Saturday, June 30, 2007

Ireland's first black mayor

UK: Good for him though it is a damn shame he feels more at home in Ireland because as a Christian he had to flee Muslim presecution in Nigeria.

Ireland's first black mayor today hailed his election as a symbol of how European countries can adapt successfully to rapid rates of immigration.

Rotimi Adebari, who arrived seven years ago as an asylum seeker and became a councillor in 2004, has been chosen as the first citizen of Portlaoise.

A Christian from Nigeria, he was forced to flee his hometown of Okeodan in the south-western state of Ogun because of religious persecution. When he settled in Portlaoise with his wife and family, his two children were the only foreign pupils in the local school; there are now more than 30 nationalities in its classes.

Norway cracks down on female circumcision abroad

Culture: Good, as far as I am concerned they should jail the family if they allow it to happen.

Norway took steps on Friday to crack down on circumcision of girls by barring families from traveling abroad if officials suspect they plan to have the procedure done outside the country.

The intervention followed reports in Norwegian media that at least 185 girls from Norway -- daughters of immigrants -- had their genitals cut in just one village in Somalia.

The government said it would refuse passports to families suspected of sending girls abroad to have the procedure carried out. Authorities can also forbid a family from traveling if they suspect the purpose is female circumcision, officials said.

"Today's decision is about how to prevent children from being subject to genital mutilation," Astri Aas-Hansen, a senior official at the Ministry of Justice and Police, told Reuters.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Greatest movie fight scene ever! opinions may differ

Entertainment: Respect Vultan and Queen

More on Supreme Court race based ruling.

Edumacation: Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson whines that the court ruling turns back the clock and the most important thing is racial inclusion.

Go ahead and promote racial diversity in the classroom if you think that's important, the court basically said. But whatever you do, you can't take race into account.

The irony is that the Seattle and Louisville plans were widely popular among both black and white parents. Both plans were designed, in essence, to ensure that segregated housing patterns -- a fact of life in many U.S. cities -- did not inevitably result in segregated schools.

The Louisville schools -- like many other school systems in the South -- had spent decades under a court-ordered desegregation plan. When a federal judge lifted the order several years ago, the local school board decided to keep most elements of the plan in place because it had worked so well. Racially integrated schools, officials decided, were good for the educational process and good for the community.

In Seattle, which had never operated under a court-ordered desegregation plan, school officials had been using race as just one of several factors in trying to ensure diversity in the city's public high schools.

I start from the premise that racial integration in the schools is a good thing. I think the educational process benefits from diversity, and all students are better served in an integrated classroom. I also believe that in a nation where minorities will someday form the majority, integration is an important civic lesson our schools ought to be teaching. Given those beliefs, it seems to me that allowing local officials in Louisville and Seattle to continue with limited programs to ensure integration in the schools should be a no-brainer.

The point is that racial integration should be low on the list of things to worry about when sending your children to school.

Busing kids around so liberals and other mush-minded people can coo about how it is so wonderful black kids and white kids are sitting together does nothing to lift up the quality of the public education system. Juan Williams points out this cry about killing Brown v. Board of Education at this time would be a good thing since the original premise and ruling had nothing to do racial intergration.

"With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling ending the use of voluntary schemes to create racial balance among students, it is time to acknowledge that Brown’s time has passed. It is worthy of a send-off with fanfare for setting off the civil rights movement and inspiring social progress for women, gays and the poor. But the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that focused on outlawing segregated schools as unconstitutional is now out of step with American political and social realities.

Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50 percent for black and Hispanic high school students. It does not equip society to address the so-called achievement gap between black and white students that mocks Brown’s promise of equal educational opportunity.

And the fact is, during the last 20 years, with Brown in full force, America’s public schools have been growing more segregated — even as the nation has become more racially diverse. In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that the average white student attends a school that is 80 percent white, while 70 percent of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and Hispanic.

By the early ’90s, support in the federal courts for the central work of Brown — racial integration of public schools — began to rapidly expire. In a series of cases in Atlanta, Oklahoma City and Kansas City, Mo., frustrated parents, black and white, appealed to federal judges to stop shifting children from school to school like pieces on a game board. The parents wanted better neighborhood schools and a better education for their children, no matter the racial make-up of the school. In their rulings ending court mandates for school integration, the judges, too, spoke of the futility of using schoolchildren to address social ills caused by adults holding fast to patterns of residential segregation by both class and race.

The focus of efforts to improve elementary and secondary schools shifted to magnet schools, to allowing parents the choice to move their children out of failing schools and, most recently, to vouchers and charter schools. The federal No Child Left Behind plan has many critics, but there’s no denying that it is an effective tool for forcing teachers’ unions and school administrators to take responsibility for educating poor and minority students.

It was an idealistic Supreme Court that in 1954 approved of Brown as a race-conscious policy needed to repair the damage of school segregation and protect every child’s 14th-Amendment right to equal treatment under law. In 1971, Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for a unanimous court still embracing Brown, said local school officials could make racial integration a priority even if it did not improve educational outcomes because it helped “to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society.”

But today a high court with a conservative majority concludes that any policy based on race — no matter how well intentioned — is a violation of every child’s 14th-Amendment right to be treated as an individual without regard to race. We’ve come full circle.

In 1990, after months of interviews with Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had been the lead lawyer for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund on the Brown case, I sat in his Supreme Court chambers with a final question. Almost 40 years later, was he satisfied with the outcome of the decision? Outside the courthouse, the failing Washington school system was hypersegregated, with more than 90 percent of its students black and Latino. Schools in the surrounding suburbs, meanwhile, were mostly white and producing some of the top students in the nation.

Had Mr. Marshall, the lawyer, made a mistake by insisting on racial integration instead of improvement in the quality of schools for black children?

His response was that seating black children next to white children in school had never been the point. It had been necessary only because all-white school boards were generously financing schools for white children while leaving black students in overcrowded, decrepit buildings with hand-me-down books and underpaid teachers. He had wanted black children to have the right to attend white schools as a point of leverage over the biased spending patterns of the segregationists who ran schools — both in the 17 states where racially separate schools were required by law and in other states where they were a matter of culture.

If black children had the right to be in schools with white children, Justice Marshall reasoned, then school board officials would have no choice but to equalize spending to protect the interests of their white children.

The argument was a brilliant legal tactic that has been abused over the years for social experimentation letting local/state governments off the hook in fixing neighborhood schools especially with a majority poor minority population. Of course if you take someone from a suck school and drive him to a better learning environment he/she will do better. But busing and using race to do so rises tension, not lower it.

"Louisville Attorney Teddy Gordon is saying nothing different now than he has since first taking on Jefferson County Schools' racial policy in 1998.

"If you're going to merely bus children to worse performing schools to have them sit next to a person of a different color, and not improve their educational outcome, that can't be the answer to equal educational opportunity."

The only difference is now he has the U.S. Supreme Court to back him up.

"All those who championed Brown versus The Topeka Board of Education, let them now say that we will no longer color code, or ethnic code our kids."

