That title should tell you all you need to know about the people attending CPAC...
CPAC crowd welcomes Coulter
Saturday, February 28, 2009
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/28/cpac-crowd-welcomes-coulter/
U.S. Soldiers in Iraq React
Friday, February 27, 2009
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=334003&f=20
Coming home... Well most of them...
U.S. May Boycott Racism Conference - Again
http://wap.nbc11.com/detail.jsp?key=648384&rc=nn_ne
I think the UN is right. What Israel wants is not different than what Hitler wanted for the White race. They won't live with Arabs and are willing to kill them to get them off their land to maintain a pure jewish state. How is that not like Hitler and how is that not Racism? We need to stop destroying our credibility protecting Israel. They need to suffer the Punishment for their actions. And I'm not saying annihilation or anything like that. But as far as war crimes and not declaring their nuclear arsenal and not giving back the land they stole they most definitely should be made accountable in a diplomatic and legal way. Anything less would be uncivilized...
The Bottom Line: Jindal leads GOP on a 'march to folly'
Thursday, February 26, 2009
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/politics/detail/255861;jsessionid=8FCD4B1B8868DC0766D392DC3BB987BD.live5ib
A lot of truth in this commentary...
NYT: In Shift, Imprisoned Al Qaeda
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=333668&f=19
The case against this guy is a total sham. They picked him up the day or after he moved here with his family...
Senate agrees to give D.C. residents a vote
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CPOL/npoliticsNews_uUSTRE51P7R720090226
Finally! Of course Republicans are against it because they say it will just add more Democrats. Which I'm sure you'll agree is a great idea, take away a peoples right to vote because it might help the other party....
Republicans Attack Obama Budget, Call It Loaded With Spending
http://twp.com/news.jsp?key=355561&rc=bu
Isn't that what a budget is? Spending money to make Government work? Did they want their budget to not spend on anything? They should be thanking him for cleaning up their mess seeing as how following their ideas has caused this mess? How many recessions and depressions do we have to go through before they realize that conservative ideas are what cause them?
Ohio Man Guilty In Terror Plot
http://foxnews.proteus.com/content.html?contentId=26799
See how easy it is to let Real Justice take its court. He was given his rights and was sentenced. Same could be done with Guantanamo inmates...
Conservatives begin voting on their 2012 favorite
Sources: Weapons, subsidies, loopholes among budget cuts
Gov. Bobby Jindal's volcano remark has some fuming
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/255259;jsessionid=CA9A83933303EC0F545A1155EE4160DD.live4i
It just shows how Ignorant and Out of Touch he is.... This is how Republicans think. If it does not affect them, they don't really care about it. Fine for a loner, not a National Party that makes Decisions that effects a great deal of people....
Is Stimulus Just A Bloated Spending Bill?
http://m.lancastereaglegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090224/OPINION/902240323/1014&template=wapart
No wonder Americans are confused with stupid headlines like this. STIMULUS IS SPENDING!!!! I don't how much more clear it can me said... And why people and News organizations continue to spread this crap is beyond me. It is to Obstruct and bring doubt ...
Members of Congress twitter through Obama’s big speech
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Pakistan sees 'hope' in Obama approach
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/254563;jsessionid=8C97BF8516A1845D93AD7736754C544D.live5ib
Let's hope this leads to some results...
AP falsely reported Obama called Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far"
In a February 23 Associated Press article, Liz Sidoti falsely reported that at his fiscal responsibility summit, President Obama "called the long-term solvency of Social Security 'the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far.' " In fact, as blogger Kovie at OpenLeft.com has noted, Obama did not call the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far"; rather, in delivering the summit's opening remarks, Obama made that comment in reference to "the rising cost of health care":
OBAMA: Now, I want to be very clear: While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year in this budget, this is just the beginning. In the coming years, we'll be forced to make more tough choices and do much more to address our long-term challenges, from the rising cost of health care that Peter [Orszag, Office of Management and Budget director] described, which is the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far, to the long-term solvency of Social Security.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the 2008 Social Security trustees' report forecasts that, in the absence of a change in the law, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, after which it will be able to cover 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits, going down to 75 percent through the end of the 75-year period the report's long-range projection covered.
From Sidoti's February 23 AP article:
Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.
"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."
He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years' "casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks." He called the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far" and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority.
