Britain battles H5N1 bird flu outbreak in poultry

Reuters
Britain battles H5N1 bird flu outbreak in poultry
By Luke MacGregor

HOLTON (Reuters) - Britain scrambled to contain its first outbreak of the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of bird flu in domestic poultry on Saturday after the virus was found at a farm run by Europe's biggest turkey producer.

Some 2,500 turkeys have died since Thursday at the Bernard Matthews farm near Lowestoft in eastern England. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said all 159,000 birds there would be culled over the next few days.

"We're in new territory," National Farmers' Union Poultry Board chairman Charles Bourns told Reuters. "We've every confidence in Defra but, until we know how this disease arrived, this is a very apprehensive time for all poultry farmers."

Defra said the virus was the same pathogenic Asian strain found last month in Hungary where an outbreak among geese on a farm prompted the slaughter of thousands of birds.

That outbreak followed a relative lull in cases of H5N1 among European poultry since hundreds of turkeys died at a farm in east France about a year ago.

The strain tends to be transmitted to poultry by infected migrating wildfowl.

It has killed at least 165 people worldwide since 2003, most of them in Asia, and more than 200 million birds have died from it, or been killed to prevent its spread.

But it has not yet fulfilled scientists' worst fears by mutating into a form that could be easily transmitted between humans and possibly cause a global pandemic.

UNUSUAL OUTBREAK

Avian flu expert Colin Butter of the Institute of Animal Health said the British outbreak was surprising as it had happened outside the main bird migration period.

"The next thing we need to know is if this is a primary or secondary case. If this is a secondary case, it is much more serious. If this is the first case, or 'reference case', and we can stamp it out, the outbreak will be controlled," he said.

A protection zone was established with a radius of 3 km (2 miles) and a surveillance zone of 10 km around the infected farm. Bird gatherings such as bird shows and pigeon racing were suspended nationwide.

Across the North Sea in the Netherlands, Europe's second biggest poultry producer after France, the agriculture ministry reacted by ordering farmers to keep poultry indoors to prevent them from any contact with wild birds.

Norway, which has had no cases of the deadly bird flu strain, told farmers to keep poultry indoors in the area south of Nordland county and banned bird gatherings, such as bird shows and competitions.

Britain's poultry industry is worth 3.4 billion pounds ($6.7 billion) and produces 800 million birds each year.

The Health Protection Agency said the current level of risk to humans from H5N1 was extremely low.

In May, 50,000 chickens at three farms in Norfolk, also in eastern England and home to some of Europe's biggest poultry farms, were culled after another strain, H7N3, was detected.

A wild swan found dead in Scotland in March had the H5N1 version of the virus. It was thought to have caught the disease elsewhere, died at sea and been washed ashore in Scotland.

Read More...

Summary only...

Vice President's Shadow Hangs Over Trial; Testimony Points Out Cheney's Role in Trying to Dampen Joseph Wilson's Criticism

washingtonpost.com
Vice President's Shadow Hangs Over Trial
Testimony Points Out Cheney's Role in Trying to Dampen Joseph Wilson's Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers

Vice President Cheney's press officer, Cathie Martin, approached his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, to ask how she should respond to journalists' questions about Joseph C. Wilson IV. Libby looked over one of the reporters' questions and told Martin: "Well, let me go talk to the boss and I'll be back."

On Libby's return, Martin testified in federal court last week, he brought a card with detailed replies dictated by Cheney, including a highly partisan, incomplete summary of Wilson's investigation into Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction program.

Libby subsequently called a reporter, read him the statement, and said -- according to the reporter -- he had "heard" that Wilson's investigation was instigated by his wife, an employee at the CIA, later identified as Valerie Plame. The reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was one of five people with whom Libby discussed Plame's CIA status during those critical weeks that summer.

After seven days of such courtroom testimony, the unanswered question hanging over Libby's trial is, did the vice president's former chief of staff decide to leak that disparaging information on his own?

No evidence has emerged that Cheney told him to do it. But Cheney's dictated reply is one of many signs to emerge at the trial of the vice president's unusual attentiveness to the controversy and his desire to blunt it. His efforts included the extraordinary disclosure of classified information, including one-sided synopses of Wilson's report and a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq.

Under questioning from FBI agent Deborah S. Bond, Libby acknowledged that he and Cheney "may have talked" aboard the plane from Norfolk that day about whether to make public Plame's CIA employment, Bond testified Thursday.

Her testimony brought Cheney closer than ever to the heart of the controversy surrounding the Bush administration's efforts to discredit Wilson, who had accused the White House of twisting intelligence he had gathered as it sought to justify the invasion of Iraq.

White House officials testified that Cheney was irritated because he thought Wilson had alleged the vice president sent him on the fact-finding trip to Niger but rejected the investigation's conclusions. Time after time at the height of the controversy, they said, Cheney directed the administration's response to Wilson's criticism and Libby carried it out.

Cheney personally dictated other talking points for use by the White House press office; helped negotiate the wording of a key statement by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet; instructed Libby to deal directly with selected reporters; told Libby to disclose selected passages from the national intelligence estimate and other classified reports; and held a luncheon for conservative columnists to discuss the controversy.

Throughout this period, Cheney kept a news clipping of Wilson's criticisms on his desk, annotated with the question, "did his wife send him on a junket?" according to court statements. Libby told a grand jury that he and Cheney discussed it on multiple occasions each day.

Randall Eliason, a former chief of public corruption prosecutions for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, said, "There has been significant evidence of how deeply the vice president was involved. If Cheney is personally, deeply involved in it, it's Libby's job to be personally, deeply involved."

Wilson was a former U.S. ambassador dispatched by the CIA the previous year -- at the suggestion of his wife but on a decision by other officials -- to determine whether Iraq had recently tried to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. The agency later said that it was responding to inquiries made by Cheney's office, the State Department and the Defense Department.

On July 6, 2003, 16 months after his return, Wilson publicly accused the administration of ignoring his report, which debunked the Iraq-Niger speculation, and of twisting his information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Wilson's allegations provoked a political firestorm. Within days, the White House was forced to repudiate a key assertion President Bush had made in his State of the Union address, and Tenet issued an unusual public apology for failing to stop the president from making it. But rather than tamping down the controversy, the administration's backtracking only "made it flare up," as then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified last week.

In its response, the White House wound up training its fire not only on the substance of Wilson's allegations but on him personally, trial testimony has shown.

