« How Many Dead? (Don't Ask Our Media!!!) | Open Thread Main | 4th of July Weekend Wisdom - (if you don't send these to at least eight people, who cares?) Open Thread Version »
On Bloggers & "Real" Journalists...Open Thread Version
Recently I attended the regional blogger conference sponsored by Northwest Progressive Institute. One of the most provocative topics was the relationship between "real" journalists and bloggers. The more prolific bloggers who cover local stories, particularly of a political nature, discussed the relative warmth ranging to animosity of their interactions with the local press. There were instances in which the blogger was the one who got the news scoop, the exclusive interview.
When I was at the first YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas in 2006, the reporters of the "mainstream media" showed up in droves for the bigger-name speakers such as Harold Reid and Howard Dean. I asked one of them whether he was going to stay for some of the panels, which were substantive. He snorted, "I have a deadline." By the second convention, in Chicago last summer, I expected the press to behave in this manner and focussed instead on photographing the bloggers, who seemed comfortable and adaptable. Change is happening fast as newspaper readership is down, on-line participation is up, and most newspapers now have their own blogs, popular comments sections and reporters with their own blogs. Campaigns have blogs with a bigger role for each successive election, funds are raised on the internet and YouTube is a player as well.
In three weeks, Net Roots Nation will meet in Austin and the month after that, the DNC convention in Denver will include a Big Tent for all types and levels of professional and citizen journalists. Ironically, they will cover the candidate who is comfortable with a computer who is running against a candidate who is computer illiterate. At issue will be who is most qualified to help draw the line between the civil liberty and free speech vs surveillance and security in the age of information.
Roy Greenslade wrote about the relationship between bloggers and journalists, in a Guardian-UK blog article which is excerpted below.
WHY JOURNALISTS MUST LEARN THE VALUES OF THE BLOGGING REVOLUTION
The debate over blogging's usefulness to journalism tends to get stuck in a cul de sac, mainly because too few people - well, too few journalists - treat it seriously. At conferences I've attended recently, speakers have referred to blogging as little more than a sad ego trip. It is not regarded as having any real public service value. I'll scream if I hear yet again that the blogosphere is a form of anarchy, a cacophony of self-centred and mischievous voices who are either talking to each other or talking to no-one at all. I'm not denying that aspect, though I don't see why people sitting at computer terminals day after day and downloading their thoughts should threaten civilisation as we know it.
What is also clear, most obviously in peer to peer blogging, is that people are engaged with each other as never before. Without any institutional or corporate coaxing, people are forming cyber communities in which they converse endlessly about their interests. I say this as a preliminary to explaining why journalists, especially print veterans like me, are so suspicious of bloggers. We have spent our lives dominating conversations. No, that's wrong of course. We did not converse at all. We lectured. We provided the information that people feasted on in order to hold their own conversations.
DEPOSING THE SECULAR PRIESTS
But, the odd "letter to the editor" aside, we were largely unaware of the content of those conversations. We moved on. We were the secular priests who decided what information to give the great unwashed and even told them how they should react to that information, what to think and what to do. Public service performed. Job done. How clever were were. How privileged. In that old paradigm - to which many editors and journalists still cling - news was one-way traffic. We conceived it. We gathered it. We published it and broadcast it. It was justification enough that people bought our newspapers or tuned in to our radio and TV channels.
Blogging turns that model on its head. It allows people to question the information we provide. It allows them to produce their own information. It offers them a space to air their own views. The congregation is no longer in awe of the priests. Our supremacy is crumbling. Rightly, journalists point out that there is no perfect example of journalists and bloggers working in harmony. That's because journalism is undergoing a more profound change than traditionalists can bear to imagine. I've been as guilty of this reactionary thinking too.
I have tended to predict that future news organisations will consist of a small hub of "professional journalists" at the centre with bloggers (aka amateur journalists/citizen journalists) on the periphery. In other words, us pros will still run the show. I'm altogether less certain about that model now. First, I wonder whether us pros are as valuable as we think. Second, and more fundamentally, I wonder whether a "news organisation" is as perfect a model as we might think. The growth of media in the last century or so has been dominated by the growth of big media, which really means the growth of big media people, whether they be individual entrepreneurs or corporate chiefs. It is entirely conceivable that the digital revolution may, in the fullness of time, sweep the media mogul aside.
UNDERSTANDING THE IDEALISTS
Though I long ago rejected Marxist orthodoxy, I retain an affection for, and understanding of, the idealism of those who originally espoused revolutions. In most cases the majority were enthused to overturn the established order because they genuinely believed in democracy (and were then let down, of course, by a new form of totalitarianism). But the joy of the digital revolution is that it is bloodless, and democracy is at its heart. However, as with political revolutions, the establishment views it as anarchy and therefore dangerous. In fact, as everyone should surely know, democracy is rather messy. It is often chaotic. It is often illogical. It does not obey rules.
I think journalists are failing to grasp that truth. Blogging, though democratic in spirit, does threaten the established order of journalism. I was inspired to write this after reading a blog posting by Adam Tinworth (courtesy of a tip from Kristine Lowe. Many thanks). Tinworth writes: "Most media people don't realise that blogging is a community strategy. They think of it as a publishing process... They certainly don't think of it as a conversation." Here are some more highlights:
Blogging is all about personal voices interacting with one another, not about personal voices lecturing. And that's something that the media usually misses...
It's all too easy for people from a traditional media background to see community as a place - something off to the side where the readers go, while the journalists sit over here in the real part of the site. They are content-focused, not people-focused. After all, that's what the job's been all about for the last century or so. Sure, they may occasionally deign to join in a few threads. Or include a letters page in the print title. But, usually, it's very much "them and us".
When we journalists talk about integration we generally mean, integrating print and online activities. But the true integration comes online itself. The integration between journalists and citizens. Of course, there should be no distinction between them. But journalists still wish to see themselves as a class apart. We have to open ourselves up to a new thought process. There is no us and them. I had a sudden thought to end this posting with a Marxist-style call to arms: "Bloggers of the world unite". But it is the lack of unity that makes blogging so vibrant, so critical and also so self-critical. And, of course, so revolutionary.