OBAMA: Now, I want to be very clear: While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year in this budget, this is just the beginning. In the coming years, we'll be forced to make more tough choices and do much more to address our long-term challenges, from the rising cost of health care that Peter [Orszag, Office of Management and Budget director] described, which is the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far, to the long-term solvency of Social Security.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the 2008 Social Security trustees' report forecasts that, in the absence of a change in the law, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, after which it will be able to cover 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits, going down to 75 percent through the end of the 75-year period the report's long-range projection covered.
From Sidoti's February 23 AP article:
Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.
"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."
He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years' "casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks." He called the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far" and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority.
Ignoring FDIC, ABC's Stark says bank nationalization happens "in socialist countries" and is "not supposed to happen" in the U.S.
On the February 23 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson asked business correspondent Betsy Stark "why nationalization is considered such a dirty word," and Stark replied, in part: "Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States." In fact, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), an "independent agency of the federal government" that describes its mission as "insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions, and managing receiverships," has acted as receiver assuming all deposits for 66 failed banks since October 1, 2000. Indeed, economists including Cato Institute senior fellow Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr., a former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and Citigroup, and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman have stated, in Driscoll's words, that "[t]he federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks."
In a February 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Driscoll wrote:
There is a great deal of imprecision in all the talk of nationalizing banks. The government, through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), temporarily takes over insolvent banks when it closes them. When it can, the FDIC sells a failed bank to another institution. Sometimes the purchaser does not want some or any of the failed bank's assets. The FDIC must either then pay the buyer to take the assets (subsidize expected losses) or take over those assets. In a limited number of cases, there is no buyer for a failed bank. IndyMac Bank is a notable recent example. It has been operated since last year as an FDIC-owned institution (IndyMac Federal Bank) with the goal of finding a private buyer.
Certainly, in the latter case, a government agency has taken ownership of a bank. The federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks. There is nothing new about that policy and it certainly occurs more than once every 100 years.
Similarly, in a February 23 New York Times column, Krugman wrote:
Still, isn't nationalization un-American? No, it's as American as apple pie.
Lately the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been seizing banks it deems insolvent at the rate of about two a week. When the F.D.I.C. seizes a bank, it takes over the bank's bad assets, pays off some of its debt, and resells the cleaned-up institution to private investors. And that's exactly what advocates of temporary nationalization want to see happen, not just to the small banks the F.D.I.C. has been seizing, but to major banks that are similarly insolvent.
From the February 23 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: And I'm curious why nationalization is considered such a dirty word. The Obama administration has been at pains to say, "We're not going to nationalize the banks," but a lot of economists, and you heard some there, say this could actually be a positive step if the banks were to -- a couple of banks were taken over for a couple of years.
STARK: A couple of things, Charlie. I mean, one of them -- one of them is just about money. If banks are taken over by the government, then private investors could see the value of their shares either severely diluted or wiped out altogether. But the other thing is philosophical. Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States.
In a February 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Driscoll wrote:
There is a great deal of imprecision in all the talk of nationalizing banks. The government, through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), temporarily takes over insolvent banks when it closes them. When it can, the FDIC sells a failed bank to another institution. Sometimes the purchaser does not want some or any of the failed bank's assets. The FDIC must either then pay the buyer to take the assets (subsidize expected losses) or take over those assets. In a limited number of cases, there is no buyer for a failed bank. IndyMac Bank is a notable recent example. It has been operated since last year as an FDIC-owned institution (IndyMac Federal Bank) with the goal of finding a private buyer.
Certainly, in the latter case, a government agency has taken ownership of a bank. The federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks. There is nothing new about that policy and it certainly occurs more than once every 100 years.
Similarly, in a February 23 New York Times column, Krugman wrote:
Still, isn't nationalization un-American? No, it's as American as apple pie.
Lately the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been seizing banks it deems insolvent at the rate of about two a week. When the F.D.I.C. seizes a bank, it takes over the bank's bad assets, pays off some of its debt, and resells the cleaned-up institution to private investors. And that's exactly what advocates of temporary nationalization want to see happen, not just to the small banks the F.D.I.C. has been seizing, but to major banks that are similarly insolvent.
From the February 23 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: And I'm curious why nationalization is considered such a dirty word. The Obama administration has been at pains to say, "We're not going to nationalize the banks," but a lot of economists, and you heard some there, say this could actually be a positive step if the banks were to -- a couple of banks were taken over for a couple of years.
STARK: A couple of things, Charlie. I mean, one of them -- one of them is just about money. If banks are taken over by the government, then private investors could see the value of their shares either severely diluted or wiped out altogether. But the other thing is philosophical. Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States.