Over the course of that week in July, bracketed by Wilson's published criticism and Cheney's flight back from Norfolk, three senior White House officials -- Libby, Fleischer and special presidential assistant Karl Rove -- inaccurately told or suggested to five reporters that Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Plame, according to the testimony. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage separately told columnist Robert D. Novak that Plame worked at the CIA, and Novak made that news public July 14.

The belittling implication of the disclosure, as Fleischer and others testified last week, was that nepotism, rather than Wilson's knowledge and experience, lay behind his involvement in the matter.

While Cheney and Libby have asserted that their sole intent in contacting journalists was to defend the credibility of their policy, prosecutors disclosed new evidence on Wednesday that the administration was focusing on Wilson himself. Cheney's then-communications director, Mary Matalin, advised Libby in a phone call July 10, prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said.

Matalin, according to notes Libby made of the conversation, called Wilson "a snake" and warned that his "story has legs," Zeidenberg said. She laid out a plan: "We need to address the Wilson motivation. We need to be able to get the cable out. Declassified. The president should wave his wand."

While arguing unsuccessfully that the jury should see all of Libby's notes on the conversation, Zeidenberg said, "All we have heard from the defense all along is that Mr. Libby was only interested in responding on the merits." He said it was significant that Libby wrote down word for word "an extremely negative and ad hominem attack, if you will, about a critic."

Plame's employment at the CIA was classified, making it illegal for any official to knowingly and intentionally disclose it. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's 22-month investigation did not produce charges of that offense.

But Libby was indicted on charges of making false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury for denying that he was aware of Plame's employment and had disclosed it to journalists.

In courtroom testimony, witnesses have asserted that Cheney and two others told Libby about Plame in June, and that he told two journalists and Fleischer -- who in turn said he told two more journalists. It was, in short, a hot topic of gossip by the administration.

According to Martin's testimony, Cheney directed her early in the week of July 6 to keep track of daily news coverage of the controversy, including "who was continuing to comment." During a meeting on Capitol Hill, Martin said, Cheney "dictated to me what he wanted me to say" about it to reporters.

In a meeting July 8, Martin said, Cheney also decided that Libby would call NBC News reporters Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory to discuss the matter. Martin said she walked out during Libby's subsequent calls to the reporters.

After Mitchell suggested in a broadcast that the White House was "pushing blame" for the mess toward the CIA, Martin said, then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley looked directly at Martin during a staff meeting and said such efforts were improper. At that moment, Martin said, Libby "looked down," in effect leaving her to absorb the blame.

Three months later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan publicly cleared Rove of leaking Plame's name -- inaccurately, as it turned out -- but provided no such statement about Libby.

According to Cheney's own notes, introduced at the trial last week, Cheney told McClellan that such a statement "has to happen today. Call out key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl. Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Staff writer Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

The American People Never Signed Up For This

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
The American People Never Signed Up For This

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken right before the war shows that the American people were never interested in staying in Iraq for this long or at this price.

When asked if they would be in favor of rebuilding Iraq if it meant keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq for several years and spending $15 billion a year, Americans answered overwhelmingly that they would not be in favor of that.
56% opposed, 37% favored.

That was before the war. Before we lost over 3,000 men and women in the desert. Before the 25,000 casualties. Before the $500 billion we have already spent there. Before the 140,000 troops were ensconced there for four, long years. And before further escalations were promised.

Now, who in their right mind would be surprised that an overwhelming number of Americans would be opposed to staying there longer under these circumstances, let alone escalating the conflict? They never signed up for this in the first place.

This February 2003 poll is one of the reasons that Don Rumsfeld gave his infamous order not to do any post-war planning. Because if the American people knew what it would really take to occupy and rebuild Iraq, they would have never gone for it. As you can see in the poll, they wouldn't have signed up for this, even if it went much, much better than it actually has.

That's why the administration had to hurry into the war before the public found out what they were buying. As you can see in the poll, a clear and convincing majority of Americans also favored giving diplomacy more time to work (59% said take more time to build international support, 37% said move quickly). Instead, war was launched about a month after this poll was taken.

Interestingly enough, even the people who favored going to war against Iraq were split down the middle on whether to go to war -- even not knowing its true costs and dangers -- if the United Nations did not approve the action (47% of those who favored military action opposed the need for UN approval, 50% said we must get UN approval). And, of course, the United Nations did not approve.

So, now four years later, in the midst of a war that has gone terribly awry, with costs the American people were never willing to bear in the first place, the president is set on escalating the war. This is madness.

And on top of the further costs in lives and dollars, what is our eventual exit strategy? The president no longer talks about handing power over to the Iraqis. Long gone are the references to us "standing down" when the Iraqi army "stands up." With no backing at home, no exit plan and no real hope for success, the president blunders forward full of bluster and hype.

Even the general he put in charge says we would need at least 35,000 more combat troops - even with the surge and if all the Iraqi troops showed up - in order to pacify just Baghdad. General Petraeus's famous counterinsurgency manual argues that the numbers we have in Iraq are not even remotely within the ballpark of what we would need, if we were actually serious about fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

What are we hoping to accomplish and in what period of time? Now, even the most ardent Republican supporters of the White House on Capitol Hill say that the president will have at most another six to nine months to make this plan work.

In nine months, we're going to get all of the 21,500 troops in, they are going to be able to do the job of 56,500 troops, the Iraqi government is going to cooperate with us, the Iraqi army is finally going to stand up, take over, and fight the Shiite militias on top?

None of this is likely, let alone all of it. We're not even sure if we're fighting or helping the Shiites. It's not entirely clear whether the Shiite government is even on our side, or that we even know what that side is. An American military official in Baghdad told the New York Times, "We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn."

Why are the Republicans signing their own political death warrant? Who can possibly believe this plan is going to work? And when it fails, what is their out then? What will be their exit strategy from their Iraq failures?

If it weren't for the lives of real men and women on the ground and the grave consequences for our country and the world, I would be tempted to say - let them do it. The chances of success are nearly nonexistent. Politically, it's hard to imagine how they can have a strategy that would be worse.

If the Democrats lose the battle to actually stop this escalation and begin withdrawal, then they would be wise to tie this albatross around any and all Republican necks. God knows they deserve it. If the Republicans are going to risk our troops' lives on this hopeless and ridiculous plan, they should at least risk their own seats as well.

Read More...

Summary only...