Excellent piece on blogging and journalism!
I think places like TPM take blogging to a higher level, that's for sure!
Though I've noticed that HuffPo tends to be more national enquirer style and allow their own "named" bloggers there to perpetuate lies.
In the meantime, the cyberspace (at KOS) is talking about Clark's comment on McCain's POW status not necessarily making him executive qualified.
And the FISA is still a story. We're still fighting to make sure they don't put telecom immunity into the new FISA bill. Remember once you allow more powers it's incredibly hard to take them away again!
I don't know where everyone is...but hope everyone is safe and healthy!
It has come to this:
"Rumors are a staple of politics, but Mr. Obama seems to face an unusual problem tamping them down. An article in The Washington Post on Monday summed up the entirely false rumors being widely circulated in small-town America this way: that “Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01campaign.html?hp
KERRY RESPONDS TO MCCAIN SURROGATE STATEMENT THAT SWIFT BOAT ATTACKS WERE THE 'TRUTH'
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. John Kerry today released the follow statement in response to John McCain surrogate Colonel Bud Day's comment that "the Swift Boat 'attacks' were simply revelation of the truth" today on a conference call with reporters:
"Colonel Day's comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign's disregard for a new kind of politics. John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day's comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam."
~~~~
Of course that's in response to this:
What Clark said: "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn't a wartime squadron."
Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.
Obama responded through spokesperson Bill Burton: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark." ( Thank you, Senator Obama)
Kerry's k*ck-A** response to McCain HIRING Bud Day.
Must SEE!
OMG...I am disgusted by McCain! If I hadn't been disgusted already...
Part of the statement there...
Right On, General Clark. Do Not Back Down.
Boy, talk about your echo chamber in the media. Yesterday, General Wesley Clark went on CBS' Face the Nation, and repeated something he's said many times before. If you missed it, here's the full quote in context :
http://securingamerica.com/node/2993
=======
Why?
This wasn't a swift boating, or any low politics. General Clark called McCain a hero to millions for his sacrifice. And, that's a pretty big statement coming from a man who, himself, left Vietnam on a stretcher. But, facts are facts:
• Senator McCain's service and experience, both as a POW and as a Senator apparently hasn't infused him with a dose of good judgment.
• Senator McCain's experience hasn't led him to realize that the war in Iraq and it's continuance has empowered and emboldened Iran, and destabilized the region.
• Senator McCain's experience hasn't caused him to recognize that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is still out there, plotting.
• Senator McCain's experience didn't lead him to support the 21st Century GI Bill -- he opposed it. It didn't even make him feel the need to get back to Washington to vote on this -- one of the most important veterans' bills this Congress. He twice skipped votes on the GI Bill, to fundraise.
• Senator McCain's experience didn't help him empathize with troops are overstretched and overdeployed, when he voted against the bipartisan Webb-Hagel "Dwell Time Amendment," which would have given troops as much time at home as in the field.
Senator McCain is running on his experience, saying it makes him ready to lead right away. By doing so, he is asking people to look at what that experience taught him. By looking at Senator McCain's positions and votes (or lack of them), it seems that experience has not given him the right judgment on important issues of our time. And, while we should all honor Senator McCain's service, that doesn't mean we should necessarily honor it by putting him in the White House to take up George W. Bush's third term.
So, General Clark is 100 percent absolutely right, and he should not back down. I'd hope that some of the so-called progressives on television back him up on this, and not get intimidated by the media and McCain campaign press releases. These are important times, and deserve a blunt and honest debate.
In some circles, that's just called 'straight talk.'
UPDATE: Since a lot of you are sending words of support on here for General Clark, we started a petition http://ga3.org/campaign/petitionclark where you can sign to thank him, and tell him to keep it up. We will take the petition to General Clark, personally. Also, it's important to sign, so we can show the media that we've got his back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/right-on-general-clark-do_b_109977.html
Here McCain jokes about how unqualified he is
and he's even more unfunny than Bush.
Just wanted to say thanks for everyone who commented on my blog header a while back. Sorry...didn't realize it had been posted!
I'm curious what folks are thinking about that provocative statement made a few days ago that if Iran doesn't surrender by November, the administration is going to attack them. Sounded pretty straightforward to me, but the media and the blogosphere have been strangely silent.
It all looks too simple to me, the mildewing cardboard cutout war hero against this transformational campaign sweeping the nation...Just because the Rep Congressional Campaign folks are conceding defeat doesn't mean this administration is just going to roll over and cede power.
V--you're talking about the Hersh thing, right?
I've heard lots on it, but then only a few media followed it. (Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz of course but I believe they had it on one of Sunday's shows too. I don't have a link for you.)
As far as your thread, I posted it as soon as you re-sent it to me without the attachment which my computer wouldn't open. I thought that is what we had arranged. I'm sorry for not notifying you again.
Rockets’ red glare to dim this Fourth of July
Dry conditions, booming costs lead many cities to drop or ban fireworks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25400394/
Boom Boom... out go the lights.
Obama Vows To Expand Bush's Faith-Based Programs
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.
"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."
Obama also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.
UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
The Politico, meanwhile, describes Obama's new plan not as an expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, but as an effort to tear down what Bush created and establish a new program with a new set of goals:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slammed President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo-op" and a failure on Tuesday, and said he will scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration.
Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush's faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives - which Bush founded during his second week in office - "never fulfilled its promise." [...]
Reaching out to evangelicals who are non-plussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership - not a photo-op. That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."
"The new name will reflect a new commitment," he continued. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obama-plans-to-expand-bus_n_110140.html
Obama's Sister Becomes Asian-American Surrogate
SAN FRANCISCO — The throng of Asian-American donors drew closer, drinks in hand, to hear Barack Obama's sister describe the wide arc of his life: beyond politics and Chicago, into his childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii.
To many in this crowd Obama's Asian-American half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, represents yet another aspect of Obama's identity that makes him unique as a presidential candidate, although it has been underplayed amid the excitement surrounding his shot at becoming the first black president.
