Knut's story is somewhat similar to something that was on PBS a few months ago about a polar bear in Japan. In the later case, the custodian even brought the bear home when it was a cub to be its sole care. The man even had to teach the cub about water and swimming until instinct took over. I don't understand why there should be any doubt about the zoo raising the cub...and I fault the zoo for allowing the brother to die. Obviously, the mother was in a breeding program, and the zoo is responsible for protecting the cubs. It's not like cubs bred in captivity are going to be released in the wild. Re V.A. hospitals: Images from "Coming Home" spring to mind. I don't doubt that there are serious problems with many VA hospitals, especially with the numbers of Iraqi casualities, but I must say that the VA hospital in my area and the one my brother goes to in San Diego are excellent.

Oops, that obviously should be " U.S. casualties from the Iraqi war".

Sorry for triple post, but I forgot to thank Dorine for the links to the photos and videos of Knut. They are fascinating and wonderful. I've passed the link on to my husband, who loves bears, especially polar bears. So double thanks, Dorine. :-)

I'd like to know what "support our troops" means. Certain conservatives have bastardized this phrase into some sort of litmus test for patriotism, instead of focusing on the needs of the troops and their families. What I think they really mean is "support our president's policies," and meanwhile our poor boys and girls in uniform are suffering . . . from lack of equipment, lack of planning and foresight at the top, and now lack of adequate medical care at home. It makes my blood boil. Bob Woodruff, the ABC news anchor who was injured so badly last year while covering the war, had an excellent show on a couple of weeks ago, detailing how he came back from his injuries. He stressed the outstanding care he received, and the excellent care being provided in the Army field hospitals and in some flagship facilities stateside. BUT . . . he pointed out how once these poor kids get back to their hometowns, very few VA facilities are equipped to deal with the type and severity of these head injuries and loss of limbs, and the soldiers wind up back-sliding. It makes me furious. "Support our troops" indeed.

Thanks,Dorine, for posting Knut's story Awwwe, I saw dear little Knut became a star in his own right on BBC News yesterday ;-) What a sweetie. Whilst I can understand the arguement, that in the wild, nature would take it's natural course........ in Knut's (and others like him) case, he was born in captivity so would have contact with humans anyway. I don't see the Animal Rights Activists reasoning on this one. I am sure there been other cases where animals whom have been hand rared and successfully intergrated back with their fellow species. LOL, Mari, I like the "Teddy" species of Bear too ;-)

(Mari) What I think they really mean is "support our president's policies," and meanwhile our poor boys and girls in uniform are suffering . . . from lack of equipment, lack of planning and foresight at the top, and now lack of adequate medical care at home. It makes my blood boil. Exactly! These poor soldiers are not even receiving the equipment that they need to do the job that they are being asked to do (tour of duty after tour of duty, after.... in many cases) so it is hardly surprising that the medical treatment they receive at home is substandard in many areas. It really is sickening. I saw the Bob Woodruff show, too & agree that it was quite enlightening. I may be off base, but I do wonder, though, if part of the reason that he received such good care & treatment - back here in the States - was because of who he is and the fact that his situation was so high-profile. The average "Joe" definitely doesn't fare as well.

I'm so sorry I missed the Bob Woodruff special. I never saw when it was on exactly, but kept seeing references to it in news stories. Maybe I can find it on the web somewhere. He was at the Lincoln Center Barnes and Noble a couple of weeks ago with his book, but it was a night I had somewhere else to be. I really wanted to go.

Sad news about John Edwards' wife today. Said they went to have tests after she had pain lifting a chest and then she broke a rib when he hugged her. :-(

I'm glad you liked the video podcasts of Knut, Kathryn. I hope your husband likes them, too. I wish I could understand German to know what those people say about him or what the keeper says to Knut. He's just so adorable it makes me want to cry. I read the comments after some article about him online....some British paper's site I think, that the activist's comments were taken out of context and blown out of proportion by the German tabloid, Bild. The poster explained briefly what he said and how it happened, including a link to the article, which I can't read because it's in German.

I don't know if a solution to this will actually come to pass soon, but here's hoping this is the start to getting those soldiers home and safe. Ladies, Start Your Engines By: Jane Hamsher Looks like Pelosi did it: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/22/98746.aspx ************************* "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the House now appear to have the Democratic votes necessary to pass the measure that requires American combat troops to be out of Iraq by Fall 2008 at the latest. Three House liberal leaders have just announced that they are "letting go" of their nominal underlings in the Progressive and Out of Iraq caucuses, meaning that they will not pressure them to vote "nay" on the grounds that the bill continues funding the war � notwithstanding the withdrawal date. Also, liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has also announced that he will go along with Pelosi and vote "yea." That might be just enough to put Pelosi over the top with the 218 votes she needs for passage. For weeks, she has struggled to round up votes from progressives on the left and "Blue Dogs" on the right who don't like the idea of a timeline. This is easily the biggest test to date of her leadership." *************************** [Ed. note - Below per Jane Hamsher, not me] While it's hard to justify giving Bush another penny for his illegal and immoral war, I'm surprised at the glee I feel knowing that Nancy Pelosi got the votes to finally beat George Bush on an Iraq vote at a time when the abuse of power makes the most paranoid amongst us look rational. Let's hope this is a first step toward restoring some kind of sanity. [Ed. note - Amen.] http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/22/ladies-start-your-engines/#comments

(Maureen) I do wonder, though, if part of the reason that he received such good care & treatment - back here in the States - was because of who he is and the fact that his situation was so high-profile. The average "Joe" definitely doesn't fare as well. That's exactly what I'd thought as well. Same thing for Time Magazine's Michael Weisskopf who had his hand blown off in Iraq. He wrote a book too, Blood Brothers, about his and several other soldiers' recoveries from injuries. I don't doubt he had some more special treatment as well vs. the average "Joe".

(Maureen) I do wonder, though, if part of the reason that he received such good care & treatment - back here in the States - was because of who he is and the fact that his situation was so high-profile. Absolutely, and Bob Woodruff said as much in the report. He was very upfront about that, I thought.

(Me) While it's great that everyone is so indignant over the crappy conditions at the VA hospitals, mostly Walter Reed so far, this is nothing new. And it's not like no one could've known. I just realized this maybe sounds like I think the general public would know. I was actually referring to all these people in the govt and the military that seem caught so unawares.

(Dorine)Sad news about John Edwards' wife today. My heart goes out to them. What a gutsy, forthright and upbeat person she is. My goodness, what they have gone through as a family--their son's death, her first cancer diagnosis and now this. Whatever comes their way, they soldier on, with intelligence, courage, and honesty.