The American People Never Signed Up For This

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
The American People Never Signed Up For This

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken right before the war shows that the American people were never interested in staying in Iraq for this long or at this price.

When asked if they would be in favor of rebuilding Iraq if it meant keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq for several years and spending $15 billion a year, Americans answered overwhelmingly that they would not be in favor of that.
56% opposed, 37% favored.

That was before the war. Before we lost over 3,000 men and women in the desert. Before the 25,000 casualties. Before the $500 billion we have already spent there. Before the 140,000 troops were ensconced there for four, long years. And before further escalations were promised.

Now, who in their right mind would be surprised that an overwhelming number of Americans would be opposed to staying there longer under these circumstances, let alone escalating the conflict? They never signed up for this in the first place.

This February 2003 poll is one of the reasons that Don Rumsfeld gave his infamous order not to do any post-war planning. Because if the American people knew what it would really take to occupy and rebuild Iraq, they would have never gone for it. As you can see in the poll, they wouldn't have signed up for this, even if it went much, much better than it actually has.

That's why the administration had to hurry into the war before the public found out what they were buying. As you can see in the poll, a clear and convincing majority of Americans also favored giving diplomacy more time to work (59% said take more time to build international support, 37% said move quickly). Instead, war was launched about a month after this poll was taken.

Interestingly enough, even the people who favored going to war against Iraq were split down the middle on whether to go to war -- even not knowing its true costs and dangers -- if the United Nations did not approve the action (47% of those who favored military action opposed the need for UN approval, 50% said we must get UN approval). And, of course, the United Nations did not approve.

So, now four years later, in the midst of a war that has gone terribly awry, with costs the American people were never willing to bear in the first place, the president is set on escalating the war. This is madness.

And on top of the further costs in lives and dollars, what is our eventual exit strategy? The president no longer talks about handing power over to the Iraqis. Long gone are the references to us "standing down" when the Iraqi army "stands up." With no backing at home, no exit plan and no real hope for success, the president blunders forward full of bluster and hype.

Even the general he put in charge says we would need at least 35,000 more combat troops - even with the surge and if all the Iraqi troops showed up - in order to pacify just Baghdad. General Petraeus's famous counterinsurgency manual argues that the numbers we have in Iraq are not even remotely within the ballpark of what we would need, if we were actually serious about fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

What are we hoping to accomplish and in what period of time? Now, even the most ardent Republican supporters of the White House on Capitol Hill say that the president will have at most another six to nine months to make this plan work.

In nine months, we're going to get all of the 21,500 troops in, they are going to be able to do the job of 56,500 troops, the Iraqi government is going to cooperate with us, the Iraqi army is finally going to stand up, take over, and fight the Shiite militias on top?

None of this is likely, let alone all of it. We're not even sure if we're fighting or helping the Shiites. It's not entirely clear whether the Shiite government is even on our side, or that we even know what that side is. An American military official in Baghdad told the New York Times, "We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn."

Why are the Republicans signing their own political death warrant? Who can possibly believe this plan is going to work? And when it fails, what is their out then? What will be their exit strategy from their Iraq failures?

If it weren't for the lives of real men and women on the ground and the grave consequences for our country and the world, I would be tempted to say - let them do it. The chances of success are nearly nonexistent. Politically, it's hard to imagine how they can have a strategy that would be worse.

If the Democrats lose the battle to actually stop this escalation and begin withdrawal, then they would be wise to tie this albatross around any and all Republican necks. God knows they deserve it. If the Republicans are going to risk our troops' lives on this hopeless and ridiculous plan, they should at least risk their own seats as well.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hundreds mourn Bill Clinton's stepfather

Yahoo! News
Hundreds mourn Bill Clinton's stepfather
By JILL ZEMAN, Associated Press Writer

Bill Clinton and his family joined hundreds of mourners Saturday for the funeral of his stepfather, the man who the former president said brought his mother the "most secure, stable years she ever had."

Richard Kelley, a retired salesman, died Wednesday at his home at age 91 after a long battle with colon and liver cancer.

"He didn't wuss out at the end. It was all done with grace and love," Clinton told more than 600 people at First United Methodist Church, describing his stepfather's final moments. "I am very thankful to him for many things, but most of all for giving our mother the 12 most secure, stable years she ever had."

Clinton attended with his wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and their daughter, Chelsea, who read an Irish benediction during the funeral service.

The Rev. John Miles, who performed the wedding ceremony for Kelley and Clinton's mother, Virginia, in 1982, conducted the service.

Kelley ran a food brokerage business for many years in Little Rock before retiring in 1992. He met Clinton's mother at a horse racing track. It was his second marriage and her fourth.

At the time, Clinton was preparing for a campaign to regain the Arkansas governor's office.

In recalling Kelley's devotion to his spouse, the former president also remembered the warning he gave Kelley before they married.

"I said, 'You know you'll never be able to get any insurance again. You're already 66 and she's been a widow three times," the former president said.

Lara Farrar said her grandfather was full of life and a bit of a pack rat. She joked about the collection of hotel shampoo bottles, peanuts and ketchup packets he took from the hospital shortly before he died.

"He truly was the embodiment of living life to the fullest," she said.

The Kelleys were married 12 years before she died Jan. 6, 1994, after a battle with breast cancer. After her death, he promoted his wife's autobiography, "Leading With My Heart," appearing on national television and autographing books.

In a newspaper interview, he said he was content to promote the book for one reason: "I have fond memories of Virginia and I know she'd want me to do this."

Kelley also cherished the former president, referring to him as "my best friend."

Read More...

Summary only...

Exxon Shouldn't Be Able To Use it's $40 Billion Profit To Bury Evidence It's Killing Our World

Huffington Post
Jamie Court
Exxon Shouldn't Be Able To Use it's $40 Billion Profit To Bury Evidence It's Killing Our World

Britain's respected newspaper The Guardian reported that scientists have been offered $10,000 by an Exxon-backed think tank to trash today's landmark UN study finding global warning is on a collision course with life on earth and 90% likely to be caused by human activity (aka the fossil fuel economy).

Just yesterday, Exxon reported a $4.5 million per day profit, more than any corporation in the history of the world.

$40 billion per year in profit made not only at the expense of gouged motorists and a fragile economy but at the cost of human life on earth.

Isn't it time Exxon is forced to disclose every payment it makes to scientists, researchers and experts to hide the evidence of its crimes? Second hand smoke may have killed many Americans, but Exxon's products are killing the earth. It's time Congress forced oil companies to come clean about the junk science they fund.