"It would be the first time that the first family is comprised in part of Asian-Americans _ as well as African-Americans, of course," said Keith Kamisugi, a coordinator with Asian-Americans for Obama. In early June he organized a fundraiser along with two other Obama events focusing on Asian-American voters in San Francisco.
Discussion of those ties has taken a back seat to the Obama campaign's efforts to win the Hispanic vote and his ability to rouse young and black voters. In spite of the drawn-out primary season, many voters have heard little about Obama's years in Jakarta _ he lived there between 1967 and 1971, while his mother was married to Soetoro-Ng's father, an Indonesian businessman _ or about his years in Hawaii, where Asian-Americans are a majority.
Soetoro-Ng and Obama have different fathers and the same mother. Her father is Indonesian, his is Kenyan. Her husband is Chinese-Canadian.
Initially, as the campaign focused on fighting out the primaries, state by state, "the idea was to downplay to some degree race and ethnicity," said Soetoro-Ng in an interview with The Associated Press. "A lot of the emphasis had been on reaching out, making connections, closing the gaps."
That theme resonated among Obama supporters of all backgrounds, said Soetoro-Ng, who is nine years younger than Obama and considers him "the strong male force" in her life after her parents' divorce.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obamas-sister-his-surroga_n_110171.html
Bush Wrongly Credits McCain For 'Working Hard' on GI BIll
Huffingtonpost.com — as Bush acknowledged the House and Senate members who came together to support the bill, he slipped in the name of one who labored to obstruct the bill -- Senator John McCain. McCain was given the same credit as those who had steered the passage of the bill from day one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/bush-wrongly-credits-mcca_n_110024.html
Three People Didn’t Vote On The G.I. Bill
Published May 22, 2008 in Military and Republicans.
Here is the roll call.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137#position
Ted Kennedy - who just got out of the hospital
Tom Coburn
John McCain
3/4 of the Senate voted for the bill. All the votes against the bill were Republicans.
Barack Obama: Speech on Patriotism
Today's Times post:
What this country cries out for at this point in time is a tidal wave of intellectual honesty. IMHO, there’s not a lot of that to be witnessed on either side of the political divide. And what Obama said is consistent with any intellectually honest inquiry into the conditions that led to the creation of The Bill of Rights. The Framers clearly intended that individual gun ownership was to be protected. Admitting that is not the same thing, however, as supporting reckless carry privileges for firearms, or nutty “self-defense” provisions, as those written into law in Florida.
Liberals need to get smarter when it comes to taking on the gun lobby. We should make it as difficult to legally own a gun as it is to drive an automobile. If we want an outright ban on individual gun ownership, we’re going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And we have as much chance of that as Dubya has of leaving office with a favorable approval rating.
Michael Moore asked an extraordinary question in his film, “Bowling for Columbine” that this nation has yet to collective come to grips with. That question was this: why is that there are more guns per capita in Canada than in the United States, and yet dramatically more deaths from gun violence on our side of the border? Why is our culture so pervasively violent - with even the allegedly most God-fearing among us not only armed to the teeth, but in the grip of recurrent fantasies of the Apocalypse? And what are we willing to do about it?
IMHO, this entire culture needs to enter into a kind of collective psycho-therapy. We’re nuts, we have the biggest, baddest weapons on the planet - and some of us are much too eager to use them.
That post was in response to this blog item:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/guns-and-democrats/index.html
God fearing people arm themselves for the same reason everyone else does.
Because they are afraid.
When you are scared, as we are constantly made to be... It makes you feel better to put an equalizer into your hands.
Fear works, and fear sells. If you want to break the gun culture in this country, first you have to break the fear.
People who are not afraid of their nieghbor do not arm themselves 'just in case'.
The Canadians have a less violent culture, because they are unafraid. They do not see themselves as 'potential victims' in every scenario. They get robbed, they pursue justice, they get piece of mind. Because they are unafraid, they are also much friendlier.
You can't take guns away without starting a civil war. All you can do is make people want guns less.
It is possible. But as long as everyone is afraid, it will never happen.
Christy
Excellent point - but the Repukes have used the fear factor so well, it will take GENERATIONS to undo it.
I learned it the hard way in Indianapolis two months ago. The "angry white men" demographic (which is ALIVE AND WELL, btw) is afraid of ANYTHING and ANYONE - including Oprah Winfrey.
Also, what scares me about the John Toyota Roberts Supreme Court reaffirming gun rights is that people can be branded "mentally incompetent" just by virtue of their political opposition to the Repukes, and have their gun rights taken away as a result.
Trust me, it's happening all the time.
I am never buying overpriced Toyota slave labor pieces of junk.
I have to admit, I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have a big problem with assault rifles being allowed. There's no reason for that. (Remember that ban expired in 2004.)
HelpDarcy.com is the site launched by NW Progressive Institute, Seattle, to help the family recover from the fire. Please publicize widely.
http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com
Her opponent has had both George & Laura Bush come out & do fund raisers.
I don't think anyone actually has 'a problem' with the Second Amendment. The problem is how badly it has been misconstrued.
Most people screaming about their 'second amendment rights' usually can not tell you exactly what it actually says. All they know is by screaming 'Second Amendment!' it somehow gives you a magical right to own as many guns as you want, any kind of gun you want.
The Second Amendment clearly only gives us the right to bear arms as part of 'well regulated colonial militias'.
And, even that is outdated since we no longer have colonial militias.
But, again, you can not rationalize with someone who has a gun in their hand. As a matter of a fact, the gun in their hand shows they are already beyond the point of rationality. They are already afraid.
I do not actually think it would take generations to change our attitudes about guns. All it will take is one generation who will truly refuse to be afraid of people with guns.
That one generation will change everything.
I have a fun game I play with people who love guns.
Ask them to clearly recite the Second Amendment in full. If they can not, recite it for them.
Then seriously look around the room. Then ask them where the rest of their 'well regulated colonial militia' is....
It is hillarious to watch them realize that you are not kidding.
Obamas people just made a serious mistake. Greenwald is not someone they should make a mistake this dumb with...
Obama adviser Greg Craig: adding insult to injury
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Christy,
My portrait of Obama you painted came this morning, the mailman delivered it to my door in perfect condition.
Thank you SO MUCH!!!!