....The big fear from some about the ruling is that it may in fact lead to re-segregation. That's exactly what the Rev. Jesse Jackson said when he learned of the court's decision. "The premise is laid for the resegregation of America and the denial of opportunity."

Gordon says that theory, in itself, is racist. "I don't think any African American person in this country, especially in Louisville Kentucky, is going to accept that if we have an African American majority in the school, that, by definition, is inferior."

Tavis Smiley Presidential borefest forum.

Politics: Check out this line from the Tavis Smiley Blacandering "debate" via the campaign spot at NRO.

Hillary: That was good, Tavis. If AIDS were the biggest cause of death for white women, there would be an outrage in this country. (That gets a standing ovation.) Denounces Bush for keeping Ryan White funding flat.

She seems to be connecting with the crowd quite well.

If Obama or anyone else tried a line like that other than her, they would have gotten ripped six ways till Sunday on it for being racist. She says it and you will hear praise for her connection. That is why it is such an uphill battle for Obama and unless Hillary screws up royally, he has no chance to bear her.

As for the debate, if pandering was sugar I would have been in a diabetic coma within the first half hour. The whole thing was setup not for a serious discussion or the candidates giving solutions to problems affecting the black community in a realistic way. I predicted this on Tuesday and it turned out to be true. Except for Gravel, you knew what the answers were and those candidates that tailored their answer in the most pandering, patronizing way possible got the best response. I was hoping for the audience NOT to enable that sort of behavior but they encouraged it.

An Abysmal Panderfest of a Democratic Debate

Look, I try hard to see where the other side of the aisle is coming from, but this debate was painful - an egregious can-you top-this panderfest, in which nothing surprising, intriguing, thought-provoking or original was said.

The candidates knew what their audience liked and didn’t like, and served up soundbites accordingly. The audience didn’t like the war. They don’t like the tax rate on the highest earners and want it raised. They didn’t like the Supreme Court decision on the use of race to ensure diversity in schools, nor mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.

They liked health care. They liked pledges of improving education. They liked just about any call for additional funding for just about any social program. They liked the citing of Dr. Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, and major figures from African-American history. They applauded any comment that suggested that American society was a blatantly rigged game for African-Americans, that it was obvious to anyone with half a brain. They applauded any comment that suggested that our institutions were corrupt, racist, cynical, untrustworthy and rotted to the core.

They applauded John Edwards when he called for fully funding a cure for AIDS. As if the only obstacle to a cure is funding.

The only mention of the Pentagon was as a waste of funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

No mention of the war on terror.

The winner of this debate? Anyone who skipped watching it.

The dumbest question of the night had to go to NPR's Michel Martin who asked if they supported a federal law guaranteeing the right to return to New Orleans based on UN/International law.

First thing that popped to mind is what the Palestinians got to do with New Orleans, then I hunted around and saw a couple of lawsuits and Amnesty International. You don't need a federal law and two go ask the state and the city what they are doing to use the money sitting there due to infighting and red tape. The is only so much hand holding you can give to New Orleans.

WSJ reporters throw a hissy fit over Murdoch/contract.

Media: Whoa, a whole half morning. The next step is to hold out till after lunchtime.

The writers at The Wall Street Journal really don’t want to see Dow Jones (DJ) get taken over by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (NWS)
With reports suggesting that a News Corp. deal to acquire the company could be sealed within a matter of weeks, provided the controlling Bancroft family agrees, the union that represents workers at Dow Jones staged a sickout Thursday morning.

The union issued the following statement:

Wall Street Journal reporters across the country chose not to show up to work this morning.
We did so for two reasons.

First, The Wall Street Journal’s long tradition of independence, which has been the hallmark of our news coverage for decades, is threatened today. We, along with hundreds of other Dow Jones employees represented by
the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, want to demonstrate our conviction that the Journal’s editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence.

Second, by our absence from newsrooms around the country, we are reminding Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff. Dow Jones currently is in contract negotiations with its primary union, seeking severe cutbacks in our health benefits and limits on our pay. It is beyond debate that the professionals who create The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications every day deserve a fair contract that rewards their achievements. At a time when Dow Jones is finding the resources to award golden parachutes to 135 top executives, it should not be seeking to eviscerate employees’ health benefits and impose salary adjustments that amount to a pay cut.

We put the reputation of The Wall Street Journal and the needs of its readers first. That’s why we will be back at our desks this afternoon, producing the day’s news reports. But we hope this demonstration will remind those entrusted with the future of Dow Jones that our publications’ integrity must be protected, and sustained, from top to bottom.

Will this mini-strike work? It seems unlikely. For one, after taking a quick look at the WSJ’s Web site on Thursday morning, it didn’t appear that there was any indication that people weren’t working. Breaking stories were covered by writers there and not just wire stories.

However, one Dow Jones employee e-mailed me Thursday afternoon to point out that several of the stories on the WSJ home page were written either by Dow Jones Newswires staffers, who were not included in Thursday’s work stoppage even though they are also union members, or were written by WSJ reporters on Wednesday for publication in Thursday’s paper.

And when I spoke to Jim Browning, a reporter in the money and investing section and chair of the union’s bargaining committee, he conceded that it was hard to tell just now how many reporters decided to stay home. He was not in the office at the time and suggested I check back in later today for an update on how many reporters avoided the office.

A good sign that it wasn't that successful is no one noticed till you put out a letter.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Isaiah Washington Cites Racism for Firing

Entertainment: He has moved on to just nuking everyone in sight, damn the consequences or he is delusional.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington said racism was a factor in his firing from the hit ABC series after he twice used an anti-gay slur.

Washington, who initially used the epithet during an onset clash with a co-star, told Newsweek magazine that "someone heard the booming voice of a black man and got really scared and that was the beginning of the end for me."

He tried to make amends by expressing remorse and volunteering to enter a counseling program to understand how the confrontation got out of hand, he told Newsweek.

"My mistake was believing that I would get the support from my network and all of my cast mates across the board. My mistake was believing I could correct a wrong with honesty and sincerity," he said in the interview posted online Thursday.

"My mistake was thinking black people get second chances. I was wrong on all fronts," he said.

His unwillingness to act like a submissive black at work was part of the problem, Washington said.

"Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation and that can be a problem for people sometime," he said.

"I had a person in human resources tell me after this thing played out that `some people' were afraid of me around the studio. I asked her why, because I'm a 6-foot-1, black man with dark skin and who doesn't go around saying `Yessah, massa sir' and `No sir, massa' to everyone?

"It's nuts when your presence alone can just scare people, and that made me a prime candidate to take the heat in a dysfunctional family," he said.

Amnesty bill down, Race-based school policy down

Nation: Today was a good day, let us count the ways.

1) Amnesty bill gets shot down hard.

2) The race-based diversity programs in schools got thrown on its rear. When you place equal or more emphasis on getting kids to share a classroom based on the color of their skin, you have gone the wrong way. It brought the predictable liberal/leftist nonsense.