According to The Guardian, the Exxon-financed American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles undercutting the report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses were also being offered.

The AEI has received more than $1.6 million from Exxon Mobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration, which has resisted reports of global warming. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees, "The Guardian" reported.

The IPCC report released today in Paris says scientists' "best estimate" is that temperatures will rise 3.2 to 7.8 degrees by 2100. In contrast, the increase from 1901 to 2005 was 1.2 degrees. The report also projects that sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century.

Madame Speaker, it's your move, for motorists and for the planet.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Cheney Trial, Within The Libby Trial

Huffington Post
Brent Budowsky
The Cheney Trial, Within The Libby Trial

Note: for six years I was one of the original writers of the CIA Identities Law working for its orignal sponsor, Senator Lloyd Bentsen.

For the judge and jury, it is the Libby trial.

For America and American politics, it is the Dick Cheney trial and the stakes are far higher than reported in the media.

What has emerged in evidence so far, is not
surprising, but it is astonishing. Vice-President Cheney was so deeply involved and obsessed with discrediting Joe Wilson that the impact and implications are enormous and underestimated.

The Vice President was choreographer of the attack on Wilson. He acted as though he was the Deputy White House political director and the Deputy White House press secretary. He was organizing meetings, drafting talking points and assigning which staff would talk to which reporter.

This is not what Vice Presidents do. This is more than an attack on his enemy Wilson. Most of us who have had high government positions have faced these situations, and launching a counter-attack could have been done far more discreetly and professionally.

Plus: the naming of the Plame name, at the very least, created harm to national security and was an unpatriotic act. The minute the Vice President, Libby, Rove, knew Valerie worked at the Agency in a Bureau that insiders would know immediately was highly sensitive, without any doubt triggered red lights, immediately.

When we were writing the original law, not one of us, could have ever imagined that identity disclosers would be high officials in the U.S. government. The law was aimed at people very hostile to the U.S., who were acting in a manner that helped the KGB.

It was unthinkable to all of us, that anyone involved in these disclosures, felonious or not, would be high in the U.S. government. Anyone who goes on television and says otherwise is a liar.

Why?

My theory, with substantial evidence to back it up, is that the danger of Joe Wilson was not the damage that Wilson's view did to the Administration policy. It was the danger that Wilson's work would unravel a long term, well planned, highly deceptive campaign that preceded Joe's involvement to deceive the country to drive us to war.

Prediction: major plea bargaining either has begun, or will begin, before the verdict and watch out if Libby sings in a plea deal.

Prediction: the original defense argument that Libby was a fall guy for others, would only anger and inflame the judge and jury. It is no defense to say that others might have committed similar or related crimes and that is the impression this argument created.

Watch this: the sequence of events that could be explosive includes a) the original Cheney deposition to Fitzgerald, then b) testimony on the record of extensive and absurd involvement by the Vice President to the micro-level on the attack against Wilson, leading to c) Cheney's testimony in the trial if it happens.

The prosecutor and jury will compare what Cheney said in the deposition, what facts emerged in the trial, and Cheney's testimony at trial. Do not be surprised if the word pardon appears in the press, though the reaction would be as strong as the Saturday Night Massacre in the Nixon years.

The Surprise: what will shock people will be when the Senate Intelligence Committee releases its report on pre-war intelligence, which was covered up by the Republican Committee before the elections.

The Senate report will, I predict, show major deceptions that well preceded the events in the Wilson case. This will put the whole case in context. It will turn the spotlight on the misrepresentations prior to Wilson, that will explain the obsessive attack of Cheney and Libby against Wilson.

Fasten your seat belts.

Nobody is out of the woods yet, and these woods are dark and deep.

Read More...

Summary only...

Glenn Beck: A Cause for Concern

Huffington Post
James Zogby
Glenn Beck: A Cause for Concern

Glenn Beck represents a truly troubling trend in television journalism. Since May 2006, the radio talk show host has had his own one hour nightly program on CNN's Headline News channel. While the network may have hoped that Beck's flamboyant style would increase ratings, the cost to their integrity has been staggering.

It is important to note, from the outset, that Beck doesn't stand alone. The insertion of the personalities and style of radio talkshow hosts into mainstream television news programming has been taking place for a number of years now. Their crude, cynical and cutting edge commentary, their feigning the role of the common man, and their inflammatory "us versus them" rhetoric is now standard fair on many of the major networks.

The result of this trend is evident on a number of levels. There has been a coarsening and dumbing down of our political discourse on several issues of national importance. When Beck refers to President Carter as a "fathead" or speaks of Saudi leaders as "nut-jobs," serious discussion is displaced by crude and demeaning jabs.

There is the additional problem that instead of educating the public, this new breed of television pundits reduces issues to their lowest common denominator, thereby reinforcing preexisting, uninformed biases. Never shy to share an unenlightened view, Beck, for example, will note "I'm not an expert, but..." and then proceed to make his case using a mishmash of clichés that reflect the prejudices of conventional wisdom.

While much of the same could be said about a number of other similar personalities that now populate the airwaves, Beck comes with a significant difference. I have carefully reviewed the transcripts of Beck's shows and his so-called, obsessive crusade against radical Islam left me both horrified and profoundly concerned. In just the past two months, for example, one half of Beck's shows have focused on matters Muslim. Beck insists that he is not opposed to all Muslims, only what he refers to as the "10 percent who are evil." He then counters this observation by stating that the vast majority of good Muslims have been cowered into silence by the extremist 10 percent, so that they too stand indicted by their cowardice. Only when they do speak out, Beck says, will radical Islam be defeated and the rest of us be safe from their scourge. The net result of this circumlocution is that the majority of Muslims are to blame.

When Beck is not venting his own prejudiced view of Islam, he invites on-air guests who amplify his views. They are of three types: Israelis, right-wing Americans with a long-established axe to grind against Arabs and Muslims, and lastly, a handful of Muslims who are largely alienated and self-styled outcasts who have found their shtick striking out against their co-religionists.

His right-wing guests or Israelis, like former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who was Beck's guest for an entire hour on a special program that aired three times in one month) are only too happy to reinforce Beck's views. His Muslim guests similarly serve to validate Beck's complaint about the broader Muslim community. In all of this, there is not even the pretense of balance.