You are quite an artist, and seeing the actual canvas does show alot of the details and shading and contouring you did better than it shows in the picture you have up on your blog.
Although it is beautiful on your blog, too.
You know what means the most to me about it?
(And it means ALOT.)
It's that with every brush stroke, every time you put your brush to canvas, you left a bit of you there. When I look at it I will have a bit of you there too. Thank you again.
Christy
The John Toyota Roberts Supreme Court did interpret the Second Amendment just last week, as the inherent right of Americans to own guns, with no questions asked, unless a felon or a mental patient.
And these days, anyone who doubts W and the Repukes is considered mentally ill - I am NOT kidding.
Sorry Ally, but I do not consider this a legit SCOTUS and therefore they can take their interpretation and kiss my arse. I saw the ruling, it figures.
When the SCOTUS acts like a court of Justice again and not just a way to legitamize the corporate enslavement of our people, then I will maybe respect their rulings again. Until then though, none of their rulings can be trusted to reflect the true nature of the US Constitution.
They only get away with these rulings because literally 99.6% of the US population has never read and does not understand the Constitution.
TSP,
I am really glad you like it. My little ambassador to your state! It really is a thrill for me to see them go so far. I may never leave a 20 mile radius, but, something I really do love goes in my place.
You are right, each brushstroke does leave a piece of me, a thought of mine, on the canvas. I can feel it when I paint it, and even after they are gone, they are still there, in my mind. I can see the colors. It really is like a candle burning that I can see from far away.
And Sparrow, I promise, I am still working out the Tuscan thing in my mind. You have inspired me now. It may take a while for me to sort it out, but your original ideas are still in play.
So unbelievable, you have to go look for yourself...
Fox News distorts photos of New York Times reporters
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/fox-news-distorts-photos-of-new-york-times-reporters/
Wow. That is totally disturbing. On so many levels.
Kos...on sock puppets--The Hill
Finally, some straight talk from the mainstream media:
"The national unemployment rate climbed a full percentage point over the last year to 5.5 percent in May, according to the Labor Department. That does not include people who are jobless and have given up looking for work, or people who have been bumped to part-time jobs from full-time. Add in those people and the so-called underemployment rate rises to 9.7 percent, up from 8.3 percent in May 2007, according to the Labor Department."
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02jobs.html?ref=business
Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal
State Dept Officials Knew Of Iraq Oil Deal WIth Company Tied To Bush
Deal Infuriated Iraqis, Ran Counter To Policy
By JAMES GLANZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: July 3, 2008
Bush administration officials knew that a Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush was planning to sign an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central government, a Congressional committee has concluded.The conclusions were based on e-mail messages and other documents that the committee released Wednesday.
United States policy is to warn companies that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law and to strengthen Iraq’s central government. The Kurdistan deal, by ceding responsibility for writing contracts directly to a regional government, infuriated Iraqi officials. But State Department officials did nothing to discourage the deal and in some cases appeared to welcome it, the documents show.
The company, Hunt Oil of Dallas, signed the deal with Kurdistan’s semiautonomous government last September. Its chief executive, Ray L. Hunt, a close political ally of President Bush, briefed an advisory board to Mr. Bush on his contacts with Kurdish officials before the deal was signed.
In an e-mail message released by the Congressional committee, a State Department official in Washington, briefed by a colleague about the impending deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government, wrote: “Many thanks for the heads up; getting an American company to sign a deal with the K.R.G. will make big news back here. Please keep us posted.”
The release of the documents comes as the administration is defending help that United States officials provided in drawing up a separate set of no-bid contracts, still pending, between Iraq’s Oil Ministry in Baghdad and five major Western oil companies to provide services at other Iraqi oil fields.
In the no-bid contracts, the administration said it had provided what it called purely technical help writing the contracts. The United States played no role in choosing the companies, the administration has said.
Disclosure of those contracts has provided substantial fuel to critics of the Iraq war, both in the United States and abroad, who contend that the enormous Iraqi oil reserves were a motivation for the American-led invasion — an assertion the administration has repeatedly denied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Christy,
Yes, I have him in my dining room right now so I can look at him while I am on the internet. I am going to look for a frame asap. Are we supposed to put glass in the frame? Something tells me no, but I don't want the heat and light to fade any of the colors.
I took it to work today, and the girls were realy impressed.
Sparrow, thank you for commissioning Christy to do that for me. When I look at it I see and feel both of you. Truly a very meaningful gift.
Christy,
Yes, I have him in my dining room right now so I can look at him while I am on the internet. I am going to look for a frame asap. Are we supposed to put glass in the frame? Something tells me no, but I don't want the heat and light to fade any of the colors.
After the election, he is going in my library/office downstairs. I have a computer down there too.
I took it to work today, and the girls were realy impressed.
Sparrow, thank you for commissioning Christy to do that for me. When I look at it I see and feel both of you.
Besides the flowers my kids picked and brought to me when they were little, and the pictures they drew me (and hung on our freshly painted wall with mentholatum because he couldn't find any tape...:-D), and other mommy gifts since they have grown, this is the very best gift I have ever been given.
Doggone it!!! I posted the first message, and an alert came up and said I couldn't post it because I had posted too many posts in a short amount of time. (That was the first one in hours.)
So....I went out, and came back in, and the first post was no where to be found. So I posted it again, and I'll be darned if it didn't post both of them.
B.T.W., I don't know who our techies are for this site, but that same notice that said I had posted too many posts in too short a period has come up three times in the last week, and each time I hadn't been posting previously. Glitch?
O.K. all,
I have taken a few days off politics and may take a few more.
I have come to realize that probably no politician is perfect, or walks on water, or votes how I would vote on every single issue. The plain fact is that I don't for a minute trust the Republicans to take away our social security, and keep us in war until hell freezes over, and to keep taking dimes and pennies off every working citizen they can to add to their already over stuffed coffers.
I'm hassled doing extra work for my job, having one of my friends pass away last week, and preparing for a fourth of July BBQ here at my house. I DO get THREE days off this coming weekend though, so that will be very nice.
Letting things settle down a bit (in more ways than one) and then I'll be back.
Appreciate every single one of you.
