the party system that enables it—is at the root of today’s political dysfunction.

More and more, voters are opting out of that system. In some national surveys, nearly 40 percent of voters describe themselves as “independent.” In Massachusetts, where the Republican senator Scott Brown won the seat previously held by the Democrat Edward Kennedy, the largest numbers of voters are not Democrats or Republicans but “unenrolled.” In 2010, Californians voted to create an “open primary” system in which every candidate for a particular office, regardless of party, will appear on the same ballot, and every voter who wishes to participate, also regardless of party, will be able to choose among them. The top two will advance to the general election, even if they belong to the same party. Louisiana has long had a top-two, everybody-runs primary system, and Washington State adopted a similar one in 2004. Their voters have a much wider range of options—Republicans, Democrats, independents, third- or fourth-party candidates. If all candidates could get their messages out through free mailings or free television time, minor-party candidates would have a better chance of finishing in the top two in an open primary than on a general-election ballot that pits two major-party giants against each other and discourages supporters of other parties from voting for long-shot candidates.

Just the act of establishing an open primary would break the partisan and ideological chokehold on the general-election ballot and create a much truer system of democratic self-government. As a result, members of Congress would have greater freedom to base their legislative decisions on their constituents’ concerns and on their own independent evaluations of a proposal’s merits. They would beour representatives, not representatives of their political clubs.

Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.

In 1976, I became the first Republican elected to Congress in my Oklahoma district in 48 years. Nearly three-quarters of the voters were Democrats. Because I easily won my next two races, Democrats were pessimistic about their ability to recapture the seat, and they used their majorities in the state legislature to redraw the district’s borders. Instead of encompassing a single urban county (Oklahoma City, in the center of the state), my new district stretched north to Kansas and east nearly to Arkansas, in a huge upside-down L. The goal was to put as many Republicans as possible in my district in order to make neighboring districts, from which those Republicans had been removed, safer for Democrats. My new district was much more rural, embracing five new counties filled with wheat farms and cattle ranches. Rather than being represented by a member of their own community, familiar with their concerns (which is why the Constitution requires that senators and representatives be inhabitants of the states that elect them), these voters were “represented” by a congressman unfamiliar with the agricultural issues on which their livelihoods depended. And the urban and diverse communities I had represented in Oklahoma City were now served by a congressman who simultaneously had to represent a very different constituency.

In the end, the strategy failed; the state became more conservative, and in addition to my own district remaining Republican, adjoining districts also began electing Republicans. And the attempt to lock in party advantage had sacrificed the important constitutional guarantee that a legislator serve as the voice of a community; community interests had been subordinated to the interests of a political party.

Things don’t have to be this way. Although legislative majorities continue to draw district lines in most states, 13 states (most recently, California) have established nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions, and two additional states have created merely “advisory” commissions. The systems vary—some use commissions to propose plans that legislatures must approve; others strip the legislature of all redistricting authority—but each of the 13 recognizes that the partisan drawing of congressional-district boundaries has hurt the democratic process, leaving elected officials dependent on, and beholden to, the party bosses who draw their districts.

Allow members of any party to offer amendments to any House bill and—with rare exceptions—put those amendments to a vote.

On the day I was sworn in as a member of Congress, all of us “newbies”—including Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Dan Quayle, David Stockman, and Jim Leach—were a single band. But moments after taking the oath of office, we were divided into rival teams: first came the vote to elect a new speaker, then to adopt House rules written by the majority, then to consider the membership of committees, with party ratios decided by the majority. From that moment on, during the 16 years I served in Congress, and every day since my last term ended, I have seen the United States Congress as it actually functions, not as a gathering of America’s chosen leaders to confront, together, the problems we face, but as competing armies—on the floor, in committees, in subcommittees—determined to dominate or destroy.

One need not deny the majority the chance to lead in agenda-shaping (electoral victory, whether by margins large or small, does matter), but before Jim Wright ascended to the speakership, in 1987, most debates, even under the decidedly partisan Tip O’Neill, allowed ample opportunity for dissent and amendment. In recent years, however, to be in the minority is essentially to be made a nonfactor in the legislative process. Leaders of both chambers have embraced the strategy of precluding minority amendments, out of fear that even members of the majority party might vote for them, because they believe either that it is the right thing to do or that it is what the people they represent prefer. Such “closed” rules, preventing members from offering amendments, simply tell citizens their preferences don’t matter.