The impact has been predictable and frightening. After I raised some concern that ABC's Good Morning America was hiring Beck to serve as a commentator on that once respected program, I received a taste of what Beck's impact has been. Emails from Beck's supporters have called me "an animal Muslim" (I'm a Catholic). They've told me that I don't belong in America (when in fact my family has lived in this country for over 100 years, serving in every branch of the military), and that I am shielding terrorists by refusing to protest against them (wrong on both counts, but my critics have obviously never read my denunciations of terrorism and terrorists).

And it is this that concerns me. We are, in fact, engaged in a troubling conflict against extremism fueled by religious fervor, both ours and theirs. What this period and this conflict require is intelligent discussion, not inflammatory rhetoric. To guide us through this, we need journalists like Walter Cronkite, Edgar R. Murrow and Peter Jennings; we don't need flame-throwers like Sean Hannity, Don Imus and Glenn Beck. Unfortunately, it's the later we are getting more of. And it is this I find disturbing.

Read More...

Summary only...

Army officer court-martial tests free speech

Yahoo! News
Army officer court-martial tests free speech
By Daisuke Wakabayashi

A U.S. Army officer, whose public refusal to go fight in Iraq made him a champion of the anti-war movement, faces a court-martial next week when a military panel could determine the limits of free-speech rights for officers.

First Lt. Ehren Watada faces up to four years in prison if convicted on a charge of missing movements and two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer when his court-martial starts on Monday at Fort Lewis, an Army base near Seattle.

Watada, a 28-year-old artillery officer, refused to deploy with his brigade to Iraq last summer and called the war illegal and immoral. He refused conscientious-objector status, saying he would fight in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

The court-martial gets under way at a time of waning public support for the war in Iraq in the face of President George W. Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to war.

Supporters of Watada say he is the first Army officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq and refuse conscientious objector status.

"It's not that I am scared. It's that I strongly believe this war is illegal and immoral and participation in it would be contrary to my oath to this country," Watada said in an interview this week.

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers "to throw down their weapons" to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Earlier this month, a military judge rejected the defense's argument that Watada's statements were completely covered by the U.S. constitutional right to freedom of speech.

"If you do go out with public statements, you have to be prepared for what are the potential repercussions of that," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman.

MISBECOMING CONDUCT

A military panel will decide if his criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct -- whether the comments pose a danger to the loyalty, discipline, mission and morale of the troops.

"This case will test the limits of what is free speech and what is speech that can be curtailed in the military," said Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice, a non-profit organization.

"Of course, when you join the military you give up some of your constitutional rights, such as the right to complete unfettered free speech," she said, referring to the military justice code that individuals must agree to before enlisting.

Demonstrators plan to rally for Watada, who has become a focus of anti-war protesters, outside the gates of Fort Lewis when his court-martial starts next week.

Watada, a native of Hawaii who served for a year in Korea, joined the Army in 2003 after the United States had already invaded Iraq. Upon returning to America, Watada began to question the reasons behind the U.S. involvement.

The officer said he decided to speak out against the war, because he feared that the administration was emboldened by the ability to use "lies and deception" to engage in war in Iraq and could repeat that course of action with Iran or Syria.

"When you have leaders that are unaccountable, who have already deceived people over something as serious as war and are willing to do it again, you have to ask yourself, 'where do you stand?"' said Watada.

Read More...

Summary only...

2006 personal savings lowest since the Great Depression

Yahoo! News
2006 personal savings fall to 74-yr. low
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

People once again spent everything they made and then some last year, pushing the personal savings rate to the lowest level since the Great Depression more than seven decades ago.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases. The 2006 figure was lower than a negative 0.4 percent in 2005 and was the poorest showing since a negative 1.5 percent savings rate in 1933 during the Depression.

For December, consumer spending rose a solid 0.7 percent, the best showing in five months, while incomes rose by 0.5 percent, both figures matching Wall Street expectations.

In other news, a key gauge of factory activity flashed recession warnings in manufacturing in January.

The Institute for Supply Management said its manufacturing index registered 49.3 last month, down from a December reading of 51.4. A reading below 50 indicates that manufacturing activity is contracting rather than expanding.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported that the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped by 20,000 last week to 307,000. That improvement pushed the four-week average for claims to the lowest level in a year, indicating that the labor market remains healthy.

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only four times in history — in 2005 and 2006 and in 1933 and 1932. However, the reasons for the decline in the savings rate were vastly different during the two periods.

During the Great Depression, when one-fourth of the labor force was without a job, people dipped into savings in an effort to meet the basic necessities of shelter and clothing.

Economists have put forward various reasons to explain the current lack of savings. These range from a feeling on the part of some people that they do not need to save because of the run-up in their investments such as homes and stock portfolios to an effort by many middle-class wage earners to maintain their current lifestyles even though their wage gains have been depressed by the effects of global competition.

Whatever the reason for the low savings, economists warn that it the phenomenon exists at a particularly bad time with 78 million baby boomers approaching retirement age. Instead of building up savings to use during retirement, baby boomers are continuing to spend all their earnings.

"These low savings levels are coming right as baby boomers are starting to retire and after your retire, your savings rate typically goes down as you live off previous savings," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.

The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income, and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some.

For December, the savings rate edged down to a negative 1.2 percent, compared to a negative 1 percent in November. The savings rate has been in negative territory for 21 consecutive months.

The 0.7 percent rise in personal spending was the best showing since a similar gain in July. It followed increases of 0.5 percent in November and 0.3 percent in October and reflected solid spending by consumers during the Christmas shopping season.

Consumer spending posted a solid rebound in the final three months of the year, helping to lift overall economic growth to a rate of 3.5 percent during that period, up significantly after lackluster growth rates in the spring and fall.

Incomes were up 0.5 percent in December, the best showing since a similar increase in September.

On the inflation front, a gauge tied to consumer spending that is preferred by the Federal Reserve edged up by 0.1 percent in December. This gauge, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, was up 2.2 percent over the past 12 months ending in December, still above the Fed's comfort zone of 1 percent to 2 percent.

Read More...

Summary only...

US sex offender 'posed as pupil'

BBC NEWS
US sex offender 'posed as pupil'

A 29-year-old convicted sex offender has spent four months at a US school after successfully posing as a 12-year-old boy, officials say.

They say Neil Rodreick shaved his body hair, covered his stubble with make-up and took a new name to attend Imagine Charter School in Phoenix, Arizona.