YouTube ordered to hand over user details
By Andrew Ramadge, Technology Reporter
July 03, 2008 05:15pm
YOUTUBE has been ordered to give up records of each clip watched on the popular video-sharing website, along with the date, time and IP address of each person who watched it, to media giant Viacom.
In a ruling that could have major implications for online privacy around the world, US District Court judge Louis Stanton granted Viacom access to the records as part of its ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit against Google and its subsidiary YouTube.
Each time a video is played, YouTube's "Logging" database records the user ID and IP address of the viewer, the date and time of the request and the ID of the clip – and includes details of videos embedded on websites other than YouTube.
"While the Logging database is large, all of its contents can be copied onto a few 'over-the-shelf' four-terabyte hard drives," Judge Stanton said, in response to Google's claim that providing the data would be too difficult.
"The motion to compel production of all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website is granted."
Viacom sought access to the database in a bid to prove that clips allegedly infringing copyright, such as scenes from TV shows and movies, were more popular than user-generated videos.
Online rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation said the decision stood at odds with US privacy laws and was a "setback to privacy rights".
"The court’s order grants Viacom's request and erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users," said a statement on the group's website.
"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."
Judge Stanton denied Viacom's requests for access to other Google and YouTube properties, including the search engine's source code – including the algorithms it uses to provide search results.
Viacom began legal action against YouTube in February 2007, when it issued over 100,000 takedown notices to the website regarding material in beach of copyright.
In March 2007, the media giant instigated a $US1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube, alleging that the video-sharing website hosted over 150,000 unauthorised clips that had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.
Viacom's media empire includes Paramount Pictures, MTV, DreamWorks and Nickelodeon.
It is not known if Google will challenge the decision.
Links
Judge Stanton's ruling on Wired (PDF) – http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/viacom_yout…Electronic Frontier Foundation statement – http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23963774-5014108,00.html
State Dept Officials Knew Of Iraq Oil Deal WIth Company Tied To Bush
Deal Infuriated Iraqis, Ran Counter To Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
US Spying On Iraqi Army After Breakdowns In Trust
Satellites are allegedly being used to track the American-backed force after breakdowns in trust and coordination.
By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 2, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Caught off guard by recent Iraqi military operations, the United States is using spy satellites that ordinarily are trained on adversaries to monitor the movements of the American-backed Iraqi army, current and former U.S. officials say.
The stepped-up surveillance reflects breakdowns in trust and coordination between the two forces. Officials said it was part of an expanded intelligence effort launched after American commanders were surprised by the timing of the Iraqi army's violent push into Basra three months ago.
The use of the satellites puts the United States in the unusual position of employing some of its most sophisticated espionage technology to track an allied army that American forces helped create, continue to advise, and often fight alongside.
The satellites are "imaging military installations that the Iraqi army occupies," said a former U.S. military official, who said slides from the images had been used in recent closed briefings at U.S. facilities in the Middle East. "They're imaging training areas that the Iraqi army utilizes. They're imaging roads that Iraqi armored vehicles and large convoys transit."
Military officials and experts said the move showed concern by U.S. commanders about whether their Iraqi counterparts would follow U.S. guidance or keep their coalition partners fully informed.
"It suggests that we don't have complete confidence in their chain of command, or in their willingness to tell us what they're going to do because they may fear that we may try to get them not to do it," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a website about intelligence and military issues.
But the development was also seen as a sign the Iraqi army has reached a level of independence and competence that U.S. military planners had hoped it would achieve.
"The bad news is we're spying on Iraqis," said the former military official. "The good news is that we have to."
The former military official and several other sources described the operation on condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel2-2008jul02,0,5769615.story
Fox is evil.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
Just a heads up on the enlightened thinking being demonstrated in the Financial Services industry.
Temporary employees of a certain investment bank are being forced to take four weeks off without pay for every ten months they work, which amounts to a $2,400 negative rebate in after tax dollars, as an obscure, previously ignored (certainly during the boom years) SEC rule is enforced.
President Bush gave Americans a $300 tax rebate in the hope that this meager stimulus would spur the economy. But corporate America, and especially the same financial services industry that has gamed the system for too long (see Kevin Phillips' Bad Money) through pushing the sale of reckless sub-prime mortgages, and then highly leveraged securitized debt products, is now doing their part to set in motion a global economic catastrophe.
Shop till we drop? I don't think so...
Cyrano,
Drop and not shop is more like it.
I got my $4.15 jar of baby kosher dills yesterday, and felt guilty buying them. EVERY-
THING is around the $3.50 to $5.00 per item.
Walked out of the store after spending $80.00, and the rest was meat. Thought I would BBQ ribs for the fourth but they were all sold out so I got some rib eye steaks on sale. Each steak cost about $6.00, and I hope we enjoy them because it will be quite a while before I'll be eating steak again.
Cyrano,
I read that Citi-Bank or Citi-Corp is laying off ten thousand workers this month, because of the trouble they are in over their pushing of reckless sub-prime mortgages.
I know I've said it before, and I'm never redundant, but I'll say it again. When Citi-Corp was after me in 2000 and 2001 to get one of those "absolutely you will qualify, even if you go get a part time job" (I was drawing unemployment at the time because that summer before 9-11 we were in a recession for sure, and our business was dead for weeks.)
O.K., what I have said before, but am really thinking now that I read your last post, is that SOMEBODY is going to profit from all those reposessed homes. That's the first thing I thought when they were pushing me so hard to refinance my home through them. I thought at the time, well, if things are getting rough now, if the interest rates go up I could lose everything, and who would get the money after they repossessed my house? Citi-Corp? The Chinese behind these mortgage lenders?
My take on it was different than what they are making it out to be on the news today. They are portraying it that the shady loan institutions were "inadequate". (Remind you of anything or anyone? That's how Rove wants to portray Bush, too.) So they call them reckless and irresponsible and inadequate and inept. I
don't buy it. When people lose their homes to foreclosure they lose all their equity too.
IMO, it was another rape of the last of the people's security blanket, the only one most of them had left - their homes. So now Citi or the Chinese or whoever is doing it is crying how they are losing money, but don't think for one second they are not making money off the backs once again, of the average American worker. Alot of people have (many HAD)quite a bit of equity in their homes. In many cases it was the only security they had.