Speaker John Boehner deserves credit for promising greater opportunities for the minority party to have its amendments considered. Under his speakership, the Republican-dominated House has actually accepted some Democratic amendments. The House now has fewer closed rules and more “modified open” rules (which permit at least some challenges to the leadership’s agenda). But whether the procedure will be open or closed on any particular matter remains at the discretion of the majority leadership, and in cases where the political commitment is particularly strong (for example, on the Republican challenge to health-care legislation passed during Democratic control), the promises of openness have been quickly abandoned. The House should adopt rules guaranteeing that any proposal receiving a significant level of support—say, 100 co-sponsors—would automatically be allowed a committee hearing, an up-or-down vote in committee, and then, even if it fails in committee, a vote on the House floor. Some majority members may abandon the team and vote with their constituents (or their own consciences), but isn’t that what we elect representatives for? And since the rules for House floor debate are determined not by parliamentary procedure but by a Rules Committee constituted anew for each session of Congress, equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats should sit on that committee (as opposed to the current practice of conferring a big advantage on the majority).

Change the leadership structure of congressional committees.

In our current system, in which a small majority may have all the power and a large minority none, the chair of a congressional committee or subcommittee (always a majority-party member) decides whether a proposal will be considered and whose views will be solicited. We should change congressional rules to provide for a chairman from the majority party and a vice chairman from the minority (no such position exists in today’s Congress, except on certain special non-legislating committees); the vice chairman need not ascend to the chairmanship in the chairman’s absence, but each would have the authority to bring a bill forward and to invite expert witnesses to offer testimony. The process might be slower, but consideration of alternatives would be more thorough.

Whichever party holds the majority will resist these changes. Party leaders see committee hearings not as a means to evaluate proposals, but as tools to advance predetermined agendas. The current committee process is transactional, not deliberative. But using committees to bypass true deliberation undercuts the very purpose of a people’s legislature.

Fill committee vacancies by lot.

When I served on the Republican committee that decided other members’ committee assignments, I watched as party leaders sometimes refused to grant a slot to a member who was seen as unlikely to “go along,” or too inclined to exercise independent judgment, or “too nice” to spearhead the combat that had come to characterize committee “deliberations.” I was reminded of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta H.M.S. Pinafore, in which Sir Joseph, a former member of Parliament who has been appointed Lord Admiral of the Queen’s Navy, recalls how he achieved such great success: “I always voted at my party’s call,” he sings, “and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”

The derivation of leadership in Congress from an internal version of the party primary or convention is an artificial construct. In every informal congressional subgroup—the Human Rights Caucus, the Rust Belt Caucus, the Flat Tax Caucus—leaders are chosen without regard to party affiliation. Imagine how different the congressional dynamic would be if that practice prevailed in committee assignments. If three seats became open on a committee and five members sought appointment, the House could fill the positions by lot, thereby appointing committee members who were not beholden to party leaders for their selection and therefore not fearful that crossing party lines would cost them their position. They would be freer to vote as they saw fit. After all, their constituents chose them not only for their policies but for their temperaments, knowledge, experience, and values. Eventually, entire committees would be formed without any party division at all—merely members of Congress drawn together to consider problems and potential solutions.

Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.

Congressional staff members, who provide the research that senators and representatives use in their deliberations, are chosen to reflect the preferences of the individual members they serve. On the other hand, committee staff members, who schedule the hearings, invite witnesses to testify, prepare background materials for committee members, and negotiate with staff members from other committees in the House and Senate, are generally selected by the committee chair and the senior member of the minority. In effect, they are party appointees. But if the goal is to legislate for the country, not for a party, then committee staff members should be selected by a nonpartisan House or Senate administrator and obligated to serve all members equally without regard to party agenda.

IF WE REALLY want change—change that will yield a Congress that is more representative and more functional, change that can be replicated in state and local governments—we need to rethink the party-driven structures we have so casually accepted for decades. This change would produce another important effect: it would strengthen Congress’s ability to discharge its constitutional role. The Constitution grants Congress most of the federal government’s real powers—to spend, tax, create federal programs, declare war, approve treaties, confirm federal court appointments. By thinking of the House and Senate in constitutional rather than partisan terms, we would eliminate party-driven links between Congress and the president and avoid the spectacle of legislative leaders acting as though they were either members of the president’s staff or his sworn enemies. The Constitution intended the legislative branch to be separate, independent, and equal; to be the people’s voice; and to exercise, when necessary, a check on the executive, an obligation rendered moot in the context of party-versus-party governance.

In a democracy that is open to intelligent and civil debate about competing ideas rather than programmed for automatic opposition to another party’s proposals, we might yet find ourselves able to manage the task of self-government. Our current political dysfunction is not inevitable; it results from deliberate decisions that have backfired and left us mired in the trenches of hyper-partisan warfare. Political parties will not disappear; as a free people, we will continue to honor freedom of association. The goal is not to destroy parties but to transcend them; to welcome their contributions but end their dominance; and to take back from these private clubs control of our own elections and our own Congress.