I must be on a kick about amusing animals this week. I'm not searching for them, but they find me. ;-) Cold lambs get raincoats Last Updated: Friday March 23 2007 09:24 GMT Lambs wearing raincoats Little lambs are jumping for joy after their farmer came up with a new idea for keeping them warm. Farmer John Garnett wanted to move his lambs from their crowded indoor pens to the fields in the Yorkshire Dales. But he was worried that some would die as some nights the temperature has dropped below freezing. So he's fitted the lambs with stylish blue plastic raincoats to protect them from the bad weather as they run around the fields near Skipton. Mr Garnett said: "Well, the lambs seem to like them and the sheep don't seem to be bothered. "The farm buildings are filling up with sheep and lambs so we needed to get some out into the fields." As well as protecting the lambs from the weather, the jackets have an extra advantage - foxes seem to be confused by the coats and stay away. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6480000/newsid_6483200/6483293.stm

near Skipton. Near Skipton?! This might need to be posted on the CF topic, as that's where "Father" is set. LOL! (and at the lambs in their raincoats - so cute!!)

Knut makes his debut at the Berlin Zoo.... Knut faces a battery of photographers Photograph: Wolfgang Kumm/EPA Keeper Thomas Doerflein presents the cub at its first public appearance in Berlin zoo Photograph: Franka Bruns/AP He's so handsome.. Knut takes his first walk under the gaze of the public Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images The bear licks his handler's face Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP The polar bear seems unfazed by the crowds Photograph: Wolfgang Kumm/EPA More pictures here... http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/2007/mar/23/internationalnews?picture=329755943 There's an audio interview (about 2-3 mins) with Kate Connelly (a reporter it seems) about Knut as he's coming out... http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-audio/Guardian/news/2007/03/23/0323Connollyaudio.mp3 Sounds fun. I'd like to find some video of his coming out. I didn't realize Knut's mom is a retired circus bear. :-(

Here's a picture gallery and video at Spiegel Online. Lots of great pics here... http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,20321,00.html Video here. If you click on the little magnifying glass, a bigger window opens. The third video is the best. Just a minute or 2. The others are 20 sec blurbs at the 30 sec mark, except the last one is a short blurb at the beginning. http://www.spiegel.de/multimediauebersicht/ There's a short Anderson Cooper video at CNN.com talking about the activist's comments. Left hand side under his pic. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/23/polar.bear.ap/

Upthread Mari mentioned about the apparently confusing or even twisted definitions of "patriotism" and "supporting the troops" in today's climate. Here's a You Tube clip of Bill Maher during his usual "rant" segment which is at the end of the show from last night's show that I only caught the last sentence of. He wasn't ranting though and it wasn't as funny as he usually makes them. He seemed quite serious. One of the blogs I regularly read pointed this out. It wasn't about the army soldiers, but a "troop" of a different kind who was trying to keep us safe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sS45gTnLiI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efiredoglake%2Ecom%2F

Yep, it's true....another animal story! I'm sure at least some people here have heard of Koko the gorilla who speaks with sign language...and apparently has a rather large vocabulary of understood spoken words, which I didn't know. This beautiful story is from the artist, Richard Stone, about his meetings with Koko to have her sit for him. I found it so fascinating. It's a long article so I'll post just the link. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444337&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

Coward. Questions on firings shorten Gonzales news conference By Jeff Coen Tribune staff reporter Published March 27, 2007, 2:43 PM CDT Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales today cut short a press conference about Internet safety, leaving the room at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago when reporters questioned him about the firings of U.S. attorneys. The questioning was to have lasted about 15 minutes, but it ended after less than three. Gonzales and Fitzgerald (Tribune photo by Kuni Takahashi) Gonzales defended his handling of the matter before quickly leaving the podium. He was asked about the revelation that he was present for a meeting on the firings, after he had initially said he had had no part in them. "I've already discussed my involvement in the meeting," Gonzales said. "And my comments at the March 13 press conference. These are all things I have disclosed or discussed yesterday. "It's all there in the record," he said. "But let me just say this, that certainly even before the disclosure of the memo, what was public out there was the fact that there was this review process." Gonzales said he made the decision on the firings, and that he looks forward to working with Congress on the matter, and that he had directed the release of documents on the matter. He said he also directed Justice Department employees to testify about the situation. He was then asked about the decision by a top aide to invoke her 5th Amendment protection. "I'm not going to comment on the decision by an employee of the department to exercise her constitutional rights," he said. After saying he had made the decision on the firings in the fall, he left without taking further questions. That included any question about U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald receiving a mediocre rating in an internal review by the Justice Department. Gonzales was in Chicago as part of his efforts to tout the "Project Safe Childhood" campaign. At a discussion earlier in the day, Gonzales said children in particular need to know how to protect themselves on the Internet. And he said parents need to better understand how the Internet works and what sites their children are visiting. Copyright � 2007, Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070327gonzales,1,2575444.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

This is for anyone whose cat(s) may be eating this particular Science Diet brand prescription food. Mine eat the Prescription Feline c/d rather than the m/d thank God...so far. FDA says pet food poison may be in dry food, too - and didn't rule out human food by ChristieKeith Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:53:54 AM PDT I'm a contributing editor for Universal Press Syndicate's Pet Connection, a syndicated pet column appearing in around 70 newspapers nationwide. We've been covering the pet food recall story on our blog as well as our column. I just got out of an FDA press conference, where a reporter asked the agency's Dr. Stephen Sundlof if people could be feeding unsafe food to their pets right now, because the FDA won�t reveal the name of another company - one that makes dry or "kibbled" food as well as "wet" pet food - that received wheat gluten from the same source Menu did. * ChristieKeith's diary :: :: * The response? "It is possible, but I think we�ve been following every lead that we can. My sense is that we have gotten most of it under control." As soon as we have any information, he assured us this morning, we�ll notify the public. Except for the name of the company, it seems. How about the numbers? asked another attendee. You�re still saying only 15 confirmed deaths, but some reports are in the thousands. How do you explain the discrepancy? Dr. Sundlof said FDA can�t confirm any cases beyond those first few in Menu�s test labs, even though they have received over 8800 additional reports, because "we have not had the luxury of confirming these reports." They�ll work on that, he said, after they "make sure all the product is off the shelves." He pointed out that in human medicine, the job of defining what constitutes a confirmed case would fall to the Centers for Disease Control, not the FDA... and there is no CDC for animals. Karen Roebuck of the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, who broke the story earlier this morning that melamine, not aminopterin (a rat poison), had been found in the tested foods, asked if any of the wheat gluten had found its way into the human food supply. The response: "At this point we are not aware that any of that went into human food." They do know the company that supplied the contaminated wheat gluten, and are tracking its shipments, but they aren�t disclosing the name of the company. They are, however, doing "100 percent review and sampling of all wheat gluten from China." We'll update at PetConnection.com with more reports from the FDA conference throughout the day. UPDATE LATE ON FRIDAY, MARCH 30: From Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.: "In accordance with its over-riding commitment to pet health and well-being, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Prescription Diet m/d Feline dry food from the market. Hill's is taking this precautionary action because during a two-month period in early 2007, wheat gluten for this product was provided by a company that also supplied wheat gluten to Menu Foods. U.S. Food and Drug Administration tests of wheat gluten samples from this period show the presence of a small amount of melamine. Prescription Diet m/d Feline Dry represents less than one half of one percent of all Hill's products." Tags: pets, FDA, recall, Recommended, Menu Foods (all tags) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/30/114249/411