The 173cm (5ft 6in) man was eventually expelled for poor attendance in 2006.

He was arrested after trying to enrol at another school. He has since been charged with forgery and fraud.

Mr Rodreick spent seven years in jail after being convicted of lewdly propositioning a six-year-old boy in 1996.

'Age-appropriate'

Mr Rodreick adopted the name Casey Price to attend Imagine Charter School, investigators say.

We are just shocked
Mindy Newlin, pupil's parent

They say he blended well with the other pupils, many of whom were actually taller and bigger than him.

He attended classes and always handed in his homework on time.

"He absolutely looked age-appropriate," school spokeswoman Rhonda Cagle told the New York Times newspaper.

"By all accounts from the teachers, he was fairly quiet and withdrawn," she said.

Mindy Newlin, parent of one of the pupils at the school, said: "We are just shocked."

Mr Rodreick even convinced two men who had been looking for boys on the internet to pretend to be his relatives.

He was caught earlier in January, after teachers at another school in Arizona - where had gone for a day - became suspicious.

In all, Mr Rodreick spent nearly two years disguised as a boy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Student Tapes Teacher's Sermon saying "you belong in hell" if you "reject" Christianity; School Says 'No More Taping'

Huffington Post
John R. Bohrer
Student Tapes Teacher's Sermon, School Says 'No More Taping'

Over at Blue Jersey, we revisit the story of a Kearny high school teacher, David Paszkiewicz, who told his students that 'that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark,' and "you belong in hell" if you "reject" Christianity. He also singled out a Muslim student to tell her that she is definitely going to hell.

Kearny school officials have certainly taken their time in handling the incident, which occurred at the start of the school year and became public in November.

In December, the Kearny school board continued to obfuscate who was at fault, silently implicating the young student who had secretly taped Paszkiewicz's classroom sermons for fear officials wouldn't believe him. In January, the teacher published a rambling letter in the local paper, explaining why the Constitution allows him to tell his students they are going to hell. He even insinuated the student who taped him was a part of a broader conspiracy:

It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms.

This morning, the New York Times tells of Kearny's official reaction:

Student's Recording of Teacher's Views Leads to a Ban on Taping

After a public school teacher was recorded telling students they belonged in hell if they did not accept Jesus as their savior, the school board has banned taping in class without an instructor's permission, and has added training for teachers on the legal requirements for separating church and state.

In response, the student's father said it the best, "Adoption of this rule at this time sends all the wrong messages."

And while the school board says they've taken some undefined "corrective action" against the teacher, Paszkiewicz still seems intent on berating anyone who disagrees with him.

Meanwhile, [the student] said that Mr. Paszkiewicz recently told the class that scientists who spoke about the danger of global warming were using tactics like those Hitler used, by repeating a lie often enough that people come to believe it.

Read More...

Summary only...

122 levees at risk of failing; California and Washington State lead the list

Engineers: 122 levees at risk of failing
By BEVERLEY LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- One hundred twenty-two levees from Maryland to California are at risk of failing, according to a list released Thursday by the Army Corps of Engineers.

There could be danger to people who live in communities near some of the levees as well as a chance that they will have to pay more for insurance, said Butch Kinerney of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's national flood insurance program.

The list was released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by news organizations, including The Associated Press.

If the Corps of Engineers determines a levee to be at risk of failing, homeowners in the area could be required to purchase flood insurance, though exceptions can be made.

Communities near the levees have been notified that they have received an "unacceptable maintenance inspection rating." That means a levee has one or more problems, which can include movement of floodwalls, faulty culverts, animal burrows, erosion or tree growth, according to a statement released by the Corps.

California, with 37 suspect levees, and Washington state, with 19, led the list.

FEMA's Kinerney said he was concerned that the levees present not only a chance of higher insurance costs but a danger to those living nearby. FEMA maps flood plains and helps determine the flood risks that communities face.

Kinerney said people living near the levees should have an evacuation plan, a family emergency plan, and a disaster supply kit, along with flood insurance.

The Corps has been warning communities they need to take care of routine levee maintenance, said Larry Larson, director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. Larson said he was glad the Corps was putting out the word on the levees.

"The feds are saying, 'Wait a minute, we haven't been doing our job,'" Larson said. "'We better get on top of this. Your people are at risk. You need to get something done.'"

The Corps historically has constructed the levees and has turned most of them over to local communities for operations and maintenance. Some communities may not have kept up with needed repairs, while others may merely lack the documentation, Kinerney said.

As the Corps decertifies the adequacy of a particular levee, it also notifies FEMA, which can take away the credit communities get on their flood insurance rate for having a levee.

Kinerney added that if residents of the communities at risk were to purchase flood insurance now, before the community's designation changes, they can still pay the cheaper rate.

The Corps can give communities 12 months to make corrections - sometimes it's just a matter of "filling gopher holes," Kinerney said.

Also, FEMA can issue for up to 24 months a provisional accreditation if a community requests it, giving it up to two years to correct the problems or contest the finding that the levee is not sound. During that period, residents are not required to purchase flood insurance.

Read More...

Summary only...

Florida Governor Charlie Crist wants $32M to replace touch-screen voting machines

Fla. gov. wants $32M for voting machines
By BRIAN SKOLOFF
Associated Press Writer

Governor Charlie Crist says his new legislative budget proposal will fund a paper trail for Florida voting machines.

DELRAY BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Gov. Charlie Crist said Thursday he wants to spend $32 million to get rid of touch-screen voting technology adopted after the 2000 presidential election, and proposed a system that would create a paper trail of votes instead.

The proposal, which still needs legislative approval, aims to have all counties producing paper trails by the 2008 presidential election.

"What we're talking about here is democracy and it is precious," Crist told a crowd of several hundred people at a gathering of the nonpartisan Voters Coalition of Palm Beach County. "You should, when you go vote, be able to have a record of it."

Fifteen of Florida's 67 counties use paperless touch-screen voting machines. The remaining counties use optical scan machines where a voter marks a paper ballot with a pencil and it is electronically scanned.

Critics of the paperless machines say voters are disenfranchised because there is no record for a manual recount should questions arise about an election.

The state will pay to replace touch-screen machines with optical scanners, but supervisors will be given the option to use the now paperless devices for early voting if they retrofit them to produce a paper trail, said Secretary of State Kurt Browning.

"We want to ensure that every ballot cast in Florida will be able to be counted and verified," Browning said.