#4002 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:53 pm
Subject: Get Over It: This Is Who Obama Is
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/get-over-it-this-is-who-obama-is/242600/

Get Over It: This Is Who Obama Is

JUL 27 2011, 8:30 AM ET84

From his community organizing days to the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama has always put pragmatic deal-making above ideology, even when it angered allies

Obama chalkboard - Obama for America -
banner.jpg

As President Obama is pilloried by the left, including by bloggers and editorial writers, for supposedly selling them out during debt ceiling negotiations, a reality check is desperately needed.

Get over it, guys and gals, and remember whom you're fuming over: a deal-making community organizer.

Recognize this man? In a showdown with ideological enemies, he fashioned compromises which made some Democratic allies apoplectic. Republicans weren't happy, either, with what he wrought but grudgingly realized there were few alternatives.

Throughout he exhibited a preternatural calm, always seeking some common ground among disparate interests as if compromise was a goal in and of itself, not any diminution of principle as some Democrats thought.

Yes, that's our president, the man at the center of the improbable Debt Debate of 2011. But it was also State Senator Barack Obama a decade ago. The equally rancorous issue back then was the death penalty and the setting was the Illinois legislature. Not much about him has changed.

"His ideological inclinations are liberal but, as far as being a politician, he's about getting things done. He was always pragmatic and about getting things done," said Peter Baroni, a Republican attorney-law professor-lobbyist in Chicago who had a bird's eye view of Obama while serving as legal counsel to Republicans in the Illinois Senate and to its Judiciary Committee.

The death penalty was a big and tough matter in Illinois, especially amid mountainous evidence of men sitting on Death Row for crimes they did not commit. It was also a typical example of the Obama modus operandi during a period in which Illinois had at times the same sort of divided government he now faces on Capitol Hill.

Obama shepherded key proposed changes in the state's criminal law, including the sensitive matter of taping interrogations of homicide suspects, all the while having cozy late-night poker games with legislative buddies, including conservative Republicans. He wanted to pass a bill and, to do so, couldn't alienate too many Republicans and their law enforcement allies. Prosecutors and cops were dubious, if not downright opposed initially, to much of what he sought, notably the taping of interrogations to cut down on forced confessions and even alleged outright brutality by cops.

His ideological allies at the American Civil Liberties Union wanted the videotaping of all homicide interrogations of suspects and a blanket exclusionary rule. That meant that any evidence obtained from an interview that wasn't videotaped would be excluded. Prosecutors and cops said no.

After many dozens of meetings in which "the guy never broke a sweat," said Baroni, the end result was agreement to record interrogations, either by video or audio means. But the final deal had a litany of exceptions, including one allowing admission of a statement by a homicide suspect that wasn't recorded if it was voluntarily given. Those exceptions were the counterpart of today's proposed spending cuts driving some Democrats batty.

His M.O. was very much the same when it came to an important racial profiling bill he successfully steered, too. It required police to note the race of every driver they stop. They weren't happy but Obama got it through and, wouldn't you know, the percentage of African-Americans who are stopped has declined.

For sure, as now, he had a clear left-leaning ideology, at least in theory. But he was more committed to doing deals. Declaring his philosophical druthers did not deter him from taking what he could get, much in the fashion of the centrist Democratic impulses personified by Chicago political icons such as former longtime mayor Richard M. Daley and the late congressional power, former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, a legendary chairman of the Ways and Means 


#4003 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:09 pm
Subject: Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 

Outlines of Debt Compromise Emerge

An announcement could come as early as Sunday afternoon.

Updated: July 31, 2011 | 9:20 a.m. 
July 30, 2011 | 11:26 p.m.
ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, right, speaks as Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner looks on during a news conference on the debt ceiling negotiation July 30, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C

Here are the outlines of a debt-ceiling deal that congressional leaders and the Obama White House are firming up in preparation for a possible announcement as early as Sunday afternoon. 

In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid, D-Nev. Obama rejected that deal, forcing Congress to wrestle with other inferior legislative options throughout the week.

Among the newest wrinkles, according to informed sources, is an agreement to extend the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling very briefly to give the legislative process time to work without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures.

President Obama has said he would only sign a short-term extension (days, not weeks) if it were linked to an extension of borrowing authority that lasts beyond the 2012 election. 

According to sources, the Senate would use the military construction appropriations bill, one currently available for action, as the vehicle for the short-term extension. This element of the arrangement, like everything else, is subject to modification. But those close to the negotiations expect Congress to slow things down without jeopardizing the nation's full faith and credit. A debt extension of days would achieve that goal. 

Other component parts of the tentative deal include: 

  • $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called "Super Committee."
  • The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
  • The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion in spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
  • If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
  • No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

#4004 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Tue Aug 9, 2011 1:43 pm
Subject: Why markets are melting
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/why-markets-melting-015300351.html

Why markets are melting

Welcome to the crash of 2011. With stunning speed, global markets have sold off to a degree not seen since the worst days of late 2008 and early 2009. In fact, only three times in the past 40 years have stocks sold this hard this quickly, with a 16 percent decline in theS&P 500 in a 10-day period surpassed only by drops in the Octobers of 1987 and 2008.