No one need question why I'm still single after reading this. ;-DD I'd rather be. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/garden/29breakers.html?em&ex=1175400000&en=f54e859fce0273ea&ei=5087%0A

If only they'd show backbone in other areas...Truly amazing though. From the NYT: April 2, 2007 Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, April 2 � The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.�s contention, and that if the agency still insists that it does not want to regulate those emissions, it must give better reasons than the �laundry list� of invalid considerations it has offered so far. Today�s decision is surely not the last word in the continuing debate over the effects of global warming and what can, or should, be done about it. But it was still highly significant in at least two respects. First, the majority brushed aside the Bush administration�s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as �pollutants,� and thus does not give the E.P.A. the authority to regulate them. Secondly, the five justices declared that contrary to the administration, Massachusetts and the 11 other states and various other plaintiffs that sued the E.P.A. do indeed have legal standing to pursue their suit. In order to establish standing, a federal court plaintiff must show that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendant�s behavior, and that the injury will be relieved by the action the lawsuit seeks. �E.P.A.�s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both �actual� and �imminent,� � Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing two standards linked to standing. �E.P.A. identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail E.P.A.�s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants,� Justice Stevens wrote. Instead, the agency resorted to �impermissible considerations� in rejecting the plaintiffs� request to regulate those admissions, the justice wrote. �Its action was therefore �arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,� � Justice Stevens went on. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The chief justice said his dissent �involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.� Rather, he wrote, the kind of dispute in this case is better resolved by Congress and the executive branch rather than the courts. Contrary to what the majority held, the plaintiffs failed to show a cause-and-effect relationship between global warming and actual injury, the chief justice wrote. For instance, he dismissed as �pure conjecture� a plaintiffs� assertion that Massachusetts is gradually losing its coastal territory to higher sea levels generated by global warming. The majority did not declare that the E.P.A. must find that greenhouse gases are a danger because they contribute to global warming. But the justices said the agency can escape its regulatory duties �only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change, or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.� The tone of the majority opinion seemed to suggest that the E.P.A. would face a high barrier in arguing that greenhouse gases are not harmful. Justice Stevens alluded extensively to scientific findings in recent years attesting to the dangers of the gases, and he noted that the plaintiffs� affidavits detailing those dangers were not contested. The majority dismissed the E.P.A.�s argument that even if it did have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it could exercise its judgment in declining to do so. �Put another way, the use of the word �judgment� is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text,� the decision stated. Nor was the majority persuaded by the defendants� arguments that even if carbon dioxide emissions do contribute to global warming, they are but a small part of the worldwide problem. �Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed,� the majority wrote. In a friend-of-the-court brief of behalf of 18 scientists who specialize in climate issues, Robert B. McKinstry Jr. of Philadelphia and several other lawyers asserted that the E.P.A. had tried to create the impression that there is more uncertainty about global warming than really exists among scientists. �It is virtually certain that what has been observed so far is only the beginning,� the brief said. A White House spokeswoman said she could not comment at length on today�s ruling. �We haven�t had a chance to review the opinion in full,� said Dana Perino. �People at E.P.A. and across the government are going to have to do that. I can�t speak to the broader implications of the bill.� The court rejected the E.P.A. argument that it was constrained from regulating carbon dioxide emissions because doing so would require it to tighten mileage standards, a consideration that belongs to the Department of Transportation. �That D.O.T. sets mileage standards in no way licenses E.P.A. to shirk its environmental responsibilities,� the ruling said. Final word or not, today�s decision pleased environmentalist groups. �The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: the Clean Air Act gives E.P.A. authority to fight global warming,� said Howard Fox, a lawyer for Earthjustice, who argued the case before a federal appeals court. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said; �It�s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration.� Besides Massachusetts, the plaintiff-states were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Other plaintiffs included the District of Columbia, Baltimore, New York City and a dozen environmental groups. Several automobile trade groups sided with the E.P.A., as did the states of Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.

In actuality, we now have two branches of government against the third. ;-) I think the justices now need to take on the FDA.

Bush administration�s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as �pollutants,� You know, I mean....really. How freakin' idiotic. Who believes this shit and the people who spout this crap? Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr Can we call them the Axis of Evil 2? ;-) �It�s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration.� And quite sad, too, that it's necessary. You know, I don't get it...I mean who doesn't want clean air?

Bugger!!

And to continue the slap down by the courts of poor environmental policy by the Bush administration..... Federal Court Blocks Attempt to Eliminate Wildlife Standards for National Forests Bush administration rule changes rejected March 30, 2007 San Francisco, CA -- A federal judge today rejected the Bush administration's effort to remove key environmental protections from the rules governing the 191-million-acre National Forest System. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, invalidates regulations issued by the Bush administration in 2005 that sought to overhaul the land-management planning process for National Forests by eliminating mandatory protections for wildlife and clean water and removing public participation in the process. Among the measures discarded by the Bush administration was a key regulatory guarantee of wildlife viability in the National Forests that had been in place since the Reagan administration. "The national forest planning rules are like the Constitution for our National Forests, and the Bush administration tried to throw out the Bill of Rights," said Trent Orr of Earthjustice who argued the case before Judge Hamilton. "The Bush rule changes made any wildlife provisions in forest management plans purely aspirational, but the nation's wildlife deserve more than a 'hope and a prayer' planning system." Today's ruling found that Bush administration officials had bypassed legally required environmental reviews and endangered species protections in creating a new management system for the National Forests that eliminated enforceable environmental protections from the forest planning process. Judge Hamilton also ruled that the administration had sprung its final forest planning rules on the public without sufficient notice of the "paradigm shift" that the rules accomplished. The judge's ruling prohibits the Bush administration from "implementation and utilization" of the new forest planning rules. The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to protect wildlife on the national forests and allow citizens to participate in management decisions. The Bush rules invalidated the 1982 standards for national forest management that protected species and required public comment on national forest timber plans. Earthjustice, representing Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and Vermont Natural Resources Council, filed a legal challenge to the Bush administration rule changes in October 2004. Pete Frost from the Western Environmental Law Center represented Citizens for Better Forestry in a similar case that was also decided in today's ruling. The State of California also filed a lawsuit against the rule changes.