Wash. Times claim that Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib were "completely unrelated" contradicted by bipartisan Senate report
A February 24 Washington Times editorial that criticized President Obama's order to close the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo within a year asserted that Obama "lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course -- there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo." Contrary to the Times' assertion that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo are "completely unrelated," a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report released jointly by chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member Sen. John McCain concluded that "Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO [Guantánamo]. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq."
The report also stated that "[i]nterrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO."
From the Senate Armed Services Committee report:
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of [Department of Defense general counsel] Mr. [William] Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 15: Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
From the February 24 Washington Times editorial:
This reinforces the conclusion that Mr. Obama's stance on Guantanamo was less principled than political.
He had pledged to close Guantanamo as one of his first acts in office, mainly as a sop to his anti-war support base. At his Feb. 6 meeting with the families of the victims of terrorism, the president played up the symbolism of closing Guantanamo more than the substance. He lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course - there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo - but in the fantasy world of the anti-war radicals they are akin to the Gulag or Auschwitz, so Guantanamo had to go.
The report also stated that "[i]nterrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO."
From the Senate Armed Services Committee report:
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of [Department of Defense general counsel] Mr. [William] Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 15: Special Mission Unit (SMU) Task Force (TF) interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO. SMU TF interrogation policies in Iraq included the use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as military working dogs and stress positions. SMU TF policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.
[...]
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
From the February 24 Washington Times editorial:
This reinforces the conclusion that Mr. Obama's stance on Guantanamo was less principled than political.
He had pledged to close Guantanamo as one of his first acts in office, mainly as a sop to his anti-war support base. At his Feb. 6 meeting with the families of the victims of terrorism, the president played up the symbolism of closing Guantanamo more than the substance. He lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course - there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo - but in the fantasy world of the anti-war radicals they are akin to the Gulag or Auschwitz, so Guantanamo had to go.
Obama's High-Stakes Speech to Press Broader Agenda
Washington - President Barack Obama takes center stage on Tuesday to try to sell the American people on his broader agenda for jolting the United States out of deep recession and confronting long-term economic challenges.
Riding high in opinion polls, Obama will deliver a State of the Union-style address at 9 p.m. EST in his first appearance before a joint session of Congress since he took office five weeks ago.
read more
Judge Questions Law Giving Telecoms Immunity
San Francisco - A federal judge in San Francisco is raising questions about the constitutionality of a law designed to dismiss suits against telecommunications companies accused of cooperating with government wiretapping.
read more
Beyond Scarcity: Reinventing Wealth in a Progressive World
We are bound to make the world in our own image. So, we had better be sure we have the right values in mind as we think about ourselves in this historic transition.
The current economic crisis is causing a massive redistribution of wealth across society. With a newfound capacity to shape our nation's destiny, progressives can take this opportunity to redefine ourselves - especially our ideas about wealth and prosperity - as we seek to build a flourishing society.
read more
Just a little alcohol a day boosts cancer risk for women
Borger: Q&A session showed Obama engaging opponents
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/politics/detail/254157;jsessionid=095ED61BC7CE21719A35DAA8D5A76BBA.live4ib
I like what Eric Cantor didn't say when Obama asked if he had anything to say. Showed Cantor is a tough talker when the President isn't around.
Legal Beat - Specter Re-Litigates Ginsburg Confirmation
Monday, February 23, 2009
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/02/specter-relitigates-ginsburg-c.html
Fucking Republicans. Can we rehash all of Bush's confirmations and ask Specter if he still thinks they should of been approved?
Pennsylvania rocked by 'jailing kids for cash' scandal
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/253537;jsessionid=B2A8A9BD3FAFD9A11545641C01F6B49D.live5ib
WTF. They have the same thing going on in California for adults...
Cutting the President Slack Is So Old Skool
Sunday, February 22, 2009
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=330380&f=21
No No No No No No No No No No No....... GOP 2012
NYT advances false claim that recovery bill contains spending for "marsh-mouse preservation"
In a February 22 New York Times article, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) "sees the stimulus bill as his party's ticket to a revival in 2010, as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation. 'You can imagine the fun people will have with that,' he said." However, Stolberg did not note that the oft-repeated Republican claim is false. As Media Matters for America has noted, the bill does not contain any language directing funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse, or its San Francisco wetlands habitat, a fact that the House Republican leadership aide who reportedly originated the claim has reportedly acknowledged.