I can't think of one instance or occassion in our society they haven't tried to drain the last penny out of each one of us in any conceivable way they could think of.
Raped.
Oh, and P.S.
I did ALOT of research on Citi-Corp and Citi-group and got the low down and the dirt of their historical corrupt practices. I found it online a few months ago, then couldn't ever find the site it was on after that. Well, I was going through my files yesterday, and what do you know!!! I photocopied all the scoop and there are four packets of info dating back to their corruption in the Civil War.
If anybody wants a copy let me know. It's quite revealing.
Oh, and Christy, I know I told you the portrait came in perfect condition. I didn't tell you however, that the foil type wrapping paper didn't have one wrinkle or crease or hole in it. It looked like it was treated like a baby all the way across the country. Not even a mark on the foil.
TSP
Good to see you posting. I have taken the same position, that no candidate is perfect nor will I agree on every issue. This has happened to me time and time again, but it's a process of "weighing" what I think the future might be like overall & then deciding. When I see the ruthlessness of the general election, I have to even more pick and stick, and I do.
Obama is headed to ND and SD I see. Rove is worried about the following states: NC, GA, SC, IN, NE, MT, AL, ND and SD. That means they may be in play. Republicans are doing a big ad buy in MI, OH, PA and WI, which they absolutely need but we can't let them have.
Hispanics are breaking for Obama as much as 60-23% and have increased in CO, NM and NV in voter registration by 18% in 4 years, as compared with 7% for whites and 5% for whites. They have been called the "sleeping giant" and the immigration issue has energized them. Obama & McCain both have immigration positions offensive to the Republican hard core. McCain is in Colombia today courting free trade, hurting unions and putting people out of work (pro-Globalization, pro-corporate.)
Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and Kerry got 53%. Would love to see Obama get 75% and take the interior western states.
Republicans are also violating McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill by using the Governors PAC (Republican) to raise huge amounts - the RNC leads the DNC hugely. Obama may end the convention a day early to save money and get a bigger bounce but McCain will probably announce VP in the interim, to get publicity prior to the RNC convention which is held only 4 days later.
Military Times in Colorado is pretty supportive of Obama - usually military has a knee-jerk Republican response because more fighting means more military jobs. Means more deaths too though and it's no picnic.
Media is reporting a "statistical dead heat" but it's actually not true. Obama is ahead nationally outside the margin of error but needs a bigger lead yet. Media likes a "tie" because it sells soap, toilet paper etc.
Numberical info from DKos and TPM - sorry not linking but need to get back to work.
Enjoy the 4th everybody!!
Also, Hispanics have been moving from Clinton to Obama and so have women - the media does not report this fairly.
Since Republicans are getting such huge sums via the RNC, there must be a way for the Dems to generate money besides "small donor" too as Obama is having a dozen fundraisers (big ticket)in the next 2 weeks. He seems to be tapping some big Clinton donors who maxed out for primary but not general.
For McCain, the big donors are Pfizer (drug money) and some of the big banks & they are prior Swift Boat Vets for Truth funders such as Perry in Texas. Swift Boating will and is happening again.
Military Chief: US Doesn't Have Enough Troops To Send To Afghanistan
From The Washington Post:
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency, but that the Pentagon does not have sufficient forces to send because they are committed to the war in Iraq.
Watch the video:
Mullen: No Troop Increase In Afgh. Until Iraq Withdrawal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/military-chief-us-doesnt_n_110651.html
Dollar drops 41% during Bush term
Bush's Dollar Drop Maps Loss of U.S. Clout at Final G-8 Summit
By James G. Neuger
July 3 (Bloomberg) -- When President George W. Bush went to his first Group of Eight summit in 2001, a dominant issue was the dollar -- the strong dollar, that is. The U.S. currency was on a record-setting streak, and the free-marketeering president wasn't going to stand in the way.
On the eve of Bush's last G-8 appearance, the dollar's gyrations are again in the crossfire. This time, it is a weak currency, upended by slumping growth, a housing recession and record gas prices, that is gnawing away at the world economy.
The dollar's 41 percent drop against the euro during Bush's term writes the economic epitaph of an administration that set out to restore American preeminence. Instead, Bush heads to Japan next week for his final international summit with diminished leverage as Russian and Chinese influence grows.
``Between the economic duress facing the United States and the global community at large and the fact that the clock is running out on the Bush administration, Bush does not hold a good hand,'' said Charles Kupchan, an international-relations professor at Georgetown University in Washington. He called the summit a ``damage-limitation'' exercise to show the world that governments are trying to contain food and oil prices.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aH0_cYGS8Avc&refer=home
I AGREE WITH THIS PERSON.
We need to help Kos and others pull their collective head out of their anus so we can begin to focus on McCain. I am glad we have had this time for people to vent but as we all know 'democrats' are great at beating each other up ... but not so great at taking on the Repugs and winning the White House.
So we need to get our 'stuff' together and focus on a few issues that we drive the MSM's nuts on until they actually cover the real McCain. For example:
(1) McCain's positions on all Women's Rights
(2) McCain's position on all Labor Issues
(3) McCain's military record and poor performance ...700 pages of documentation 17 pages have seen the light of day - why has he not released them all.
(4) McCain's financial situations - the real one with the Lobby Klan.
Lets pick one and drive that to the media in focused effort ... then let it run for a week or so and then drive another one until they pay attention. We must remember millions of US baning on their blogs, emails, and phones can create the focus we desire OR we can just bitch between amongst ourselves and piss the White House away and flush a generation of hope down the toilet.
Friday, July 04, 2008
THE LION RETURNS
Kennedy leads renewed effort on universal healthcare
Presses for bipartisan support before new president takes office
By Lisa Wangsness
Globe Staff / July 2, 2008
Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office has begun convening a series of meetings involving a wide array of healthcare specialists to begin laying the groundwork for a new attempt to provide universal healthcare, according to participants.
The discussions signal that Kennedy, who instructed aides to begin holding the meetings while he is in Massachusetts undergoing treatment for brain cancer, intends to work vigorously to build bipartisan support for a major healthcare initiative when he returns to Washington in the fall.