"The Supreme Court decision in the school desegregation cases is appalling. Ever since Brown v. Board of Education, it has been settled law that the Constitution requires racially mixed schools. Today's decision turns Brown upside down and ignores decades of constitutional history. If this isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling has placed a serious obstacle in the way of achieving the vision of America first outlined in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, where we see racially integrated education as the best way to reflect our great diversity, unite our nation, and make real our promise of equal opportunity for all." — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

What was Brown vs Board of Education about again?

1954 -- Brown v. Board of Education, ruling unanimously that racially segregated public schools are unconstitutional and "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." The landmark decision grew out of cases involving schools in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.

Oh okay, so Obama and Reid are full of it. This ruling was to overturn government mandated racial segregation because it was clearly not an equal education system back then. Now you have liberals as one mother said want a social experiment instead of figuring out how to boost the quality of education in bad schools. The two systems shot down were unfair and had nothing to do with providing a good education.

Seattle Public Schools is in the midst of revamping its process for assigning students to schools, and it was unclear Thursday morning how the ruling would affect the district's plans. School district officials were not available for comment Thursday morning, but scheduled a morning news conference to discuss the ruling.

The school district's policy also affected students of color, said Seattle attorney Harry Korrell, who represented the parents. Some non-whites who wanted to attend neighborhood high school Franklin were turned away because there were too many students of color there and the district wanted to enroll more white students.

"It's a sweeping victory for students and parents everywhere," Korrell said.

The racial tiebreaker that the Supreme Court struck down Thursday hasn't been in use in Seattle Public Schools for more than five years.

The Louisville case grew out of complaints from several parents whose children were not allowed to attend the schools of their choice. Crystal Meredith, a white, single mother, sued after the school system turned down a request to transfer her 5-year-old son Joshua Ryan McDonald, to a school closer to home.

Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.

Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson said he was disappointed with the ruling because his city's system had provided "a quality education for all students and broken down racial barriers" for 30 years.

Deborah Stallworth, a Louisville parent who successfully sued to end court-ordered busing in 2000, said: "We send children to school to be educated, not as a social experiment."

3) The four liberals on the court were near tears they couldn't get their way and have a more activists role in matters.

A very good day.

Australian boxing champ held on terrorism charges

Terrorism: In Lebanon.

AN Australian boxing champion is among at least four men arrested on suspicion of terrorism in Lebanon.

Ahmed Elomar, an undefeated super featherweight who fought on the undercard of the Anthony Mundine-Danny Green bout last year, left Sydney suddenly two months ago without telling anybody, according to friends.

Elomar is the nephew of Mohamed Ali Elomar, one of the nine men charged with plotting a terrorist act in November 2005.

Omar Hadba, a dual Australian-Lebanese citizen, is still being questioned after Lebanese police raided his home last weekend and found what they said was a large quantity of weapons and military equipment.

They weren't lying about a large quantity.

According to a man who rented the adjoining shop, Mohamed Chawk, neighbours were stunned at the number of weapons taken away. "I couldn't believe that he was involved in all of this," Mr Chawk said. "But when we saw them open the shop it was packed to the roof with guns. We are talking Kalashnikovs, M16s, sniper rifles, hand guns, masks, rocket-propelled grenades, land mines and grenades. It filled up one military truck to the limit."

Flying Imams lawyer demand access be limited.

Nation: The judge probably gave him the RCA dog look as she declined.

A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit filed by six Muslim men who were removed from a US Airways flight last fall has declined to limit public access to the case.

Omar T. Mohammedi, a New York attorney for the six Muslim scholars, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he sought limited media access because he felt some of the coverage of the case has been biased against his clients.

"When you think of the media, and the way they have been portraying this case, it has not been very helpful. It has been biased," Mohammedi said. "That has caused a lot of stress, a lot of stress on our clients, as well as made it difficult for us to handle this case ... in a manner that it should be handled."

Welcome to the world of media relations, so far you are failing miserably at it with this request.

Bunglawala and MCB finally gets freedom of expression?

Culture: Or is this some sort of trap by the MCB spokesman?

"....An open letter sent to major Muslim organisations in the UK from a longstanding conservative Muslim campaigner, Dr Abdul Majid Katme, charged me with having written a "horrifying article" in which I allegedly said that I "don't mind anyone abusing the Prophet [Muhammad]". That is just not true and shows a striking misunderstanding of what I had written. It is patently idiotic to say that the right to offend implies necessary approval or agreement with what is then said by somebody else. Vilification of the Prophet Muhammad is understandably hurtful to Muslims, including me. What I had argued for, however, was simply a recognition that people's words and writings cannot and should not be policed on the basis of what other people may or may not regard as offensive.

Dr Katme then protests that "we did not ask [for] that filthy book [the Satanic Verses] to be banned, we [just] asked the publishers to withdraw it".

It is certainly true that while some Muslims called for Rushdie's book to be banned, some others called on the publishers, Viking-Penguin, to withdraw and pulp their stocks instead. I have to confess that I have some trouble in sensing much of a distinction between the two positions. Still, it is worth querying how such a call was desirable or could in any case be successful now that we are in the age of the internet. And what about DVDs such as Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ? Jesus is regarded as a major prophet in Islam - would those DVDs also have to be pulped too? And what else besides? Can you just imagine? It seems to be an ill-thought-out and rather extreme position.

I raised this issue with the Labour peer, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, this week and he agreed that any attempt to introduce a law prohibiting vilification or objectionable material about revered religious figures would be futile and counterproductive. British Muslims are already in the unfortunate position where they are viewed by too many of their fellow citizens as seeking to curtail some basic freedoms.

Is it not a more rewarding approach to wholeheartedly embrace those very same freedoms and recognise that the same laws that allowed Rushdie to have written the Satanic Verses are the ones that protect the right of Muslim authors to, for example, robustly criticise the concept of the Trinity as a deviation from the monotheistic teachings of Jesus or to vocally oppose the government's calamitous participation in the invasion of Iraq?"

Oh my stars, there could be hope for that organization yet in representing Muslims in the UK. I guess being shut out by the government can help clear up a few rights we hold dear in the West.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Eric Deggans should stick to reviewing shows.

Media: Deggans is a liberal tv critic for one of the most liberal and worse papers in America the St. Petersburg Times(owned by Poynter). When he tries to go beyond reviewing he sticks his foot in his mouth more times than not especially when it comes to anything to right of Lenin.

Today he takes a shot like every other paranoid newspaper employee it seems of Evil Murdoch and comes up with this line regarding the NYTIMES expose.

In essence, Murdoch is buying the Wall Street Journal brand; a symbol of quality in business news and information, precisely because it has remained an independent voice. It wouldn't do Murdoch much good to plunk down $5-billion for Dow Jones if he ruined its reputation by curbing reporting efforts or pushing the paper to pursue his enemies. Or so the thinking goes.