No one can say precisely when or why this will end. Its triggers we know: a flawed debt deal in the United States, renewed sclerosis inthe European Union about peripheral debt issues in Greece and Italy, a downgrade by Standard & Poor’s of U.S. sovereign debt (oh, the irony of S&P downgrading debt leading to a precipitous decline in the S&P index), and then a wave of global selling. No market has been immune; not one.

Since global markets bottomed in March 2009, there has been an uneasy calm, the capitalistic version of the “Phony War” period between the fall of Poland to Germany in September 1939 and the fall of France in May 1940. None of the reforms passed in the wake of the financial crisis create any breakers against synchronous global financial panic. Yes, there is less leverage and more capital in financial institutions, which is a vital difference between now and then and augurs against a repeat of what happened two years ago, but there are no circuit breakers that prevent the rolling flash-crash of the past week.

These moments create ripples of fear that build like tsunami waves until they crash with destructive force against the shoals of investor confidence, institutional balance sheets, and collective investing psyche. And more than ever, they race around the world unimpeded by national boundaries and uncontainable by central banks. This is a fact of our global system, the downside of the upside of ample liquidity and the ease of getting it from one place to another. And no matter how much we’ve said this over the past three years, when it happens, it is visceral, breathtaking, alarming, and in its own way awe-inspiring.

The trader in me spent considerable time in the past few days preserving what capital I could while trying to stay positioned for the inevitable snap back that will occur. But at times, I also watched in fascination as stock after stock sold off without any consideration of the intrinsic strength of the underlying businesses, even discounting for a possible global recession. Even though such a recession seems highly unlikely, stocks sold off well beyond whatever consequences such a global contraction might have. At moments, it was nothing so much as a screen-shot from The Matrix, with numbers flowing in endlessly alluring and mystical patterns replacing normal language and reframing the world.

But it’s imperative not to get utterly sucked into that alternate reality of high-frequency machines driving prices down everywhere, with a logic strictly of flow and numbers. The internal language and logic of the markets is related to what is going on in the real world, but right now only tangentially. Stocks aren’t selling because of the Washington debt deal or now even because of yields in Italy. They are selling because they are selling. Apple this week is not a company with 12 percent less business than last week; Caterpillar is not about to sell 30 percent fewer earthmovers in China or Brazil. China is not about to purchase 25 percent less iron ore.

That, however, is what the markets are saying about those companies, which is a sign that the markets actually aren’t saying anything about those companies, or about the U.S. debt burden or even problems in Europe. It is about the way that external triggers can set off market chain reactions that happen too quickly to react.  

The flip side, however, is that as quickly as the tide crested it can recede. Or rather, as quickly as things fell they can rise. That is why even short-sellers who bet against markets are anxious: few can afford to be on the wrong side when it hits bottom—and that in turn only adds to the frenzy of buying and selling.

The financial world can do great harm and much good, but it is one part of a global system. It is currently in panic and selling mode; the real risk is that at some undefined point, it generates a freeze in real-world activity. Absent a breakdown in the actual daily money market, which we saw in the fall of 2008 and into 2009, that is not looming. You’d be a fool to call a bottom here, but one of the only good clichés on Wall Street is that no one rings a bell at the bottom and then shouts, “Buy!”

The crash of 2011 is already a bad one by any historical standard, not Great Depression bad, not crash of October 1987 bad, and not the continual collapse of 2008–09 bad, but bad enough. In 1987, the market rebounded very quickly; in March 2009 it did as well. If we are October 1987, it’s time to buy; if it is December 2008, watch out. We will only know the answer to this in retrospect, but this feels more like a crash than a new trend, and like any flash fire, these burn quickly, intensely, and then they stop. You don’t want to be in these markets when this is happening, but you also don’t want to be out of these markets when they reverse.


#4005 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:09 am
Subject: Writer to BBC interviewer: ‘Stop accusing me of being a rioter’
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/writer-bbc-interviewer-show-respect-old-west-indian-203939047.html

Writer to BBC interviewer: ‘Stop accusing me of being a rioter’

(YouTube)

The British media has fielded plenty of criticism over its coverage of the U.K. riots--in part, for siding with police in their clashes with London youth, and for not telling the latter's side of the story.

"Wretched media coverage on London protests from BBC to Al Jazeera," a post on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed read. "Not a single protester interviewed. Absolutely pathetic."

On Tuesday, the BBC interviewed Darcus Howe, a 68-year-old West Indian writer, broadcaster and resident of one of the South London suburbs affected by the riots.

Howe was asked by a BBC host if he condoned the riots--and things turned ugly.

"What I am concerned about ... there is a man called Mark Duggan--he has parents, he has brothers, he has sisters," Howe said. "A few yards away from where he lives, a police officer blew his head off. Blew his face off!"