The link for above... http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-forest31mar31,1,2361940.story?coll=la-news-a_section Another take on it... Judge tosses out Bush's national forest rules Regulations were not subjected to environmental reviews or public comment, she rules. By Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer March 31, 2007 A federal judge on Friday overturned Bush administration regulations for national forests that critics said expedited logging and energy exploration, weakened wildlife protection, and shut the public out of forest planning. U.S. Northern District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton, based in San Francisco, found that because U.S. Forest Service officials had not conducted required environmental impact reviews of their new policies, nor allowed public comment on "clearly controversial" changes, they should be invalidated. If the Forest Service wants to implement the regulations, it must first conduct such reviews, the judge ruled. She declined to say which past regulations should govern forest planning until then. Forestry officials in 2005 invalidated 1982 standards adopted under President Reagan that protected more than 400 wildlife species and required comprehensive environmental review and public comment on forest management plans. In 2001, Bush appointees refused to implement revised forest management rules drawn up under President Clinton. Forest Service spokesman Joseph Walsh on Friday declined to answer questions, including whether the decision would be appealed. Reading a statement, he said, "The federal government is carefully reviewing today's decision." He noted that "presented with similar circumstances," two other federal judges in the last month had agreed with Forest Service officials on how endangered species and environmental planning should be handled. But Tim Preso of Earthjustice, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit decided Friday, said the other two decisions involved different rules in specific forests, not policies governing the nation's entire 192-million-acre forest system. Environmentalists said they were thrilled by the ruling, although they expressed some concern that forest policy was being left in limbo. "I think it's a tremendous decision that vindicates the public's right to participate in national forest management," Preso said. When they made the changes in 2005, Forest Service officials said they were streamlining wasteful and time-consuming paperwork and gaining the ability to respond quickly to evolving forest conditions and scientific research. But Sierra Club forest policy specialist Sean Cosgrove said grizzly bears, salmon, spotted owls and other imperiled wildlife populations would have lost key protections if the new rules had been upheld. The Sierra Club and numerous other environmental groups filed lawsuits to undo the rules, and the judge decided them jointly. "The Bush administration's rules would have undone 20 years of protections for wildlife and clean water," Cosgrove said. "This ruling is a huge victory for all Americans who hunt, fish and enjoy our national forests." janet.wilson@latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-forest31mar31,1,2361940.story?coll=la-news-a_section

(Dorine) You know, I don't get it...I mean who doesn't want clean air? I'm sure you meant that as a rhetorical qustion. ;-)