Nice, logical thinking -- which is utterly inconsistent with Murdoch's long history as a controlling power broker willing to cross ethical lines with impunity to pursue specific business objectives. (See here for the New York Times' response to News Corp's odd assertion that the Times was pursuing its own business objectives by presenting a thorough look at Murdoch's world conquering tactics.)

So far, nothing the NYTIMES has presented has been a shock if you pay a little attention over the years about Murdoch which why the series has been a fizzle. Second, of course the Times went after Murdoch because of this impending deal, he is buying up a competitor that has been hampered by not enough resources being put back in the business to grow in this new media age. The Thomson/Reuters deal and Bloomberg news are big threats to DJ.

You put News Corp in charge, they have the resources to compete and from the business news standpoint pull away from the NYTIMES. As a business tactic, the Times series is a self serving good move to try and influence the sale. It's not an "odd assertion."

In an 1,800-word article yesterday, Pinch's paper accused Murdoch of kowtowing to China's Communist regime to expand his broadcasting business there.

It was the second Times hit on Murdoch this week - and some experts think the stories were an open letter to the family that controls the Journal's parent company, Dow Jones & Co.

"I can't see who in God's name that article was intended for other than the Bancroft family," portfolio manager Larry Haverty of Gamco Investors said.

Haverty, whose money management firm owns shares of both News Corp. and Dow Jones, said The Times - along with CNBC - is the franchise "most threatened" by Murdoch's dream of buying the Journal.

A commentator on the blog calls him out on this and Deegans answer?

Just wondering, Mike: How's that Kool Aid taste?

The type of childish answer you would expect from a St.Pete Times employee.

Detroit fears big wave of criminals with budget cuts.

Crime: No money means letting 585 inmates loose, what could go wrong.

DETROIT -- As police grapple with the usual summer surge in crime, this year the department has a new worry: Nearly 600 extra criminals could be leaving prison soon and heading back to Detroit.

The Michigan Department of Corrections has begun releasing a wave of special parolees intended to save $92 million in next year's budget. Over the next three months, the state's parole board is considering up to 2,539 extra releases, with 585, or nearly a quarter of them, from Wayne County.

Nearly half the inmates eligible for the special parole have been in prison at least twice. A third of them are in prison for drug dealing or breaking and entering. Many have histories of drug or alcohol abuse or mental illness.

"We're greatly concerned, but we've been told the Department of Corrections is going to have a strong monitoring system on (the parolees)," said James Canning, a spokesman for Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Only one solution is left for Detroit.

Honor killing attempt in Pennsylvania?

Crime: Via NBC 10.

"....Robert Webber, of Middletown Township police, said he thought he was being dispatched to a Bucks County diner Friday night for a fight but once he got there he was in the middle of a family disagreement turned violent.

"The victim advised me that his fiancée's family was trying to kill him, drag him into a car and take him somewhere, where he believed he was going to be killed," Webber said.

Webber said the alleged victim told him his fiancée's family was upset the two had moved in together.

He said there were cultural differences and that's why 48-year-old Mohd Nasher and his son 20-year-old Mohammed Nasher were allegedly gunning for the fiancé.

"The father and son came in, grabbed our victim, pulled him outside, began choking and beating him. Drug him into the back of a Ford Explorer and that's where they advised him that they were going to take him somewhere. He jumped out the other side window in fear for his life and as he went to run away the father told him, 'I'm going to find you and I'm going to shoot you.' The son went and grabbed a bat and went to chase after him," Webber said.

Both Nashers were charged with assault and kidnapping. They both posted $20,000 cash bail and were released.

NBC 10 went to the Nashers' Newtown home. People came to the window but didn't answer the door.

NBC 10 left several voicemails asking for comment and when a call was returned, a woman who did not identify herself said this was not a criminal case but a family matter between them and their daughter's boyfriend.
"It's a little more than a family matter. Once you touch somebody or put your hands on somebody and try to harm them, that's when we come into the situation," Webber said.

The woman NBC 10 spoke with also said she would sue if NBC 10 did the story, saying, "That's the problem with this country, we put everything on TV."

The alleged victim and his girlfriend are still together and living out-of-state, NBC 10 reported.

Maybe the lady needs some lessons in American law?

UK: 3 million crimes a year 'left out of official figures'

Crime: Innovative way of reporting crime in the UK, if you get beat up more than five times, everything after five is not recorded. No wonder the crime rate is going down over there.

LONDON (Reuters) - The true extent of crime in Britain is much worse than the preferred figures used by the government indicate because more than three million offences are omitted, according to a report on Tuesday.

Researchers for think-tank Civitas said the British Crime Survey, the system for estimating crime that is favoured by the government, misleads the public because it excludes many crimes committed against those who may have suffered repeat offences.

That would mean there could be over two million more "personal" crimes, ranging from sexual offences to robbery and muggings, and another million household offences, such as burglary, vandalism and bicycle theft.

Violent crime could be 82 percent higher, the report said.

The BCS, introduced in 1981, is said by the Home Office to be the "most reliable and robust" means of measuring crime levels and more reflective of reality than raw police figures.

Based on interviews with more than 40,000 members of the public, it has indicated that crime has fallen by a third in the last 10 years.

However according to the report, one of whose authors was Ken Pease, a former head of the Policy Research at the Home Office, the BCS distorts figures because of the way data is collected.

The report said if people were victimised by the same offenders more than five times a year, the number of crimes actually registered was just five in order to prevent extreme cases giving a misleading overall picture.

But the authors, who said there was no attempt by the Home Office to deliberately mislead people, argued: "If the people who say they suffered 10 incidents really did, it is capping the series at five that distorts the rate".

They also claimed that the approach meant police resources and other action could be diverted from cases which began with trivial events but turned into long-running feuds that concluded with violent and sometimes fatal results.

More from the Telegraph and Guardian

Man charged for protecting his home with a rifle.

Australia: I guess in Australia you are supposed to curl up some place in the house in a fetal position and hope you don't get killed.

A man has been charged after allegedly firing a shot through the front door of his home to deter would-be intruders terrorising the occupants.

Police said the man, 43, fired one shot from a rifle through the front door of the home in McNeil Avenue, Geelong East, about 10pm last night.

The would-be intruders had thrown rocks through the front window and cut the home's power supply before trying to jemmy open the front door.

They fled after the man, who was inside with a woman and young girl, opened fire.

Police recovered the rifle and charged the man with conduct endangering life and firearm offences.

He has been bailed to appear at the Geelong Magistrates Court on August 9.

Young Americans Are Leaning Left...Duh?

Culture: I don't see the big deal about this poll by the NYTIMES.

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

....At a time when Democrats have made gains after years in which Republicans have dominated Washington, young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

....In the current poll, 62 percent said they would support a universal, government-sponsored national health care insurance program; 47 percent of the general public holds that view. And 30 percent said that “Americans should always welcome new immigrants,” while 24 percent of the general public holds that view.

Their views on abortion mirror those of the public at large: 24 percent said it should not be permitted at all, while 38 percent said it should be made available but with greater restrictions. Thirty-seven percent said it should be generally available.