Fiona Armstrong, the BBC host, immediately cut Howe off.

"Mr. Howe, we have to wait for the official inquiry before we can say things like that," she said. "We are going to wait for the police report on it."

Armstrong then steered the discussion away from Duggan and to Howe's grandson, who he had mentioned earlier in the interview.

"They have been stopping and searching young blacks for no reason at all," Howe said. "I have a grandson, he is an angel. Police slapped him up against a wall, and searched him. I asked him the other day, having a sense that something seriously wrong is going on in this country, 'How many times have police searched you?' He said, 'Papa I can't count, there are so many times.'"

Armstrong cut him off again. "Mr. Howe, that may well have happened, and if you say it did, I'm not against you. But that is no excuse to go out rioting and causing the sort of damage we have been seeing over the last few days."

"Where were you in 1981 in Brixton?" Howe fired back, a reference to the bloody riots between Metropolitan Police and blacks in South London in April of that year. "I don't call it rioting--I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people. It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapham, it's happening in Liverpool, it's happening in Port-au-Spain, Trinidad, and that is the nature of the historical moment.""

Armstrong then tried to infer that Howe, himself, had a history of participating in riots.

"I have never taken part in a single riot," Howe snapped. "I've been part of demonstrations that have ended up in a conflict. Have some respect for an old West Indian Negro, and stop accusing me of being a rioter."

As the segment concluded, he added: "You sound like an idiot."


#4006 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:46 am
Subject: Riot psychology
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://mindhacks.com/2011/08/10/riot-psychology/

Riot psychology

In the coming weeks we can expect to see politicians and pundits lining up to give us their smash-and-grab clichés for the recent urban riots in the UK.

They’ll undoubtedly give a warm welcome to our old friends economic decay, disengaged youth and opportunistic crime, and those of a more psychological persuasion might name drop ‘deindividuation’ – the process where we supposedly lose self-awareness and responsibility in large crowds.

This belies the fact that crowd behaviour is a complex area that is surprisingly poorly researched.

But what we do know about is the interaction between large crowds and the police and you could do much worse than check out the work of psychologist Clifford Stott who researches how crowds react to policing and what triggers violence.

In his 2009 report on the scientific evidence behind ‘Crowd Psychology and Public Order Policing,’ commissioned by the UK constabulary, he summarises what we know about public disorder and how the authorities can best manage it (you can download it as a pdf).

He notes that the old ideas about the ‘mob mentality’, deindividuation and the loss of individual responsibility are still popular, but completelyunsupported by what we know about how crowds react.

People don’t become irrational and they do keep thinking for themselves, but that doesn’t mean that the influence of the crowd has no effect.

In terms of policing, one of the clearest effects to emerge from studies of riots and crowd control is that an indiscriminate kicking from riot police can massively increase the number of people in the crowd who become violent.

This is probably because the social identity of people in a group is fluid and changes according to the relationship with other groups.

For those into academic jargon, this is known as the Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd behaviour – a well-supported theory with an overly complicated name but which is surprisingly easy to understand.

Imagine you’ve just got on a bus. It’s full of people and you have to jam into an uncomfortable seat at the back. There are people going to work, some vacant students heading home after a night on the beers, some annoying teenagers playing dance music through their tinny mobile phone speakers and some old folks heading off to buy their groceries.

You’re late and you missed your train. You feel nothing in common with anyone on the bus and, to be honest, those teenagers are really pissing you off.

Suddenly, two of the windows smash and you realise that a group of people are attacking the bus and trying to steal bags through the broken windows.

Equally as quickly, you begin to feel like one of a group. A make-shift social identity is formed (‘the passengers’) and you all begin to work together to fend off the thieves and keep each other safe.

You didn’t lose your identity, you gained a new one in reaction to a threat.

The problem police face is that in most large threatening crowds only a minority of people are engaging in anti-social acts. Lots of people ‘go along for the ride’ but aren’t the hardcore that kick-off without provocation.

If the police wade in with batons indiscriminately, lots of these riot wannabes suddenly start to feel like they’re part of the bigger group and feel justified in ripping the place apart, mostly to throw at the coppers.

Suddenly, it’s ‘them’ against ‘us’ and a small policing problem just got much much bigger – like attacking a beehive because you just got stung.

The trick for the police is to make sure they’re perceived as a legitimate force. When they have to charge in, they’re doing so for a reason – to target specific criminals. The ‘them and us’ feeling doesn’t kick in because most individuals don’t feel that the police are targeting them. It’s the other idiots the police are after.

And herein lies the problem. The psychology of crowd control is largely based on the policing of demonstrations and sports events where the majority of people will give the police the benefit of the doubt and assume their status as a legitimate force.