Of course. ;-) And wow, how's this for supporting our troops... The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq At Fort Benning, soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war. Is this an isolated incident or a trend? By Mark Benjamin Pages 1 2 (Photo) George W. Bush greets troops and their families on the tarmac before his departure from Fort Benning, Ga., on Jan. 11, 2007. March 11, 2007 | COLUMBUS, Ga. -- "This is not right," said Master Sgt. Ronald Jenkins, who has been ordered to Iraq even though he has a spine problem that doctors say would be damaged further by heavy Army protective gear. "This whole thing is about taking care of soldiers," he said angrily. "If you are fit to fight you are fit to fight. If you are not fit to fight, then you are not fit to fight." As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records. On Feb. 15, Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny. The 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade is now leaving for Iraq for a third time in a steady stream. In fact, some of the troops with medical conditions interviewed by Salon last week are already gone. Others are slated to fly out within a week, but are fighting against their chain of command, holding out hope that because of their ills they will ultimately not be forced to go. Jenkins, who is still in Georgia, thinks doctors are helping to send hurt soldiers like him to Iraq to make units going there appear to be at full strength. "This is about the numbers," he said flatly. That is what worries Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, who has long been concerned that the military was pressing injured troops into Iraq. "Did they send anybody down range that cannot wear a helmet, that cannot wear body armor?" Robinson asked rhetorically. "Well that is wrong. It is a war zone." Robinson thinks that the possibility that physical profiles may have been altered improperly has the makings of a scandal. "My concerns are that this needs serious investigation. You cannot just look at somebody and tell that they were fit," he said. "It smacks of an overstretched military that is in crisis mode to get people onto the battlefield." Eight soldiers who were at the Feb. 15 meeting say they were summoned to the troop medical clinic at 6:30 in the morning and lined up to meet with division surgeon Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, who had arrived from Fort Stewart, Ga., and Capt. Aaron K. Starbuck, brigade surgeon at Fort Benning. The soldiers described having a cursory discussion of their profiles, with no physical exam or extensive review of medical files. They say Appenzeller and Starbuck seemed focused on downplaying their physical problems. "This guy was changing people's profiles left and right," said a captain who injured his back during his last tour in Iraq and was ordered to Iraq after the Feb. 15 review. Appenzeller said the review of 75 soldiers with profiles was an effort to make sure they were as accurate as possible prior to deployment. "As the division surgeon and the senior medical officer in the division, I wanted to ensure that all the patients with profiles were fully evaluated with clear limitations that commanders could use to make the decision whether they could deploy, and if they did deploy, what their limitations would be while there," he said in a telephone interview from Fort Stewart. He said he changed less than one-third of those profiles -- even making some more restrictive -- in order to "bring them into accordance with regulations." In direct contradiction to the account given by the soldiers, Appenzeller said physical examinations were conducted and that he had a robust medical team there working with him, which is how they managed to complete 75 reviews in one day. Appenzeller denied that the plan was to find more warm bodies for the surge into Baghdad, as did Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., the brigade commander. Grigsby said he is under "no pressure" to find soldiers, regardless of health, to make his unit look fit. The health and welfare of his soldiers are a top priority, said Grigsby, because [the soldiers] are "our most important resource, perhaps the most important resource we have in this country." Grigsby said he does not know how many injured soldiers are in his ranks. But he insisted that it is not unusual to deploy troops with physical limitations so long as he can place them in safe jobs when they get there. "They can be productive and safe in Iraq," Grigsby said. The injured soldiers interviewed by Salon, however, expressed considerable worry about going to Iraq with physical deficits because it could endanger them or their fellow soldiers. Some were injured on previous combat tours. Some of their ills are painful conditions from training accidents or, among relatively older troops, degenerative problems like back injuries or blown-out knees. Some of the soldiers have been in the Army for decades. And while Grigsby, the brigade commander, says he is under no pressure to find troops, it is hard to imagine there is not some desperation behind the decision to deploy some of the sick soldiers. Master Sgt. Jenkins, 42, has a degenerative spine problem and a long scar down the back of his neck where three of his vertebrae were fused during surgery. He takes a cornucopia of potent pain pills. His medical records say he is "at significantly increased risk of re-injury during deployment where he will be wearing Kevlar, body armor and traveling through rough terrain." Late last year, those medical records show, a doctor recommended that Jenkins be referred to an Army board that handles retirements when injuries are permanent and severe. A copy of Jenkins' profile written after that Feb. 15 meeting and signed by Capt. Starbuck, the brigade surgeon, shows a healthier soldier than the profile of Jenkins written by another doctor just late last year, though Jenkins says his condition is unchanged. Other soldiers' documents show the same pattern. One female soldier with psychiatric issues and a spine problem has been in the Army for nearly 20 years. "My [health] is deteriorating," she said over dinner at a restaurant near Fort Benning. "My spine is separating. I can't carry gear." Her medical records include the note "unable to deploy overseas." Her status was also reviewed on Feb. 15. And she has been ordered to Iraq this week. The captain interviewed by Salon also requested anonymity because he fears retribution. He suffered a back injury during a previous deployment to Iraq as an infantry platoon leader. A Humvee accident "corkscrewed my spine," he explained. Like the female soldier, he is unable to wear his protective gear, and like her he too was ordered to Iraq after his meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon on Feb. 15. He is still at Fort Benning and is fighting the decision to send him to Baghdad. "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge," he claimed. "They are just trying to get those numbers." Another soldier contacted Salon by telephone last week expressed considerable anxiety, in a frightened tone, about deploying to Iraq in her current condition. (She also wanted to remain anonymous, fearing retribution.) An incident during training several years ago injured her back, forcing doctors to remove part of her fractured coccyx. She suffers from degenerative disk disease and has two ruptured disks and a bulging disk in her back. While she said she loves the Army and would like to deploy after back surgery, her current injuries would limit her ability to wear her full protective gear. She deployed to Iraq last week, the day after calling Salon. Her husband, who has served three combat tours in the infantry in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he is worried sick because his wife's protective vest alone exceeds the maximum amount she is allowed to lift. "I have been over there three times. I know what it is like," he told me during lunch at a restaurant here. He predicted that by deploying people like his wife, the brigade leaders are "going to get somebody killed over there." He said there is "no way" Grigsby is going to keep all of the injured soldiers in safe jobs. "All of these people that deploy with these profiles, they are scared," he said. He railed at the command: "They are saying they don't care about your health. This is pathetic. It is bad." His wife's physical profile was among those reevaluated on Feb. 15. A copy of her profile from late last year showed her health problems were so severe they "prevent deployment" and recommended she be medically retired from the Army. Her profile at that time showed she was unable to wear a protective mask and chemical defense equipment, and had limitations on doing pushups, walking, biking and swimming. It said she can only carry 15 pounds. Though she says that her condition has not changed since then, almost all of those findings were reversed in a copy of her physical profile dated Feb. 15. The new profile says nothing about a medical retirement, but suggests that she limit wearing a helmet to "one hour at a time." Spc. Lincoln Smith, meanwhile, developed sleep apnea after he returned from his first deployment to Iraq. The condition is so severe that he now suffers from narcolepsy because of a lack of sleep. He almost nodded off mid-conversation while talking to Salon as he sat in a T-shirt on a sofa in his girlfriend's apartment near Fort Benning. Smith is trained by the Army to be a truck driver. But since he is in constant danger of falling asleep, military doctors have listed "No driving of military vehicles" on his physical profile. Smith was supposed to fly to Iraq March 9. But he told me on March 8 that he won't go. Nobody has retrained Smith to do anything else besides drive trucks. Plus, because of his condition he was unable to train properly with the unit when the brigade rehearsed for Iraq in January, so he does not feel ready. Smith needs to sleep with a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine pumping air into his mouth and nose. "Otherwise," he says, "I could die." But based on his last tour, he is not convinced he will be able to be in places with constant electricity or will be able to fix or replace his CPAP machine should it fail. He told me last week he would refuse to deploy to Iraq, unsure of what he will be asked to do there and afraid that he will not be taken care of. Since he won't be a truck driver, "I would be going basically as a number," says Smith, who is 32. "They don't have enough people," he says. But he is not going to be one of those numbers until they train him to do something else. "I'm going to go to the airport, and I'm going to tell them I'm not going to go. They are going to give me a weapon. I am going to say, 'It is not a good idea for you to give me a weapon right now.'" The Pentagon was notified of the reclassification of the Fort Benning soldiers as soon as it happened, according to Master Sgt. Jenkins. He showed Salon an e-mail describing the situation that he says he sent to Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley. Jenkins agreed to speak to Salon because he hopes public attention will help other soldiers, particularly younger ones in a similar predicament. "I can't sit back and let this happen to me or other soldiers in my position." But he expects reprisals from the Army. Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?" http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=whitelist

I was thisclose to crying on the train home while reading this Newsweek interview with Elizabeth Edwards in the magazine today. In the magazine it states Jonathan Alter is in remission from cancer (mantle cell lymphoma) diagnosed 4 years ago. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889146/site/newsweek/

Oh yeah, this made me about cry the other day, too. This little boy's face and sounds were heartbreaking. I don't watch network news, but maybe some of you caught it. It was on several channels it seems. I picked the MSNBC one over the NBC one because NBC used the most manipulative music in the background to tweak emotions. Really annoying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcH4oqrgsk&mode=related&search= I have an ex who was in the Army Reserves when I lived in NC 20 years ago. He would go to Ft. Benning 2 wks every summer to be a drill sgt, along with his weekend stint every month. I hope to God he got out of that before this war started and he didn't feel a duty to go back when the war started. Since they have been recruiting to upwards of 42 I think, he would still be just old enough to go on that criteria, if I recall his age correctly.