I am only surprised its not more lopsided given the last decade. I'm early 30's gearing up to start taking a couple of years off when asked but I remember myself being young and idealist, then I got a real job, started college and by the time I finished I was pretty much cynical, untrusting of government and fuming that my paycheck was going to fund crap that was basically giving away my money for "social justice!" among other things.

I guess you can call them Generation Y and they will realize they don't know everything as they get older and wishing government to be your mommy is idiotic.

Winston Churchill old saying still works.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards picking up John's man card.

Politics: Since John is too busy talking up his hair to raise money. Picking a fight with Ann Coulter who was snookered by Chris Matthews over something she pointed out as hypocrisy by the media on GMA when Bill Maher wished death on Dick Cheney.

No, no. There were, I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was, was from I'… Very upsetting…Though about the same time Bill Maher said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word.


But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

Edwards campaign took the video, edited it down to raise money, Coulter went on Hardball where she got a call from Elizabeth who is trying to drum up some interest in Edward's campaign.

Edwards: "I was calling, you know, in the South when we, when someone does something that displeases us we want to ask them, politely, to stop doing it. I'd like to ask Ann Coulter to, if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today. But, but it's quite another matter, to, for these personal attacks. The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates is, lowers our, our political dialogue, precisely at the time we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity, which I don't get much, because Ann and I don't hang out with the same people."

Coulter: "I don't have enough money."

Edwards: "To ask her, politely, to stop the personal attacks."

Interesting considering Elizabeth doesn't have a problem with personal attacks on ordinary people.

Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home — and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way off his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.

"I wouldn't be nice to him anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.

Congrats to Chris Matthews who whored his show out to give the Elizabeth a platform, looking at the ratings, he needs the boost.

Cocaine is a helluva drug

Crime: Not a very good driving aid as well.

You think you have seen pandering and Hispandering?

Politics: This Thursday on the 'All American Presidential Forums on PBS' Moderated by Tavis Smiley, you will get to see Blacandering and patronizing on a scale that you could never imagine in your lifetime.

WHAT: The "All-American Presidential Forums" on PBS, moderated by Tavis
Smiley, is an historic broadcast marking the first time that a
panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color will be
represented in primetime. Tavis Smiley, along with journalists
Michel Martin of National Public Radio, nationally syndicated
columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. and USA Today and Gannett News
Service columnist DeWayne Wickham, will question candidates on
issues ranging from healthcare and housing to Katrina relief, the
economy and the environment, among others, as outlined in the #1
The New York Times best-seller, Covenant With Black America. This
forum will provide the first major opportunity for the candidates
to present a detailed discourse and dialogue on their social

(A second forum for Republican presidential candidates will be held
on September 27, 2007, on the campus of Morgan State University in
Baltimore, Maryland.)

WHO: Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Senator Joe Biden, U.S.
Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, former U.S.
Senator John Edwards, former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, U.S.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Senator Barack Obama and New
Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

WHERE AND WHEN: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Howard University Cramton Auditorium
9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET

If one candidate pulls a Cosby I will salute him (notice I didn't say her). You know what kind of questions are going to be asked when he has well known illegal alien apologist Ruben Navarrette Jr who doesn't hesitate to pull the "you racist" card when demanding Amnesty for illegals on the panel. The possibility of unintended comedy is huge in this debate including Smiley's ego on full display.

Democrats gunning for fairness doctrine.

Media: They can't win by talent so government intervention under the guise of "diversity" is coming fast.

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Feinstein said she is not yet ready to submit a formal proposal.

Democrats on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee have also begun to focus on what they regard as a lack of diversity in talk radio, and may hold hearings later this year.

BBC has Hamas terrorist as an employee?

Media: It is the BBC, so no surprise.

Despite Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) opposition and per the request of the BBC, the coordinator of government activities allowed a Hamas member who works for the BBC to enter the Gaza Strip last week to assist in efforts to release kidnapped journalist Alan Johnston.

Defense officials told The Jerusalem Post that a week ago, a request came from the BBC asking that a Palestinian employee of the news company who is believed to be a close associate of senior Hamas officials be allowed to enter Gaza.

The employee, who lives in Gaza, had traveled to Egypt with his wife for medical reasons and the BBC told Israeli officials that they believed he could assist in negotiating Johnston's release.

The Shin Bet objected to the BBC request, saying that the employee was actually a member of Hamas, and perhaps even a terrorist operative.

In the end, however, the Defense Ministry decided to allow him to to enter Israel from Jordan via the Allenby Bridge and then to enter northern Gaza through the Erez crossing.

He was not able to enter Gaza directly from Egypt since the Rafah crossing was closed.

Johnston was abducted by the Army of Islam terrorist group on March 12.

On Monday, a videotape of Johnston wearing an explosives belt was released, with the journalist warning that his captors intend to detonate the belt if Hamas or anyone else attempted to free him by force.

"We did not want to be blamed for holding up Johnston's release," one official said, explaining the decision to allow the Hamas member into Gaza.

"If we had rejected the request the British would be able to use our decision as an excuse for why Johnston is not being released."

Congrats to Rosie O'Donnell's daughter

Culture: For being admitted to the Hamas Headstart program, nice class photo.

Rosie's explanation.

"They don't watch TV — this is how they play/the boys had fatigues and were playing war/the girls wanted some/they run around the house with water guns/shooting each other," she said.

O'Donnell is fascinated by the reaction to the simple image.

"It's fascinating to me/that an image of a child dressed up as a soldier/evokes so much attention/yet the real soldiers - their deaths - their wounded bodies/doesn't seem to faze most/or make news," she wrote.

You have to know your audience, most people who go to Rosie's site are gun-controlling pacifists who are just shocked to their core that Rosie who is a rabid gun grabber would have her kids in combat garb. The worse is using the picture to try and tie it into the war that people are not paying attention which is a lie. Others are probably upset because it reminds them of pictures like this and thought Rosie was trying to be shock chic with the picture.

I don't mind it at all. but I see a chance for a cheap shot I am going to take it.

“Clay Pigeon” amendment.

Immigration: Michelle Malkin has the pdf of the document and right off the bat I see they still haven't taken out the next business day to grant amnesty to an illegal alien on page 20.

**NZ BEAR has the document in searchable html format.

Captain Ed already found more and it is even worse than before in some areas. Remember even if the Senate passes this bill, most of these amendments can be changed in the House and during House-Senate conference.

I think this is now just a big FU from the White House and the Amnesty gang determined to show they know better than anyone else.

The White House is sending out talking points arguing that even though the public does not like the immigration bill, Congress should pass it because voters want something done about the issue:

A majority (55 percent) say even though the bill before Congress might not be exactly what they would prefer on immigration, it is important for Congress to pass a bill that deals with illegal immigration and confronts the problem. Only 38 percent say it is better to not pass a bill at all and to just enforce the laws already on the books.

The Senate is acting like a retarded version of the EU Parliament where pseudo elites reign over the commoners.

Mitt Romney taking Sarkozy's election strategy?