As Media Matters noted, Gingrich previously falsely claimed during the February 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity that the recovery bill directs "$30 million to save a mouse in San Francisco."
After writing that "there isn't any such money in the bill" for the mouse, The Plum Line blogger Greg Sargent wrote on February 12 that the claim originated in an email from a "House Republican leadership staffer" who, when contacted by Sargent, "conceded that the claim by conservative media that the mouse money is currently in the bill is a misstatement." San Jose Mercury News staff writer Paul Rogers subsequently reported on February 13 that Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), originated the claim and said that "[t]here is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project."
As Media Matters has noted, media outlets such as Fox News, Fox Business Network, The Washington Times, and CNN have advanced the falsehood that the recovery bill contains language directing funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse, or its San Francisco wetlands habitat.
From the February 22 New York Times article:
Mr. Gingrich scoffs at the notion of the "loyal opposition."
"You are loyal to the nation," he said, "not the temporary possessor of power. I think any president deserves the opportunity to make a proposal, and that proposal should be listened to seriously. But it is foolish for a president to assert that they have prime ministerial authority."
Besides, there are political gains to be made by standing tough. Mr. Gingrich sees the stimulus bill as his party's ticket to a revival in 2010, as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation. "You can imagine the fun people will have with that," he said.
But opposition, or obstructionism, can be a risky game. Robert Dallek, a biographer of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, suggested that cooperating with a popular new president can benefit the party out of power. For instance, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, Democratic leaders like Johnson and Sam Rayburn stressed the virtues of bipartisanship, fearing that "if they caused Eisenhower grief, the party would pay a price for it," Mr. Dallek said.
As Media Matters noted, Gingrich previously falsely claimed during the February 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity that the recovery bill directs "$30 million to save a mouse in San Francisco."
After writing that "there isn't any such money in the bill" for the mouse, The Plum Line blogger Greg Sargent wrote on February 12 that the claim originated in an email from a "House Republican leadership staffer" who, when contacted by Sargent, "conceded that the claim by conservative media that the mouse money is currently in the bill is a misstatement." San Jose Mercury News staff writer Paul Rogers subsequently reported on February 13 that Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), originated the claim and said that "[t]here is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project."
As Media Matters has noted, media outlets such as Fox News, Fox Business Network, The Washington Times, and CNN have advanced the falsehood that the recovery bill contains language directing funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse, or its San Francisco wetlands habitat.
From the February 22 New York Times article:
Mr. Gingrich scoffs at the notion of the "loyal opposition."
"You are loyal to the nation," he said, "not the temporary possessor of power. I think any president deserves the opportunity to make a proposal, and that proposal should be listened to seriously. But it is foolish for a president to assert that they have prime ministerial authority."
Besides, there are political gains to be made by standing tough. Mr. Gingrich sees the stimulus bill as his party's ticket to a revival in 2010, as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation. "You can imagine the fun people will have with that," he said.
But opposition, or obstructionism, can be a risky game. Robert Dallek, a biographer of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, suggested that cooperating with a popular new president can benefit the party out of power. For instance, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, Democratic leaders like Johnson and Sam Rayburn stressed the virtues of bipartisanship, fearing that "if they caused Eisenhower grief, the party would pay a price for it," Mr. Dallek said.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902220003
--
This article was sent using my Viigo.
For a free download, go to http://getviigo.com
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Lives on the Net
Storm of panic in the global digital village! This village, where, thanks to the Internet and to "social networks," anyone and everyone may recount their life story, their tastes, their crushes, their tantrums - in short, where everyone may virtually meet and get to virtually know everyone else.
A storm of panic ever since the first of these social networks, Facebook, furtively decided two weeks ago to modify its site's terms of use.
read more
http://www.truthout.org/022109E
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Holbrooke's Dayton II?
The veteran diplomat convenes a "trilateral meeting" between Pakistan, Afghanistan and America.
In his heyday as a negotiator in the 1990s, Richard Holbrooke was known as "the bulldozer." When Bosnia's civil war looked intractable, Holbrooke brought all the parties to Dayton, Ohio, where he essentially locked them up until they arrived at a deal. Later, as United Nations ambassador, Holbrooke managed to patch things up between two groups almost as hostile to each other as the former Yugoslav factions were: Republicans in Washington and U.N. bureaucrats in New York. In each case, stagecraft was a big part of his strategy: orchestrating grand meetings that would force hostile factions to talk at length in the same room.
read more
http://www.truthout.org/022109B
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)