Those involved in the discussions said Kennedy believes it is extremely important to move as quickly as possible on overhauling the healthcare system after the next president takes office in January in order to capitalize on the momentum behind a new administration.
Kennedy was an early endorser of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee who is also a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Kennedy chairs.
Obama's Senate staff has attended the roundtable discussions. If Obama is elected, Kennedy's effort to identify points of agreement among senators could smooth the way for the new administration to press ahead on universal healthcare, which Obama has promised to implement within four years.
The last time a national healthcare plan was attempted, under President Clinton in 1993, the presidential panel charged with devising a proposal was widely criticized for not consulting enough with Congress, and protracted disagreements erupted, delaying its progress for months and ultimately resulting in its demise. Kennedy's effort appears to be designed to identify areas of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, providers and insurers, and others before the new president takes office.
"The senator is trying to learn from health reform attempts in the past and to build a fair amount of consensus among his Senate colleagues, House colleagues, and the Obama campaign . . . and find a strategy that could carry with some momentum into the new administration," said Dr. Jay Himmelstein, a health policy specialist at University of Massachusetts Medical School and a former Kennedy staff member who has been involved in the talks. >>>cont
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/02/kennedy_leads_renewed_effort_on_universal_healthcare/?page=1
At this point in time, we have a model for national healthcare that should be a fairly easy sell. That model is the Medicare Advantage model - where everyone gets reasonable basic care (funded through both the Medicare payroll tax, and a modest monthly charge - I think that my mom was paying $68 a month) and those people who desire more deluxe care can opt for additional services provided by a private insurer.
Please watch Ed Shultz defend us and defend Obama.
Ed Shultz had offended some people for not being 'left enough' due to being pro-hunting or whatever. But I personally like how he doesn't let talking points go unresponded to. I hope he gets traction on this link.
Favorite it on youtube... And rate it high.
MAY: Yes. And I think also on some of the more left-wing blogs, Obama is taking some hits.
But this does move him to the center. And, look, I want to put -- I'm not a big fan of his, but I'm going to put the best spin on it, which is that he understands the situation fairly well, certainly better than the Daily Kos does and some of those on the left who would like to see America defeated in Iraq as a demonstration exercise that U.S. power never, never can be used for good.
SCHULTZ: Whoa. Whoa.
That is absolutely outrageous. That is outrageous for you to say that people on the left want to lose in Iraq. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that. This is the Fourth of July. We are Americans. We don't believe in fighting in Iraq the way we are doing. We're depleting our resources. That's ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Well, Ed, just tell me how you're going to win in Iraq if we have no troops there.
SCHULTZ: You don't even know what the definition of win is.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Tell me the definition of win is. If I don't know it, you tell me.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: We don't have enough money doing this. We are absolutely hurting ourselves staying in Iraq. The Iraqi people need to step up. The real enemy here is in Afghanistan.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: And they are.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: For you to sit here and say that liberals don't want to defend this country is unconscionable.
MAY: I didn't say it of you.
(CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: That is absolutely outrageous.
MAY: There are those on the left who would think that a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be like a U.S. defeat in Vietnam, an object lesson for Americans about the use of force.
SCHULTZ: Listen, Mr. May, I don't know where you get your information, but I spoke to Barack Obama face to face today.
MAY: Congratulations to you.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: I asked him if he wanted to get out of Iraq. He said that he was going to get us out of Iraq.
I asked him, are we going to go into Afghanistan with more troops? Because that's what President Bush wants to do right now. He said he would support sending more troops into Afghanistan. Now, that is fighting the war on terror.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: I'm glad that Obama and Bush agree on the need to also fight the battle in Afghanistan. These are both very important battles in one global conflict. We don't want to lose in either one.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: It's something that Bush hasn't done very well, I might add.
transcript
Calypso and reggae songs inspired by Obama are popping up across the Caribbean. These are some of the most popular. Sparrow sings, “The respect of the world we now lack/If you want it back, vote Barack," adding "on the Senate Vets Affairs committee he is a giant.” Cocoa Tea sings “It is not Hillary Clinton. ... It is not John McCain. ... It is not Chuck Norris, and I know it is not John Wayne. ... It is the new trend setter, Barack Obama!” The Caribbean community may be a player in the swing state Florida, and despite Hillary Clinton's good showing in Puerto Rico, she was able to ride on name familiarity, which is increasing day by day for Obama. There are also the cultural connections between the Caribbean and part of Obama's heritage in Africa.
Coco Tea sings "Barack Obama" & Mighty Sparrow sings "Barack the Magnificent"
http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com
Sparrow
"not being far enough to the left" is probably one of the milder insults someone could think up to offend me LOL
Been there done that. Spent much of last election trying to get Greens, Socialists and the like to plug their noses and vote Dem. Had a Vet for Peace spit at me because Kerry "voted for the IWR." Had Kucinich supporters ask me to leave a peace rally who upon further discussion WORKED ON A MILITARY PROJECT AT BOEING. Had a Dean supporter call me a zombie, another slam a gate on my finger, and another start crying and fall into my arms (a guy, when I was canvassing.) That doesn't even scratch the surface.
This time, there were the primary "wars", which will pale now with the sneaky Republican attacks now that McCain has hired a strong Rovian to head his campaign after months of kind of flailing. We have a media that will present it as a "dead heat" no matter what.
Time would be better spent contacting our Senators about FISA and Iraq than flogging Obama, who is doing a 4th of July tour through the Red States and heading across the pond to represent.
The "left" (as "liberals" or "progressives") like to call themselves, have historically made up no more than 15-20% of the electorate, and what passes as "left" today is fairly mainstream compared with the past. It is in this context that Obama has to take a "pragmatic" stance to win.
Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records
http://www.truthout.org/article/judge-orders-google-turn-over-youtube-records
Miguel Helft, of The New York Times: "A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom a database linking users of YouTube, the Web’s largest video site by far, with every clip they have watched there. The order raised concerns among users and privacy advocates that the online video viewing habits of tens of millions of people could be exposed. But Google and Viacom said they were hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of YouTube viewers."