Florida's voting system attracted national attention in 2000 when dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads on punch card ballots held up a final count in the presidential election. Florida was eventually decided by 537 votes after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, handing the election to George W. Bush.

The state has since banned the punch cards and moved to all electronic voting machines. But problems arose again in November in the race to replace former U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris in Florida's 13th District.

U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, a Sarasota Republican, was seated last month after a recount showed him ahead 369 votes. More than 18,000 electronic ballots recorded no vote in his contest against Democrat Christine Jennings. His supporters say voters skipped the race intentionally, but Jennings' backers believe the voting machines malfunctioned.

People For the American Way, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based elections watchdog group, said Crist's plan is a good first step, but that more needed to be done to ensure fairness.

Mitchell noted that blind voters, for instance, still need assistance from a poll worker or a family member, and that language barriers would inhibit others from voting alone in some counties.

"We're excited about the money he is putting behind this issue, but we're not suggesting that this is the perfect solution," said Reggie Mitchell, the group's Florida attorney.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. says Oregon man sought missile parts for Iran

Reuters
U.S. says Oregon man sought missile parts for Iran
By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. immigration agents have charged an Oregon businessman with trying to buy batteries used in U.S.-built Hawk surface-to-air missiles for shipment to Iran, court documents showed on Thursday.

Robert Caldwell, 56, of Portland, Oregon, is charged with conspiring to export regulated items without a license under rules governing international arms trade. He was freed on $50,000 bond pending trial.

Caldwell was arrested last week after giving an undercover agent a check for the $5,000 batteries during a meeting at a hotel across from the historic Alamo mission, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jerry Robinette said. "There is no way to get a license," Robinette said. "He would not have been able to acquire a license to ship something like that to Iran."

Hawk missiles, which are launched from fixed positions and considered highly lethal, downed dozens of Iraqi Air Force jets at the start of the Gulf War in 1990. They are believed to be among weapons the United States sent to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra weapons-for-hostages exchange in the 1980s.

But the United States now strictly bans weapons exports to Iran, which it designates as a sponsor of terrorism.

Robinette said Caldwell is an import-export broker in Oregon. He did not say how many batteries Caldwell allegedly attempted to buy. They cost $5,000 each, officials said.

Caldwell's, Van Hilley, said his client was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Mr. Caldwell is a broker, and he met this fellow from England and got involved in something that was well beyond his comprehension," Hilley said.

The federal documents show Caldwell is the second person arrested for attempting to buy the batteries. The other suspect is said to have told investigators that the plan was to send the batteries to Iran.

That suspect allegedly fingered Caldwell as a middle man in the scheme, prompting agents to set up the sting in San Antonio.

"Our concern is to make sure that this battery or any other components of a Hawk missile don't make it to Iran," Robinette said. "We want to make sure they never get ... used against our troops or against our allies."

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. jury acquits two men of Hamas conspiracy

Reuters
U.S. jury acquits two men of Hamas conspiracy
By Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A U.S. jury found two Palestinian-born men not guilty on Thursday of carrying out what prosecutors said was a 15-year conspiracy to illegally finance Hamas terrorist activities in Israel.

Muhammad Salah, 53, and co-defendant Abdelhaleem Ashqar, 48, were acquitted of racketeering conspiracy, the major charge against them and one that could have drawn a sentence of 40 years to life.

They were found guilty on lesser obstruction of justice charges, relating in Salah's case to a statement denying membership in Hamas. Ashqar was found guilty on two counts for refusing to answer questions from two grand juries. The obstruction charges call for up to a five-year sentence, but also allow for probation, lawyers said.

"It is better than we thought," a tearful Salah, a businessman from the Chicago suburb of Bridgeview, Illinois, said as he hugged supporters just outside the courtroom. "We are good people, not terrorists."

"It's a great victory," his lawyer, Michael Deutsch said.

The verdicts will be appealed, defense attorney Matthew Piers said.

The judge set sentencing for June 15, and allowed both defendants to remain free on bond.

Women were on their knees outside the courtroom praying before and after the jury's verdict was read, which came following three weeks of jury deliberations and a 10-week trial.

The 2004 federal grand jury indictment said Salah, who became a U.S. citizen in 1979, was the point person from 1988 until 2003 for money transfers that went to Hamas, and also provided recruits and delivered messages on behalf of the accused Hamas leader in the United States, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook.

A former U.S. doctoral student, Marzook is believed to be in Syria.

Prosecutors described Ashqar, who has taught at Howard University in Washington, as a coordinator and archivist for Hamas' military wing.

CONFESSIONS?

Hamas leads the Palestinian government, but Israel, the European Union and the United States regard it as a terrorist group and it is illegal for U.S. citizens to contribute to it.

John Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time of the indictment, said the defendants had been "taking advantage of the freedoms of an open society to foster and finance acts of terror."

"This is the second time the United States government has tried to bring this (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict into a criminal court of law," Ashqar's attorney, William Moffitt, said. He referred to a Tampa, Florida, jury's acquittal of a computer sciences professor on most terror funding charges in 2005.

In January 1993, Salah was arrested at an Israeli checkpoint and found to be carrying nearly $100,000 in cash. His two-month interrogation produced written and tape-recorded confessions that helped send him to an Israeli prison for 4 1/2 years.

Lawyers for both Salah and Ashqar said they were only involved in charitable work.

Prosecutors used Salah's confession extensively in the trial, but his lawyers said he was tortured into confessing.

"I'm not sure Salah did anything wrong before he was incarcerated by the Israelis, and I'm quite sure he did nothing wrong after," Piers said.

The lone guilty finding against Salah related to a written response in which he denied being a Hamas member that was made in a civil suit won by the family of David Boim, a 17-year-old American killed in Israel in 1996. Piers said he expected the $156 million judgment in that case to be overturned on appeal.

The trial saw an unprecedented appearance by agents of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service, who testified in disguise to a cleared courtroom. They reportedly said Salah was not tortured.

Another high-profile prosecution witness was former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who toured Salah's prison in Israel and saw part of his interrogation -- later writing a front-page article relating to it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Live Vote: Should Bush Be Impeached

Vote at the MSNBC link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET/

Read More...

Summary only...

Comedian Al Franken to run for Senate in Minnesota

realcities.com
Comedian Al Franken to run for Senate in Minnesota
by Rob Hotakainen
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- Comedian and radio talk show host Al Franken has begun calling Democratic members of Congress and prominent Minnesota Democrats to tell them he will definitely challenge Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in 2008, McClatchy Newspapers has learned.