Clifford Stott’s report has lots of advice for forces who want to establish and maintain this impression. The cops should start out in standard uniforms, should be scattered around the crowd and should make an effort to interact. If trouble looks like it’s brewing, non-violent folks should be allowed to leave and the police ‘have a word’ with the specific people involved. Force is only ramped up in proportion to the threat.

I’m no expert and I’ve been watching the UK riots from 5,000 miles away from the safety of Colombia (a sentence I never thought I’d write) but it strikes me that most of the rioters probably never thought of the police as a legitimate force to begin with.

This goes beyond establishing police legitimacy on the day and means many of the standard assumptions of behind crowd control probably don’t work as well.

But the fact that thousands of young people across the country don’t have faith in police is a much deeper social problem that can’t be solved through street tactics.

I have no easy answers and I suspect they don’t exist. Politicians, start your clichés.


#4007 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: FACT CHECK: Republican debate strains some facts
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-republican-debate-strains-facts-030442355.html

FACT CHECK: Republican debate strains some facts


WASHINGTON (AP) — Michele Bachmann cast her opinion as a settled fact when she told the Republican presidential debate Thursday that a key element of President Barack Obama's health care law is unconstitutional. And Mitt Romney danced around an attempt to learn why he stayed largely mum on the epic debt limit standoff between Obama and Congress.

The first big GOP debate of the primary season brought viewers a flurry of claims and counterclaims, not all built on solid ground.

A look at some of those claims and how they compare with the facts:

BACHMANN: Spoke of "the unconstitutional individual mandate" several times, a reference to a requirement for people to carry health insurance, a central element of the 2010 federal health care law.

THE FACTS: Nothing is unconstitutional until courts declare it to be so. The constitutionality of the individual mandate has been challenged in lawsuits in a number of states, and federal judges have found in favor and against. The Supreme Court will probably have the final word. But for now, the individual mandate is ahead in the count. And the first ruling by a federal appeals court on the issue, by the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in June, upheld the individual mandate.

___

TIM PAWLENTY: "To correct you, I have not questioned Congresswoman Bachmann's headaches."

THE FACTS: Pawlenty was hardly dismissive when news came out about Bachmann's history of severe headaches, even if he did not go after her directly on the matter. "All of the candidates, I think, are going to have to be able to demonstrate they can do all of the job all of the time," the former governor said when first asked about the migraines suffered by the congresswoman. "There's no real time off in that job."

There was no mistaking that Pawlenty was leaving open the question of whether Bachmann's health history made her fit to serve as president. But he later tried to clarify his remark, saying he was not challenging her on that front and the flap was merely a "sideshow." Bachmann says her symptoms are controlled with prescription medication and have not gotten in the way of her campaign or impaired her service in Congress.

___

ROMNEY: on the last-minute deal to avert a national debt default: "I'm not going to eat Barack Obama's dog food, all right? What he served up was not what I would have done if I'd had been president of the United States."

THE FACTS: Romney was defending himself against criticism that he took a pass when political leadership was most needed in the mighty struggle to negotiate an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. In fact, he was largely missing in the crux of the debate.

Romney consistently backed a Republican "cut, cap and balance" proposal that would have combined deep spending cuts with a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But that proposal had no chance of becoming law and settling the crisis, and leaders in both parties knew it. It was one of several initiatives brought forward by both Republicans and Democrats for show before both sides got down to the authentic bipartisan negotiations.

During that process, Romney did not lay out a prescription that was achievable in a time of divided government. Supporting the earlier GOP bill was a far cry from stating whether he would have signed or vetoed the final debt limit legislation, because rejecting it risked an unprecedented federal default with potentially disastrous consequences for the economy.

When he faced questions at his campaign stops, he said he wasn't privy to the behind-the-scene negotiations, and his campaign aides refused to elaborate on his thinking about the proposals in serious play.

___

RICK SANTORUM: "The problem is that we have spending that has exploded. The government's averaged 18 percent of GDP as the percentage of the overall economy. ... And we're now at almost 25 percent. Revenues are down about 2 or 3 percent. So if you look at where the problem is, the problem is in spending, not taxes."

THE FACTS: The former Pennsylvania senator might have been mixing statistics on federal spending with federal revenue. The White House budget office has estimated that federal spending this year will equal about 25 percent of the country's $15 trillion economy — the highest proportion since World War II. But federal spending has averaged nearly 22 percent since 1970. In fact, federal spending has not been as low as 18 percent since 1966. Since the 1970s, federal revenues have averaged nearly 19 percent of the U.S. economy. This year's revenues are expected to equal just over 14 percent of the economy, the lowest level since 1950.

___

BACHMANN to PAWLENTY: "You said the era of small government was over. That sounds an awful lot like Barack Obama if you ask me."

THE FACTS: Pawlenty did not declare the era of small government over. (Neither has Obama.) Bachmann's jab was drawn from a Minnesota newspaper interview in which Pawlenty referred to a New York Times column on the subject, as part of his argument that "there are certain circumstances where you've got to have government put up the guardrails or bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful." At the time, Pawlenty's office pushed for and received a clarification from the newspaper that he was relaying another writer's thoughts.