Meanwhile, for the new citizens with their high hopes:
Mr. Bush said he was honored to be present for the naturalization ceremony, saying "I'll be proud to call you a fellow American." However, throughout the president's remarks, protestors in attendance one by one got up and shouted statements like "Defend the constitution" and "Impeach Bush." "That man is a fascist!" one man yelled. "He has brought fascism to this shore!" At one point the president responded: "To my fellow citizens-to-be, we believe in free speech in the United States of America."
John Edwards to Debate Karl Rove
ONLY IN AMERICA
Happy July 4 Everyone !
John McCain's Would-Be VP To Marry After Being Dogged by Gay Rumors - & there hasn't been a bachelor running mate chosen since 1852. More at Wonkette
http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com
does this strike you as suspicious? yikes...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4266396.ece
Intelligence chief Alex Allan unconscious for four days
Alex Allan is well known for his love of wind-surfing and the Grateful Dead
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
The Government’s top intelligence adviser has been unconscious in hospital for four days after collapsing at his home.
The Metropolitan Police have been investigating the mysterious illness that struck Alex Allan, chairman of the Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence Committee. They have, however, ruled out foul play. Reports that he may have been deliberately poisoned were dismissed by authoritative Whitehall sources last night.
As a precaution, toxicology tests were carried out to discover whether there was anything in his blood or urine that might explain his sudden collapse.
Scotland Yard initially became involved because two officers happened to be at the hospital in West London to which Mr Allan was taken on Monday. They recognised his name and started making inquiries.
Yep. Sounds suspicious to me. Seems like all the tinfoil theories (conspiracy theories) have ended up being true.
Sparrow
It gets worse. The name David Kelly popped into my head. It stuck in my head since before the Iraq war. See why below. It sounds to me like he knew too much.
Spy chief in coma as doctors battle mystery illness
Britain's most senior intelligence officer is said to be showing no sign of recovery after being in a coma for five days with a mysterious illness which doctors have so far failed to diagnose.
The police and the security service have ruled out any possibility that Alex Allan, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), was poisoned. Toxicological tests are being carried out, however, to ascertain whether there is anything in his bloodstream which would explain his collapse.
Security officials pointed out that administration of a sophisticated poison is not the modus operandi of Islamist fundamentalists and there was no evidence to suggest that the Russian secret service, accused over the death of Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive polonium, had targeted Mr Allan.
What makes Mr Allan's illness particularly puzzling is that he recently passed a medical examination and prides himself on his fitness. The photograph on his website shows him in his cycling gear and he once windsurfed to work along the Thames during a train strike wearing a bowler hat and suit and carrying a briefcase and an umbrella.
The JIC attracted adverse publicity recently when a senior official left secret documents about Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan on a train. The Cabinet Office said yesterday that the fact that Mr Allan was heading the inquiry into the incident showed that he was not deemed to be responsible in any way for the lapse of security.
What is the Joint Intelligence Committee?
The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) collates material from the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the Security Service (MI5), the Defence Intelligence Service and GCHQ. It also briefs the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on security matters and oversees the direction taken by the security agencies.
The meetings, once a week, are attended by the heads of the intelligence and security agencies, representatives from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Delegates from the United States, Canada and Australia attend a part of the meeting.
The work of JIC came under public scrutiny in the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. The committee had been tasked with compiling the dossier into Iraq's alleged WMD arsenal and the veracity of its conclusion came in for public criticism.
Two secret reports for JIC, on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, were recently left on a train by a senior official. Alex Allan was heading the disciplinary hearing into the security lapse.
The Joint Intelligence Committee is the first point of contact between the security and intelligence services and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who are given regular reports on the performances of the services.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/spy-chief-in-coma-as-doctors-battle-mystery-illness-860502.html?service=Print
Bush got protested heavily in VA
Watch and rate it up and favorite so that it makes inroads at youtube.
I agree with you, slugbug. It does sound like he knew too much. (I think there a alot of people like that out here. Think of the ones who aided in the 2004 theft. Even just a few...they probably know what's at stake. I bet after January 09, there will be some confessions--when they may have some control over their own safety.)
Foreclosures to rise whoever wins White House
By JEANNINE AVERSA,
snip
Even the optimism that surrounds a new president taking office cannot resurrect home
Obama supports a broader role for government than does McCain. Both envision the Federal Housing Administration providing new, cheaper mortgages to distressed homeowners who otherwise would have difficulty refinancing into more secure government-insured loans with lower monthly payments.
For the plans to work, lenders would have to be willing to take a substantial loss by reducing the amount owed on the loan. But some would have a powerful incentive to do so. A refinancing deal could allow them to recover far more money than they would get from the costly process of foreclosing on the property and trying to resell it.
Obama supports legislation along these lines by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that would help about 400,000 homeowners. People would not have to have good credit to qualify as long as they could show they can afford the new payments.
"If the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street," Obama said.
McCain's plan would provide relief to 200,000 to 400,000 homeowners. The aid would be available only to people who could show they were creditworthy when they got their original loan. The plan offers "every deserving American family or homeowner the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects the market value of their home," he said.
~~~
Take a look at McCain's plan. The banks who allowed so called 'noncredit worthy' people to get their loans are going to determine WHO is credit worthy? Didn't the biggest credit bank already get bailed out? Wasn't it their poor decisions that lead to this crisis? Yet, don't forget, many people got these loans when both the husband and wife were working. Then one loses a job and maybe the other. The banks KNOW that job markets fluctuate, so why did they allow people to get these mortgages without a huge safety net or by using only a smaller percentage of both working adults' wages?
Of course a new President won't stop the flood. But it's clear who McCain is protecting. It's not the common person.
Slugbug, love the pictures you posted. I was going to just post about the Crist one, but then I scrolled up and saw the rest. I love how you post all those pictures.
Der Spiegel is reporting that Obama may give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate — which would, of course, lead to another round of articles wondering if Obama is the "liberal Reagan."
A member of Obama's campaign has already met with Berlin's mayor, Klaus Wowereit, and the Secret Service has reportedly started to investigate security questions surrounding a visit.
No location has been announced, but the Berlin Senate has