On Monday, Franken announced that he was quitting his radio show on Feb. 14, and he told his audience that they'd be the first to know of his decision. But Franken has been working the phones in recent days, telling his political friends he's ready to declare his candidacy. McClatchy Newspapers confirmed Wednesday that Franken made calls to at least two members of the Minnesota congressional delegation in Washington to break the news. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity, not wanting to pre-empt Franken's announcement.

"From his voice to my ears, he's running," said one House member, who relayed the remark via his press secretary.

"I can tell you we got one of those calls," said a top-ranked aide for another House member.

Franken declined to be interviewed.

"He's not going to comment on his private conversations," said Andy Barr, his spokesman. But he added that Franken has "made no secret" of his interest in Coleman's seat.

No other Democrats have announced plans to challenge Coleman, who's expected to be among the most vulnerable GOP incumbents next year.

Franken, who grew up in St. Louis Park, Minn., achieved fame in New York as a comedy writer for NBC-TV's "Saturday Night Live" and went on to become a best-selling author. He moved his radio show to Minneapolis last year and has become increasingly active in Minnesota and national politics.

His Midwest Values political action committee raised more than $1.1 million and he distributed checks of $10,000 each last year to Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McKaskill of Missouri and Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz, and he gave smaller amounts to dozens of other national and state candidates.

Coleman has had little to say about Franken, but in an interview last year he said he expected him to be "a very strong voice for the far left" and a strong fundraiser. Republicans will try to exploit Franken's ties to Hollywood: Contributors to his political action committee included Barbra Streisand, Phil Donahue, Larry Hagman and Norman Lear from the entertainment industry.

That list of contributors prompted Coleman to say that Franken "obviously has a sense of humor" by calling his PAC Midwest Values.

"Hollywood values aren't Midwest," Coleman said, "and the money isn't Midwest."

Franken expects his years in New York to be an issue in the campaign but has had a ready line as he promotes himself to Minnesota audiences: "If I do run against Norm Coleman in '08, I'll be the only New York Jew in the race who actually grew up in Minnesota."

Coleman grew up in New York and moved to Minnesota as an adult.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ailing NY Ground Zero workers demand more help

Reuters
Ailing NY Ground Zero workers demand more help
By Tom Hals

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Rescue workers with chronic illnesses they attribute to exposure to the rubble at the World Trade Center site demanded long-term support from the government on Wednesday, and one advocate feared it could become "America's Chernobyl."

As President George W. Bush met the son of a World Trade Center rescue worker who died of lung disease, a group of residents, paramedics and union members gathered at the site and demanded hundreds of millions of dollars to help workers who cleared the area after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"This could be America's Chernobyl, but it doesn't have to be," said Mariama James, a resident of the neighborhood near the World Trade Center.

While Washington is spending billions of dollars protecting the country from terrorism, it is doing nothing to help those who worked to clear the site, she said.

Carpenter Jimmy Nolan, who worked and slept at the site for three weeks, said, "The government didn't think they'd see these problems for 20 to 30 years, not in five years."

Showing hands he said were blistered from exposure to the rubble, he said he needed financial support and health care that would allow him to quit a job that could aggravate his lung and liver problems.

About 40,000 rescue workers were exposed to toxic dust that was as caustic as drain cleaner, according to a doctor involved with a study by the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, which was released in September.

Nearly 70 percent of 9,500 workers surveyed have suffered new or worsened respiratory problems after working at the trade center site, the study found. In some cases, the symptoms lingered for years.

"There is so much evidence to link 100-plus deaths to each individual's involvement in the World Trade Center disaster," said Jonathan Sferazo, an ironworker who helped the rescue effort.

Sick rescue workers and their families have been putting pressure on Washington for a comprehensive plan to support rescuers who have lost health insurance because they can't work.

Advocates also want funding to provide medical training about symptoms and to perform an environmental study of lower Manhattan. But they say the government is reluctant to back such steps, fearing it would become liable for long-term costs.

The White House announced plans on Tuesday to spend $25 million to care for sick rescue workers. Bush met with the son of a deceased New York police officer on Wednesday.

Ceasar Borja Jr., who attended Bush's State of the Union address as a guest of New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton on the night his father died, attributes his father's lung disease to exposure to the air at the site.

Clinton has called for nearly $2 billion over several years to treat Ground Zero workers.

Read More...

Summary only...

TV network ad campaign sparks Boston security scare

Reuters
TV network ad campaign sparks Boston security scare
By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - A television network's marketing campaign went badly awry on Wednesday, causing a day-long security scare in Boston that closed bridges, shut major roads and put hundreds of police on alert.

Apologizing for Boston's biggest security alert since the September 11 attacks more than five years ago, Turner Broadcasting said it had placed electronic devices at bridges and other spots to promote an animated cartoon.

Police mistook the small, battery-powered electronic billboards as possible improvised bombs.

The discovery of the first one on a bridge led police to stop morning rush-hour traffic on an interstate highway just north of Boston, halt a busy train line, cordon off the area and deploy a bomb squad, which blew it up.

By afternoon, at least nine more of the "suspicious" devices were found. Authorities mobilized emergency crews, federal agents, bomb squads, hundreds of police and the U.S. Coast Guard as traffic froze in parts of the city.

The billboards, encased in dark plastic, consisted of blinking lights wired to an electronic circuit board to project an animated cartoon image in an outdoor promotion for a show on Turner's Cartoon Network called "Aqua Teen Hunger Force."

"The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner Broadcasting System Inc., a unit of Time Warner Inc., said in statement.

It said the devices, which police said resembled improvised exploding devices, had been in place for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

"We regret that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger," Turner said.

LEGAL ACTION THREATENED

"I am deeply dismayed to learn that many of the devices are a part of a marketing campaign by Turner Broadcasting," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, adding that he will consult with the state's attorney general for a response.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he was prepared to sue.

"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme," he said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred during the response to today's incidents."

The alarm prompted the Coast Guard to close the Charles River that runs through the city and caused authorities to shut down major bridges along with several roads.

"This has taken a significant toll on our resources," Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis told reporters.

The packages were discovered near the New England Medical Center, two bridges and several other locations.

(Additional reporting by Svea Herbst and Scott Malone)

Read More...

Summary only...