I think some people in higher authority have *way* too much time on their hands. School Renames Easter Bunny 'Peter Rabbit' ABC News (April 7) -- A Rhode Island public school has decided the Easter bunny is too Christian and renamed him Peter Rabbit, and a state legislator is so hopping mad he has introduced an "Easter Bunny Act" to save the bunny's good name. 'Political Correctness Gone Wild' "Like many Rhode Islanders I'm quite frustrated � by people trying to change traditions that we've held in this country for 150 years, like the Easter bunny," Rhode Island State Rep. Richard Singleton told "Good Morning America Weekend Edition." The Easter bunny was scheduled to make an appearance at a craft fair on Saturday at Tiverton Middle School in Tiverton, R.I. But the district's schools Superintendent William Rearick told event organizers to change the bunny's name to Peter Rabbit in "an attempt to be conscious of other people's backgrounds and traditions." Singleton struck back this week by proposing a bill, nicknamed the "Easter Bunny Act," to stop all local municipalities from changing the name of popular religious and secular symbols like the Easter bunny. "The underlying theme here is serious," he said. "I don't think a superintendent of schools should have the authority to change something we've held so deeply for 150 years." 'Not a Religious Symbol' Not everyone in Rhode Island, however, believes the Easter bunny is worth fighting for. "As a Christian symbol, I would say [the Easter bunny] is not one of those that I would go to the barricades to defend," Rev. Bernard Healy, the Catholic Diocese of Providence, R.I., said in a statement. Singleton, however, said the perceived religious symbolism versus its actual religious significance is why it shouldn't be banned. "The Easter bunny is not a religious symbol," he said. "Why it's being banned doesn't make sense." The American Civil Liberties Union has also spoken out the issue. "Public schools should not be promoting Easter celebrations, and to the extent that the school districts try to avoid that problem they are to be commended," Steve Brown, the executive director of the ACLU Rhode Island affiliate, said in a statement. Singleton, however, dismissed the ACLU's comments. "I don't pay a lot of attention to what the ACLU says quite frankly," he said. This is "political correctness gone wild. 'It's crazy." Singleton said the bill is meant to protect all traditional and religious symbols for example, if someone wanted to change "the name of the menorah to the candelabra." The politician isn't positive that Peter Rabbit would have been the right replacement anyway. "By the way, Peter Rabbit stole cabbages and that's not a good role model for our kids," he joked. http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/school-renames-easter-bunny-peter-rabbit/20070407201309990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Singleton said the bill is meant to protect all traditional and religious symbols for example, if someone wanted to change "the name of the menorah to the candelabra." Except that a menorah IS a religious symbol. He can't have it both ways. I say rename the Easter Bunny Mortie. ;-)

This article sounds like it came from The Onion.

Another way to tell a war story Frustrated by the public's disconnect, CBS' Allen Pizzey turns to blogging about Iraq. By Matea Gold, Times Staff Writer April 7, 2007 NEW YORK � Allen Pizzey, a 60-year-old veteran war correspondent who considers himself a bit of a Luddite, never imagined that he would embrace blogging. But the CBS newsman found himself turning to the Web during a recent stint in Baghdad after he noticed the numerous pieces on the network evening newscasts devoted to the pet food recall in the U.S. "There seems to be an inordinate amount of time spent on what started out as 12 dead pets," said Pizzey, who can catch the American newscasts every morning on the Baghdad bureau's grimy television monitors, beamed in via satellite like day-old dispatches from another world. Don't get him wrong: Pizzey is an animal lover. (He and his family have four cats, two dogs and a terrapin at their home in Rome.) But he was disheartened by the disconnect between the horrors of the war and the preoccupations of American viewers. Rather than stew quietly, he vented his concerns in an online reporter's notebook, posted March 22 on CBSNews.com. "What is depressingly clear is that what seems important here is far removed from what viewers in the U.S. seem to be concerned about," he wrote, adding: "How 12 dead animals in a country the size of the U.S. rates with the sliding scale of mayhem here is what I'm finding hard to gauge. When only 12 human bodies are found on any given morning in Baghdad with marks of the kind of torture the ASPCA would quite rightly have a pet owner in court for, it is judged as 'progress' for the security plan." After covering conflicts around the globe for three decades, Pizzey has joined the ranks of television correspondents who have turned to the Internet to convey the messy realities of war that can't be encapsulated in two-minute reports. "It's nice to be able to have that outlet," he said in an interview this week from Rome, back home after a five-week rotation in Iraq. "One of the things that blogs provide is an opportunity for people who are interested in the news to understand a little bit about what it feels like. I don't think I should personalize everything I do. But if you're sitting in the middle of the kind of horror that is Iraq today, you sort of wonder, 'How do I make these people understand?' " NBC's Richard Engel, ABC's Terry McCarthy and other network war correspondents also supplement their on-air pieces with extensive online reports. But Pizzey's dispatches are often notable for their frank, personal assessments. They share a common theme: a deep-set frustration that the real story of the war is not getting through. Mike Sims, director of news and operations for CBSNews.com, said he believes stories on the website can strike a more opinionated tone than those that air on television, as long as they're clearly labeled. "Allen has been there so many times; he's earned the right to give his observations," Sims said. "We think if we clearly let people know what they're getting, that we can do more on the Web than just report the Joe Friday facts." Last week, in an essay labeled "Opinion," Pizzey took Republican Sen. John McCain to task for asserting that some neighborhoods in Baghdad were safe enough to stroll through. "For Senator McCain to claim there are places here where all is well is to woefully minimize the dangers faced by the troops he otherwise so admirably supports," he wrote. " � Any time Senator McCain wants to walk the streets of Baghdad, unarmed and without a serious security detail, we'd be glad to lend him a camera so he can record his experience." Pizzey said he felt compelled to write the piece because McCain "was talking utter rubbish." (In a piece airing Sunday on "60 Minutes," McCain said he misspoke.) He was also motivated by a belief that the media were not skeptical enough in the run-up to the war � a mistake he does not want to repeat. "We the media gave the Bush administration a free ride for this war," he said. "We did not question sufficiently the statements made by politicians. I'm as guilty as anybody else. We climbed on board, and that's not what we should do." A former newspaper reporter in Africa who joined CBS in 1980, Pizzey is part of the network's core group of correspondents who rotate through Iraq regularly. He said many of his colleagues in the U.S. reporting corps there share a frustration that the war does not get more air time. "I think that more coverage could and should be given to it," he said. "But I'm not the guy who has to answer to the executives about the ratings. "The people who run the newscast perhaps think people aren't interested," Pizzey added. "Our job isn't to tell people the news they want to hear, but the news that is. We can't make people care, but we can tell them what's out there." matea.gold@latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-et-pizzey7apr07,1,3219749.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&ctrack=1&cset=true

I guess trains don't take pets either in the cabin? I don't know. Well, it's an adventure for all. :-) NYC couple hail cab for 2,400-mile ride Sun Apr 8, 12:14 PM ET NEW YORK - Betty and Bob Matas have retired and are moving to Arizona, but like many New Yorkers they don't drive, and they don't want their cats to travel all that way in an airliner cargo hold. ADVERTISEMENT Their solution: "Hey, cabbie." They met taxi driver Douglas Guldeniz when they hailed his cab after a shopping trip several weeks ago. They got to talking about their upcoming move, and "we said 'Do you want to come?'" said Bob Matas, 72, a former audio and video engineer for advertising agencies. "And he said 'Sure.'" It was initially a gag, Matas said, but as they talked over the ensuing weeks it became reality. They plan to leave Tuesday on the 2,400-mile trip to Sedona, Ariz., with Guldeniz driving his yellow SUV cab 10 hours a day for a flat fee of $3,000, plus gas, meals and lodging. They're getting a break. The standard, metered fare would be about $5,000 � each way, according to David Pollack, executive director of the Committee for Taxi Safety, a drivers' group. But city Taxi and Limousine Commission rules direct drivers and passengers to negotiate a flat fare for trips outside the city and a few suburban areas. It's also a good deal for Guldeniz. "This job is not easy, and I want to do something different," said Guldeniz, 45, who has been driving a taxi for two years. "I want to have some good memories." The Matases will ride in relaxed comfort in Guldeniz's sport utility vehicle while their cats ride in the back in their travel cases. A mover will haul their belongings. "It's a little unusual, but it will be fun," said Betty Matas, 71, a retired executive administrative assistant. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_fe_st/odd_taxi_move;_ylt=Aqv7_oR_.ccppYiEk03Jun.s0NUE