___

Associated Press writers Erica Werner and Alan Fram in Washington, Brian Bakst in St. Paul, Minn., and Philip Elliott in Ames, Iowa, contributed to this report.



#4008 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:13 pm
Subject: AP: Tim Pawlenty To Bow Out Of 2012 Race
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/14/139619261/ap-pawlenty-plans-to-bow-out-of-2012-race

AP: Pawlenty Plans To Bow Out Of 2012 Race


August 14, 2011

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is dropping out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination, the Associated Press reports.

Pawlenty told supporters on a conference call Sunday morning that he would announce on ABC's This Week that he was ending his campaign after a disappointing finish in the Iowa straw poll on Saturday.

NPR has not independently confirmed this report.

The poll was a test of organizational strength and popularity in the state whose caucuses lead off the GOP nomination fight.

Pawlenty had struggled to gain traction in Iowa, a state he had said he must win, after laying the groundwork for a campaign for nearly two years.

He's been eclipsed in polls in recent months by his Minnesota rival, Rep. Michele Bachmann. She won the straw poll on Saturday.



#4009 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:46 pm
Subject: Analysis:Recession could tip U.S. oil use into permanent decline
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-recession-could-tip-u-oil-permanent-decline-164942616.html

Analysis:Recession could tip U.S. oil use into permanent decline

NEW YORK (Reuters) - As a U.S. economic rebound stalls and threatens to spiral into recession, oil demand in the world's top consumer may be slipping into an irreversible decline.

Last year's fledgling recovery in U.S. oil usage -- when demand rose 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) -- made up for only a part of the 1 million bpd demand drop during a year of economic turmoil that began in August 2008.

Until recently, most analysts believed a healthier economy would push U.S. oil use higher this year and next, before tighter environmental regulations, increased use of biofuels, and tougher fuel-efficiency standards kick in later this decade to lower demand permanently.

Instead, a sour economy may turn last year's demand growth into a one-off. With U.S. manufacturing and service sectors slowing, a recent S&P downgrade on U.S. debt, and a series of stock market falls that have rattled consumer confidence, the odds are tilting toward short-term declines as well.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy lowered its forecast for U.S. oil demand from growth to decline in 2011. It also cut its forecasts for growth in global oil demand, as did the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the International Energy Agency.

"We see U.S. oil demand falling this year and, later, settling into steady declines after 2015," said Rick Mueller of Boston-based consultant Energy Security Analysis Inc.

"It's all about the transportation sector, and the trends point to lower oil use."

U.S. mandates require 36 billion gallons of renewables like ethanol be blended into motor fuel by 2022, up from 14 billion gallons this year. The Obama administration has also boosted fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, more than double current standards.

GLOBAL APPETITE FOR OIL

Limp demand in the United States and Western Europe won't fully offset growth in developing countries like China and India, whose appetite for crude nearly guarantees world demand will keep climbing.

Last year's U.S. growth accounted for less than one-fifth of the rise in global oil demand, which was up 2.3 million barrels per day. But with the U.S. still burning more than 19 million bpd -- twice that of No. 2 oil consumer China -- slower demand here could further hammer U.S. oil futures, which have already fallen by one-quarter since hitting $114 a barrel in April.

Until the recent slowdown, consensus forecasts saw U.S. oil demand up around 100,000 bpd this year as GDP grew about 2.5 percent, said Adam Sieminski of Deutsche Bank.

"If you take that GDP estimate to 1.5 percent instead, it could leave no growth in U.S. oil demand."

The latest government data shows U.S. oil demand, which looked buoyant earlier this year, slipped from year-ago levels in each of the last four months as pump prices climbed. Gasoline use in July was the lowest on record for the month, according to MasterCard data.

Less demand may wrongfoot oil market bulls like Goldman Sachs, which continues to call for oil prices to surpass 2011 highs next year, as demand expands faster than output.

"For a long time the premise has been that demand growth will outpace supply, but it might be the other way around," said Tim Evans of Citi Futures in New York.

LESS RADICAL THAN 2008

Barring an acute double-dip recession, few analysts expect U.S. demand to repeat the radical declines of 2008 or 2009. Last year, U.S. demand rose for only the first time since 2005 when it peaked at 20.8 million bpd, but had still fallen more than 8 percent since then.

"Demand is reaching a plateau, and is then likely to fall slowly," said Mueller.

Higher unemployment since 2007 has cut U.S. vehicle miles traveled by about 2 percent, said James Coan at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston. Americans without jobs drive about 55 percent less, Coan said.

Sunoco Inc, the Northeast's top independent oil refiner, has been particularly blunt about the long-term outlook for its main business.