Politics: Via Politico.

"We're going to change the course of America," Romney told about 800 donors gathered for a pep rally at the Boston Red Sox's Fenway Park.

"It's on a course right now that's just not quite right. We've got a lot of problems around the world that need our leadership as a nation.

"We're going to have to get ourselves back on track again so that we can remain the powerful nation we've always been -- powerful not just by our strength and our economic vitality, but powerful because of our goodness and the greatness of the American spirit. And that's what the campaign is about."

Romney, like the other top GOP contenders, has so far avoided direct criticism of the increasingly unpopular President Bush, choosing instead to focus specifically on issues like immigration or the conduct of the war.

But his language in Boston -- at a time when polls indicate the overwhelming majority of Americans feel as he does about the nation being on the wrong course -- signaled that he will take steps to move away from the president if necessary.

Economist(May 15th, 2007)

Disowning the president
It is a mark of the mismanagement of the past 12 years that each of the three leading candidates to succeed Mr Chirac—Mr Sarkozy on the right, Ségolène Royal on the left, and François Bayrou in the centre—is, in their own way, standing on an anti-Chirac platform. That the Socialists' Ms Royal should seek to turn the page on the Chirac years is scarcely surprising. That the two other mainstream candidates do too testifies to the depths of public disillusion with their outgoing president.

The first oddity of this election is that Mr Chirac has no natural successor from his own political family. On paper, it appears to be Mr Sarkozy. But Mr Chirac has not yet endorsed his candidacy. One by one, he has tried, and failed, to nurture alternative successors on the Gaullist right. Mr Juppé, his chosen heir, was disqualified by his conviction. Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, who publicly backed Mr Sarkozy's candidacy this week, ruled himself out by mismanaging the mass strikes and student protests last year.

As it has turned out, the man representing the president's Gaullist party is in reality running on a right-wing programme that blends elements of economic liberalism with social authoritarianism in a way that sets him quite apart from Mr Chirac. Given the president's unpopularity, this may be a wise electoral strategy.

It did work. Newt Gingrich and others touted Sarkozy's success to make people vote for him despite being in Chirac's government all those years and his immigration policies are a hit over there and here among conservative circles. At this point with President Bush willing to go down with the amnesty bill, time to start making him the American Chirac.

Tip: Influence Peddler and Instapundit.

New York's Black and Hispanics caucus upset.

Immigration: Why? because of one county executive who is clamping down on illegal immigration.

HAUPPAUGE, N.Y., June 25 — The game of chicken between the State Legislature’s black and Hispanic caucus and the Suffolk County executive, Steve Levy, who has crusaded against illegal immigration, intensified on Monday when he warned of mass layoffs, tax increases and cuts in county programs unless they can resolve an impasse over immigration and sales taxes.

But by the end of the day, it appeared that one or perhaps both sides had blinked, or winked, in the standoff.

Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat of Upper Manhattan, a leader of the caucus, said in a telephone interview that he objected to Mr. Levy’s “my way or the highway approach” when it came to immigration policy, specifically his opposition to hiring halls for day laborers.

But when told that Mr. Levy, a fellow Democrat, said he could not stop the operation of state-financed hiring halls, Mr. Espaillat said, “If that’s the case, there should not be a problem,” so maybe the stalemate could be resolved.

The standoff started on Thursday when the Assembly caucus blocked a routine measure to reauthorize a 1 percent county sales tax that provides $320 million a year in revenue. It had already been passed by the State Senate.

It was a rebellion stoked by Mr. Levy’s repeated vows to crack down on illegal immigrants, which have upset many Democrats in the State Assembly.

On Monday, Mr. Levy denounced the action as “unconscionable.” During the news conference at his office here, Mr. Levy called the move “a very dangerous precedent” by state officials “trying to impose their will on a local government.”

Auto workers could lose their jobs bank.

Bidness: It was a dumb idea to begin with that just became a heavier anchor around the necks of American automakers.

DETROIT, June 25 — Unionized workers at the Delphi Corporation, the big auto parts supplier, could vote this week to throw out the jobs bank, the longtime program that lets them continue receiving most of their pay after being laid off.

If so, the jobs bank, which critics have held up as the epitome of the American auto industry’s outdated and inefficient labor practices, could be in its last months at all three Detroit automakers, too.

Elimination of the jobs bank is one provision of a tentative agreement signed last week by the United Automobile Workers union, Delphi and Delphi’s former parent, General Motors, after nearly two years of divisive negotiations. The agreement replaces the jobs bank — which gives laid-off employees 95 percent of their base pay — with $1,500 in severance pay for every month of service, to a maximum of $40,000, according to a 46-page memorandum of understanding that details the deal.

The memorandum was posted online today by the Soldiers of Solidarity, a faction of the U.A.W. that opposes the agreement.

Monday, June 25, 2007

This has the makings of a fun week

Culture: Something like this pop ups, you sort of figure the hyperbole will be running wild.

· All this week Comment writers will assess the rise of the super-rich and the growing gap between rich and poor. Read more views and join the debate at

Murdoch Expose Day 2: Profiling Wendi Deng.

Media: Considering it is a rush job the NYTIMES is doing (Drudge only has a flash going) Did anything come from a spiked piece about her from Australia?

MSNBC journalists campaign report leads to more firings.

Media: This time in Nebraska via MSNBC and Omaha City Weekly Media Watch. In the case of the editorial cartoonist, not exactly a good way to show you give a damn about a newspaper credibility.

The TV reporter in Omaha who posted a photo of herself on with a congressional candidate, urging her friends to vote for him, is no longer working at the station.

Also out: an editorial cartoonist who said he didn't "give a rat's ass" about his newspaper's policy on campaign contributions by journalists.

And one newspaper has dropped the syndicated column "The Ethicist" by New York Times writer Randy Cohen because of his donation to, which he said he had thought of as "nonpartisan."

Vote for cloture is a vote for Amnesty

Immigration: The fact there is some suspicious arm-twisting going on by the White House and Senators like Kit Bond of Missouri and Richard Burr who will vote for the first cloture just so his amendment will be considered. Bond is either an idiot or one of those who think he can fool people by voting for cloture and against the bill which is guaranteed to pass if it gets thru the cloture votes.

Cloture Buy-Offs [Rich Lowry]

One method supporters of the bill are apparently using to good effect is to promise senators votes on their amendments to get them to vote for cloture. This is working even when it is amendments that have no chance of passing. For instance, Sen. Bond's office tells me that he is going to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.

He will then offer an amendment that has made the approved list to strip out the path of citizenship in the bill (meaning no green cards). This will inevitably fail. In which case, Bond will vote against cloture the second time and against final passage.

This dynamic means opponents of the bill might pick up a vote or two on the second cloture vote, but Bond will still have done his bit to advance the underlying bill through his first cloture vote. He should just vote "no" tomorrow.

GOP is truly the stupid party.

More at Hot Air.

Update# This is why those amendments are a farce.