I post this simply because it involves Michael Smerconish, who has come up in conversation regarding the Mumia doc and history. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/10/smerconish-on-imus-i-dont-interpret-it-as-a-racist-statement-per-se/

Oh, poor thing!! Berlin Zoo's polar bear Knut is sick 34 minutes ago BERLIN - The Berlin Zoo's popular polar bear cub, Knut, is not feeling well and had his daily public appearance in front of thousands of visitors cut short Monday after only 30 minutes. The zoo's veterinarian, Andre Schuele, put the 4 1/2-month old cub on antibiotics and said the Knut is "off stage to get some rest while we watch him closely." There was no specific diagnosis "but he is still a young animal and therefore susceptible to infections," Schuele said. "At the moment he is resting on his blanket and sleeping," Schuele said, adding that despite his lethargy Knut did eat his regular meal in the morning. Thousands of people line up each day to see the cub, and his button-eyed face has been a fixture for newspapers, television and the Internet. Born at the zoo on Dec. 5, Knut � who was rejected by his mother and hand-raised by zookeepers � rose to fame last month thanks to television and newspaper pictures. So potent is his appeal that zoo attendance has roughly doubled to 15,000 on average daily since his debut, officials said. He has his own blog and TV show and appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair. Veterinarian Schuele did not know if Knut would be strong enough for public appearances in the next days. "We don't know yet � the little one is not a machine," he said. On the Net: Berlin Zoo: http://www.zoo-berlin.de http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_eu/germany_polar_bear;_ylt=AmLxlejGOhpC0ijUZndBpO_MWM0F

LOL!! This is too funny! Stray shopping carts! Click on the word "link" at the end of the post from Dada and there's a bit more to the article he/she posted from bookseller.com http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/4/15/173613/916#10

I'm tellin' ya, the stuff you find in the comments section on political blogs (usually open threads). LOL!! This is so cute! Turn off your volume if annoying music with videos gets to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0E-0ntoNWo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eboomantribune%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F4%2F15%2F173613%2F916

From the Telegraph: School row over Al Gore film By Liz Lightfoot, Education Editor Last Updated: 6:34am BST 17/04/2007 Parents who claim that an award-winning film on climate change is inaccurate and politically motivated are threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school. The film by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, won an Oscar for the best documentary this year and Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, says he wants teachers to use it to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming. But a group of parents in the New Forest say the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002. Derek Tipp, their spokesman, has urged Mr Johnson to stop the film being sent out. He said: "The film goes well beyond the consensus view and is not therefore suitable material to present to children who need to be given clear and balanced, factually accurate information." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nuni117.xml

I think this is amazing. How wonderful for him. Hawking flies weightless aboard jet By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Free of his wheelchair and tethered only to heart rate and blood pressure monitors, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking on Thursday fulfilled a dream of floating weightless on a zero-gravity jet, a step he hopes leads to further space adventures. The modified jet carrying Hawking, a handful of his physicians and nurses, and dozens of others first flew up to 24,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean off Florida. Nurses lifted Hawking and carried him to the front of the jet, where they placed him on his back atop a special foam pillow. The jet then climbed to around 32,000 feet and made a parabolic dive back to 24,000 feet, allowing Hawking and the other passengers to experience weightlessness for about 25 seconds. Hawking, a mathematics professor at the University of Cambridge who has done groundbreaking work on black holes and the origins of the universe, has the paralyzing disease ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The 65-year-old was the first person with a disability to experience the flight by Zero Gravity Corp., which has flown about 2,700 people out of Florida since late 2004 and began offering the flights in Las Vegas this week. "As you can imagine, I'm very excited," Hawking told reporters before the flight. "I have been wheelchair bound for almost four decades. The chance to float free in zero-g will be wonderful." Unable to talk or move his hands and legs, Hawking can only make tiny facial expressions using the muscles around his eyes, eyebrows, cheek and mouth. He uses a computer attached to his wheelchair to talk for him in a synthesized voice by choosing words on a computer screen through an infrared sensor on a headpiece that detects motion in his cheek. He raises an eyebrow to signal "yes" and tenses his mouth to the side to indicate "no." "I want to demonstrate to the public that anybody can participate in this type of weightless experience," Hawking said Thursday. Hawking's personal physicians were on hand to make sure nothing went wrong. The physicist was attached to heart, blood pressure and oxygen-measuring monitors during the flight. Medical equipment sufficient for a mini-intensive care unit also was on board, said Dr. Edwin Chilvers, Hawking's personal physician. "I'm anticipating everything to nothing," Chilvers said before the flight. Others on the flight included financial backers of Zero Gravity and passengers who bid a total of $150,000 toward charities to go on the flight. The jet's interior is padded to protect the weightless fliers and equipped with cameras to record their adventure. Normally, the plane conducts 10 to 15 plunges for its passengers, who pay $3,750 for the ride, although that fee was waived for Hawking. On Hawking's flight, the jet made eight parabolic dives. "We had a wonderful time. It was incredible, far beyond our expectations," said Peter H. Diamandis, the chairman and CEO of Zero Gravity, after he exited the jet with Hawking at his side. As a further safety precaution, Zero Gravity founders Peter H. Diamandis and Byron Lichtenberg, who has flown on the space shuttle, were on either side of Hawking so they could lower him to the ground gently at the end of the parabola. Hawking also took a motion sickness pill as a precaution. The astrophysicist hopes the zero-gravity flight is a step toward going on a suborbital flight, which may be offered by private space companies by the end of the decade. "It's a test to see how well he can handle the g-forces that would be necessary in order to leave the atmosphere," said Sam Blackburn, Hawking's assistant. "That is very much one of the major purposes of this flight." On the Net: Stephen Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/ Zero Gravity Corp.: http://www.gozerog.com