"We do not have a bullish outlook on refining," Chief Executive Lynn Elsenhans told investors on an early August conference call.

The silver lining for consumers is that retail U.S. gasoline prices are expected to fall further from levels above $4 a gallon earlier this summer. Wholesale gasoline futures have already dropped 19 percent since late April highs, and the reductions should trickle down to consumers soon.

According to Peter Beutel of energy consultancy Cameron Hanover in Connecticut, if recently lower wholesale prices hold, they could amount to savings of $115 billion over a year for drivers.

But recent history shows that even sharply falling pump prices can't resuscitate U.S. demand during a downturn. Between mid-2008 and mid-2009, oil use dropped by a million barrels a day, even as gasoline prices cooled by 30 percent.

(Editing by David Gregorio and Matthew Robinson)



#4010 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:17 pm
Subject: What if Perry and Dewhurst Lose? Then What?
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
Personally, I think Dewhurst will be our next senator but Perry will not be our next president. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Perry running for governor in 2014 either.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/most-uncertain-business/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions



#4011 From: Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...>
Date: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:14 pm
Subject: Preparing for Post-Gadhafi Libya
gregcannon1
Send Email Send Email
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903639404576516713272856234.html
AUGUST 21, 2011, 5:26 P.M. ET

Preparing for Post-Gadhafi Libya

A power vacuum is not inevitable.

Moammar Gadhafi is surrounded in Tripoli. Over the weekend, rebel forces secured the town of Zawiyah, a strategically vital staging post 30 miles west of Tripoli, on the coastal road connecting the Libyan capital with Tunisia. Last Monday, the rebels took Garyan, which controls the highway leading south to Algeria. To the east lies Misrata, now also under the rebels' control, and beyond that Benghazi and eastern Libya, which have been free of Gadhafi since February. To Tripoli's north is the sea and an impenetrable maritime blockade.

By almost any measure, Gadhafi's days as "Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya" appear to be numbered. But with no exit strategy, regime diehards will see no choice but to keep on fighting, and rebel leaders privately admit that attempting a forceful takeover of Tripoli could prove disastrous. Fortunately, that is not their plan. Instead the rebels' strategy has been to encourage a collapse of the regime from within, or at least a popular uprising in Tripoli itself that will force Colonel Gadhafi from power. Various media outlets were reporting yesterday that this uprising has now begun.

Reuters

Libyan rebels celebrate a seemingly imminent victory.


Though some within the rebel ranks would like to see all vestiges of Gadhafi's regime swept aside, leaders of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi are more pragmatic and are already working to prevent a security vaccuum. Their blueprint for a post-Gadhafi Libya, which was leaked to the Times of London this month, shows that the council has quietly recruited some 800 regime security officials, who are ready to form the backbone of a new government-security apparatus once Gadhafi falls. Likewise, the council plans to transfer some 5,000 policemen serving in units not ideologically committed to Gadhafi to the new government's forces. Many other regime figures, exhausted and frightened, aren't even seeking to hang on to power, but only want safety for themselves and their families.

So far the strategy seems to be working. On Friday former Libyan Prime Minister Abdessalam Jalloud, who helped bring Gadhafi to power, defected and fled to Italy. Also last week, Interior Minister Nassr al-Mabrouk Abdullah and long-time Gadhafi ally and Libyan army commander Massoud Abdelhafid both fled to Egypt. The week before, Wissam Miland, a captured colonel being held by rebels as a prisoner of war in Misrata, told Agence France-Presse that his former master is holding his embattled military together through mercenary-enforced martial law.

Facing seemingly imminent victory, the mood in the opposition camp is upbeat. The same cannot be said though for many of the Western players in this desert struggle. Last week the Times of London quoted an anonymous Benghazi-based diplomat warning that "catastrophic success" is "the phrase now being generally used in NATO. . . . And even if it's not catastrophic it will be chaotic success because the opposition is not ready to govern and there will be a vacuum if Gadhafi goes."

This dismal prognosis is premature. A post-Gadhafi Libya can certainly succeed, and there is every reason to believe that what comes after Gadhafi will be a marked improvement over what existed during his 42 years in power. If the rebels abide by their plan to work with former regime figures and incorporate non-criminal elements of the existing security architecture into any post-Gadhafi settlement, a power vacuum is not inevitable. Likewise, the international community must heed the lessons so painfully learned in Iraq and Afghanistan and be comprehensive in delivering the assistance necessary to develop and consolidate the transitional government's capabilities.

Like any other people, Libyans aspire to live under a representative government, one that respects their basic rights and serves them instead of the other way around. They will soon have the chance to turn that aspiration into a reality. It's time to get ready.

Mr. Grant is director for Global Security at the Henry Jackson Society and author of "Towards a Post-Gaddafi Libya," a briefing on the conflict and potential outcomes published in April.


Messages 3981 - 4011 of 4268   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help