But Munoz and members of other immigrant rights groups said they will still support the bill's passage, while pressing for changes in the House or in eventual House-Senate negotiations.

"If this was the final bill, if this was going straight from the Senate floor to the Rose Garden signing ceremony, there would be full-throated opposition, but it's not. We still have another chamber to go through," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports the bill.

And aides involved in the change said making legalization dependent on a return home could dampen charges that the bill is "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, adding that without it, the bill may never get to the House.

It is a rigged game and the Amnesty supporters know it.

Just to point out the worse part of the Amnesty bill.

Under the current legislation, virtually all of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants would be granted provisional legal status immediately, provided that within 18 months they pay a fine, cover processing fees and submit to a criminal background check to get a new five-year "Z Visa." If they wanted legal permanent residence, heads of illegal-immigrant households would have to return to their home countries to apply for a green card.

Kyl, Graham and Martinez had already put together an amendment to secure $4.4 billion for border enforcement, create a tracking system to keep tabs on guest workers and permanently bar workers who overstay their visas from returning. Those measures would augment provisions already in the bill to tighten border security and clamp down on employers of illegal immigrants.

Yesterday, the three senators added a provision that would force illegal immigrants to return to their home countries to apply for Z Visas, not just their green cards. With the architects of the bill behind it, supporters predicted that the amendment would pass easily.

This amendment may "pass" but will be quickly discard.

Anyone got a clip from Tom Joyner show this morning.

Media: Jacque Reid's idiotic defense of Bobby Cutts trying to say he may have been confused because he was a black man dating a white woman was over the top offensive. Joyner and everyone else on the show couldn't run away fast enough from her. The best part was at the end when she let slip his previous relationship another woman alleged domestic violence.

Illegal Immigrants Targeted By States

Immigration: Go state power, problem is if that amnesty bill passes, most of these laws will be for nothing.

Frustrated with Congress's inability to pass an immigration overhaul bill, state legislatures are considering or enacting a record number of strongly worded proposals targeting illegal immigrants.

By the time most legislatures adjourned in May, at least 1,100 immigration bills had been submitted by lawmakers, more than double last year's record total, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This year's total is expected to grow as the issue continues to dominate debate in statehouses still in session.

These laws limit illegal immigrants' ability to obtain jobs, find housing, get driver's licenses and receive many government services. They also empower state law enforcement agencies to inquire into an immigrant's legal status and hold for deportation those deemed to be here illegally. The idea is to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they will leave the state -- if not the country.

Murdoch close to getting WSJ?

Media: WSJ reports a deal may be close, they have done a great job on reporting on themselves without going on with hype and hyperbole.

The NYTIMES "blockbuster" piece on Murdoch on the other hand kinda seems like a fizzle, nothing new that anyone wouldn't know or suspect as a business man. The few implications of him using his paper to go at people beyond basic reporting doesn't carry much weight as him being ruler of the land. If the Nytimes wants to charge him or a conservative ideology is being used to try and change opinions, it would be the pot meeting the kettle.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

ABC's Mediawatch got help from radical Islam site.

Media: Someone should lose their job over this but I doubt it will happen. Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Media Watch producer Tim Palmer did a disingenuous hit job over some comments left on newspapers and Tim Blair's site last week. Come to find out that the reason they found these comments which they passed off as being indicative of all commentators is that members of a radical Islamic website passed the cherry picked comments along. A Media Watch moderator say they did the research.

Media Watch did not call for anything to be banned. It raised the issue of the enormous difference between what is tolertaed in print and online by some newspapers and similar differences between different newspapers websites. It also outlined what laws currently pertain to this kind of publishing. The examples selected were those we could find. Similar hate posts against other groups would have been considered. We didn't find them on these sites, but would welcome submissions from viewers if they have them

I can see why they wouldn't acknowledge where the comments came from given the messages found on that website.

Chirac to be called in criminal investigation.

France: Via Times Online.

Criminal investigators are to question Jacques Chirac, the former French President, over his role in corruption scandals dating from his time as Mayor of Paris before 1995, his lawyer said over the weekend.

The confirmation from Jean Veil of Mr Chirac’s imminent session with examining judges follows the lapse last week of the immunity from prosecution that he enjoyed for 12 years. Mr Chirac’s summons was regarded as inevitable because he has so far given no account of events under his 18-year tenure as mayor and Gaullist party chief, which led to suspended prison terms and heavy fines for his subordinates.

Judges at Nanterre want to question him first about a false jobs scheme in which staff of the Rally for the Republic (RPR), his party, were paid by the city council. In 2004 Alain Juppé, his deputy, who later served as Prime Minister, was given a 14-month suspended prison sentence and a year’s ban from politics for his role in the affair. Between 1983 and 1998, 460 people received council salaries as members of Mr Chirac’s mayoral staff although they worked full-time for his party and other organisations, according to investigators. The “fake jobs” scheme was just one of several multimillion-pound scandals during Mr Chirac’s tenure as mayor.

India's police keep charging young kids for crimes

Crime: Police in some parts of India may need retraining.

Embarrassed over their latest faux pas in charging a two-year-old with rioting and pelting the police with stones, the Bihar police are probing how an infant had been charged with such crimes.

It is not the first time such incidents are taking place in Bihar. Children as young as two and three have been named as criminals in police records, inviting censure from courts and rights bodies.

....In the recent past, nearly half a dozen minors have been slapped with criminal charges for crimes ranging from molestation, attack on police, theft and looting. Under Indian laws, the police cannot file a criminal case against a child below seven years of age.

Last month, seven-year-old Santosh Yadav of Tara village in Begusarai district was wanted in a case of torture for dowry. An arrest warrant is pending against him for the last 11 months for allegedly torturing his elder brother's wife.

According to Santosh Yadav's father, Rambabu Yadav, who was also named an accused along with his wife, at the time of filing the police complaint, Santosh was only six and a student of Class 3.

All of them were later granted bail by the court.

In October last year, police booked a three-month-old baby boy for looting a bus. The infant, Praveen Kumar of Nehalpur village in Muzaffarpur district, was named one of the accused in the bus looting case registered at the Meenapur police station.

Australian Muslim groups unite against Israel.

Australia: Here is a good wakeup call as the groups say they back Hezbollah.

AUSTRALIA'S Sunni Muslims have pushed aside ideological differences with their Shia counterparts to form a united front against Israel and declare their support for the Iranian-backed terrorist network Hezbollah.
The unity among the two Muslim sects, which have been at war with each other for centuries, comes as the nation's Jewish community accuses top Shia spiritual leader Kamal Mousselmani of creating hatred towards Jews by calling Israel a "terrorist" state and expressing his allegiance to Hezbollah militants.

The Howard Government yesterday also accused Sheik Mousselmani of sending the wrong message to his followers through his adverse views on Israel.

Sunni Muslim leader and community spokesman Keysar Trad yesterday said his sect largely championed Sheik Mousselmani's support for Hezbollah (Party of God), which was revealed by The Weekend Australian.

"Sunnis outside of Lebanon, yes, they still have a great deal of respect for Hezbollah," he said.

But Mr Trad, who does not believe the Lebanese-based Hezbollah is a terrorist group, said Sunni Muslims in Lebanon were less inclined to back the terrorist organisation because of political differences with the Shi'ites.

"I don't believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation," he said. "I agree with (Mousselmani) that the state of Israel has ... consistently engaged in acts of terror which have brought a great deal of pain to the poor Palestinian population and the Lebanese population."

The new mufti of Australia, Sunni spiritual leader Fehmi Naji el-Imam, last year called Hezbollah militants "freedom fighters" during an anti-war rally in Melbourne. Sheik Fehmi's spokesman said yesterday the cleric could not be reached.

Sunni Muslim spiritual leaders contacted by The Australian, including several who formerly served on John Howard's Islamic advisory council, yesterday refused to put their support for Hezbollah on the record for fear of upsetting the federal Government and jeopardising future community funding.

Newsweek's Hirsch plays downs Iran, NYtimes

Media: On the other hand points out events that Hirsch was missing in his daily diaries.

Isaiah Washington says T.R Knight a cunning backstabber.

Entertainment: The hell? Knight lurks in the background plotting like Keyser Soze and making moves on the cast.

"....Then last night he filled in the details. Washington said he stood behind everything he said in his hometown paper, the Houston Chronicle. "I'm not firing back at anybody else in the cast but T.R. Knight and Katie Heigl because they both know as well as Chandra Wilson knows that T.R. Knight was very tactical in trying to remove me from the show because he knows and I know that I was gagged, and he has been working on a conspiracy to get Patrick Dempsey and myself off the show for the last year and a half."

According to Washington, "He had led me to believe that Patrick Dempsey was so abusive and so horrible to people in a two and half hour conversation on the plane. For two and a half hours, this boy talked me ear off, Keith, about how horrible Patrick Dempsey is and how he needs to be removed from the show. And in my argument, the irony of it is that Patrick happened to show some behavior that was very in line with what T.R. was telling me on the plane and I challenged T.R. to deny it or say this isn't true."

He went on: "All the dirty macking he gave me about Patrick Dempsey led me to believe that Patrick was trying to treat me in a disrepectful manner in the same kind of manner apparently accorded to T.R. that Patrick had treated him. And even to this day, Patrick Dempsey and T.R. still have a rift and are still not on speaking terms. They do not talk to each other...I know Patrick Dempsey has supported me by stating that if there is anyone that needs to be fired it is T.R. Knight because he has created such a negative environment on that set because he felt like he has not been treated and giving the same kind of leading man type of story lines that have been given to Patrick and Isaiah.

He felt like his character has been treated very caricatureish and dopey. That's why you see his character changing so signifcantly...This is something that T.R. Knight has been trying to do and using the incident of the so-called F-word that was targeted at him, which is a flat out lie, to blackmail the writers into doing his bidding, and it's not working. The producers are not happy about it, and quite frankly, they think something has gone awry with T.R. Knight... But all of them, including the producers all the way up to Touchstone, are not happy.

"And let me be clear Keith. All of this I'm saying to you has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's gay. He came out October 19 as purely a tactical move to do exactly what he did, get public opinion in an outrage to lead him to believe that he is being picked on because he is gay. He could care less about the gay community."

I don't doubt the guy is taking advantage to up his role in the show given the opportunity, he would be a fool not too. But this mastermind stuff seems a bit unreal though if he doesn't have the talent then his character change will fall flat with the audience. What little I did see of the show is him getting in some sort of love tri with Heigl and the other one which came off as laughable.

Once again, Isaiah got screwed in part because of his behavior, but let this be a lesson to actors out there. Don't go making a fool out of yourself with PSAs and re-education camp to make amends if there is a chance they are just going to dump you at the end.

Los Angeles would require day labor sites at Home Depot.

Immigration: Every day you find out something new about the amnesty bill in the Senate and this is one of the good bits coming under fire from Los Angeles officials.

As the U.S. Senate prepares to resume debate on an immigration bill next week, Los Angeles city officials are lobbying in opposition to an amendment that would prohibit local and state governments from requiring home improvement stores to build day labor sites.

If the federal bill passes, the amendment would preempt a proposed ordinance in Los Angeles, where there are 11 business-funded day labor sites.

The day laborer situation is a land-use issue — not an immigration issue — and should be handled locally, city officials said.

"This is quintessentially a local decision," said Thomas Saenz, counsel to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "There is no reason for the federal government to intervene."

Los Angeles and other cities have worked with nonprofits and businesses to create hiring sites — many with shelter and bathrooms — to deal with the traffic problems generated by crowds of mostly immigrant men who gather outside some Home Depot stores to seek temporary work.

The city of Burbank went further, requiring Home Depot — as a condition of opening a store — to build a hiring center and contribute annually toward its operation. The center opened early last year in the store's parking lot.

The Los Angeles ordinance, which was proposed in 2004 and would mandate that all large home improvement stores construct hiring sites, has been on hold while Home Depot, city officials and day laborer advocates negotiate to come up with an alternative plan.

Home Depot spokesman Ron DeFeo said the company supports the congressional amendment, saying that the issue of day laborers is much broader than Home Depot and Los Angeles and that local cooperation works better than mandates.

"Some local governments believe that Home Depot can address this issue alone and mandate that we provide accommodations for day laborers," he said. "We just don't think that approach is sustainable."

But advocates for day laborers say Home Depot is not assuming responsibility for its role in the situation and instead is leveraging its corporate power and influence to get help in Washington.

Home Depot "is a major stakeholder," said Pablo Alvarado, head of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "They cannot deny that they are a magnet. They either help in addressing that … or they work against it."

The network is one of several civic and labor groups opposing the amendment. Others include the AFL-CIO, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union.

Well excuse Home Depot for opening up a business and not wanting people milling about creating a bad perception and situation that would make their customers uneasy. Home Depot is not a major stakeholder, they are being held hostage.

Hamas vs the crime families.

Middle East: This is another why can't they all lose scenario.

THE attack came with a barrage of mortars and a rattle of machineguns. In the narrow alleys of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip, black-uniformed Hamas fighters laying siege to the compound of the Al-Astel family, one of Gaza’s infamous ruling clans, edged forward.

After a stunning victory over their secular Fatah rivals for control of Gaza and with the horrors of the fighting still fresh in people’s minds, Hamas, the militant Islamic organisation, was trying to disarm the clan known for drug smuggling and support of Fatah.

The compound held. After five hours of fighting and with two people killed, Hamas lifted its siege when a clan elder agreed to hand over their weapons.

Hamas came away with a fifth of the family’s arsenal, an official said. Abu Mohammed, a clan member, claimed it had handed over only five rifles and a pistol. Asked if this was the entire arsenal, he merely grinned.

The battle was the first sign of a growing tension between Hamas and Gaza’s most powerful families, which the organisation must confront and tame if it is to exert full control over Gaza and curb its lawlessness.