Because Disney World is too tame and passe anymore... "Women's town" to put men in their place Thu Apr 26, 9:04 AM ET BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction -- the world's first "women's town," where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday. The 2.3-square-km Longshuihu village in the Shuangqiao district of Chongqing municipality, also known as "women's town," was based on the local traditional concept of "women rule and men obey," a tourism official told Reuters. "Traditional women dominate and men have to be obedient in the areas of Sichuan province and Chongqing, and now we are using it as an idea to attract tourists and boost tourism," the official, surname Li, said by telephone. The tourism bureau planned to invest between 200 million yuan ($26 million) and 300 million yuan in infrastructure, roads and buildings, Li said. "We welcome investors from overseas and nationwide to invest in our project," he added. The motto of the new town would be "women never make mistakes, and men can never refuse women's requests," Chinese media have reported. When tour groups enter the town, female tourists would play the dominant role when shopping or choosing a place to stay, and a disobedient man would be punished by "kneeling on an uneven board" or washing dishes in restaurant, media reports said. The project, begun in the end of 2005, was expected to take three to five years to finish. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/od_nm/china_womentown_odd_dc;_ylt=Ag0SClsR7k4jV8yMJU_rv7ms0NUE

I saw a clip today on MSNBC of Stephen Hawking in space. He is an amazing man on so many levels. Did any one catch the return of Bill Moyers Journal to PBS last night? The episode focused on how the press basically rolled over on the story leading up to the Iraq war. The show featured the likes of Howard Kurz, Bob Simon, Tim Russert, and Dan Rather. What amazed me the most was how the guys from Knight Ridder got the story right, but no one seemed to care, as it was considered too risky to go out on a limb against the supposed intel. I highly recommend watching it if you get a chance. I thought the show was riveting. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Oh! I'll have to search for a clip of SH in space. I'd love to see that. Re the Bill Moyers show, today I was reading a post on one the political blogs I read on an almost daily basis about that (http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/26/timmehs-tool-time-redux/#comments). It also had the link and I was planning to check it out when I could take a chunk of time to watch it. I found out about it too late to watch it on TV. The post was mostly focusing on Tim Russert's place in the scheme of things.

Yikes, Dorine, about Tim Russert. So much for being just a blue collar guy from Buffalo, and quoting his grade school teacher (a nun) about telling the truth. :-(

More chipping away at the old nuance and character of Manhattan. :-(( There's a bridal path in the park near my house, too, and if I'm jogging on them when horses come near I make sure to stop and get off to the side so as not to bother or potentially spook them if they're in a mood. They may be very docile, but don't want to take chances. There is frequently children on them. I do like to jog on the bridle paths in Central Park, too, but they're much wider and easier to avoid the horses. Last Manhattan riding stable shuts after 115 years By Carol Bishopric Sat Apr 28, 4:44 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Yet another unique New York institution is set to disappear when the last riding stable in Manhattan closes its doors during the weekend. Claremont Riding Academy, said to be the oldest continuously operated stable in the United States, will shut its stable doors at 5 p.m. on Sunday. The stable has been a fixture on the upper west side of Manhattan since it opened as a livery stable in 1892, six years before the automobile began to negotiate city streets. It has operated as a riding academy since the 1920s, giving lessons and renting horses for rides in Central Park. Claremont owner Paul Novograd said he was not at liberty to say whether the building, which is located two blocks west of Central Park on West 89th Street, had been sold. But New York City Parks and Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe said it was widely known that the building was being sold to developers and he understood that it is going to be made into condominiums. The building is a landmark, so it won't be torn down, he added. Several dozen people turned out on Saturday to protest against the stable's closing, but the demonstration was not expected to affect the outcome. On Friday, trainer Karen Feldgus, who has worked at Claremont for more than 18 years, was giving her last lesson at the stable to a group of 10 people who were riding to music. Feldgus began to cry as the music began playing. "These (horses) are all my best friends. I've ridden all of them," she said. Novograd said the horses would go to good homes. Most will be moved to the Potomac Horse Center in Maryland, owned by Novograd. Some are being sold to their riders, and some are being donated to the equestrian program at Yale University. Claremont has a small indoor riding facility and stalls for the 38 horses. Instruction included jumping, dressage and stable management. Horses also could be rented for a ride on the bridle path in Central Park. CHILDREN BIG USERS Novograd estimated that about 60 percent of the stable's riding business involved children. Among reasons for closing the stable, Novograd said, were costs incurred restoring the building and problems with the Central Park bridle path. Benepe said there are no issues with the condition of the path or people using it for other purposes. If anything, he said, the bridle path has been improved over recent years by the Central Park Conservancy, a not-for-profit organization that manages Central Park under a contract with the city. Novograd said bridle paths were being used for running, dog walking and pushing baby strollers, making it difficult for riders. The closing of Claremont does not mean the end of horseback riding in parks in New York City, Benepe said, pointing out that there are riding facilities in the city's other boroughs. And he said the city is exploring the possibility of one or more of its stable operators setting up an operation under which horses could be brought to Central Park by trailer. "We're obviously not interested in seeing horseback riding leave the park after 150 years," Benepe said. Losing Claremont is a blow not only to those who ride there, but to those who believe such changes erode New York's character. Manhattan's Times Square area, once a seedy enclave known for pornographic movies, has been transformed in the last decade or so and now booms with retail stores, restaurants and other attractions that lure throngs of tourists. While the neighborhood is safer and cleaner, detractors say the changes have diluted its character by filling it with stores and chain restaurants that can be found at shopping malls across the United States. Further downtown, famed music clubs like CBGB, a legendary forum for punk and "new wave" bands like the Ramones, Blondie and Talking Heads, have closed. And once-gritty areas like the "meat-packing district," named for its history as a center for slaughterhouses and meat plants, have seen influxes of pricey shops and restaurants. Losing Claremont is another thing "gradually whittling away at the character of New York," said Daniel Goldberg, who lives near the stable. "It's what gives New York its flavor." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070428/us_nm/newyork_stable_dc;_ylt=As3DD_gz6iGQVWNeBDYlxHrMWM0F

Yay for World Peace....or not. April 28, 2007 Terror attacks up, Rice considered hiding the data Posted 1:20 pm In 2004, the State Department�s report on global terrorism showed a decline in international attacks, a result which was hailed by administration officials as proof of the efficacy of the president�s strategy. Soon after, we learned that the State Department cooked the books and undercounted � by half � the number of people killed in terrorist attacks. In 2005, the State Department decided it didn�t want to publish the report on global terrorism anymore. The good news is, due to an outcry, the document is back. The bad news is, well, all of the news is bad. A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday�. Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community�s National Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005. Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq. Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in at least one fatality, also up from 2005. The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don�t include strikes against U.S. troops. If, in 2004, an initial report showing a decline in attacks was proof that Bush�s strategy was working, doesn�t an increase in attacks a few years later necessarily show that Bush�s strategy is failing? As for the politics, Condoleezza Rice reportedly considering hiding the bad news. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year�s edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said. Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said. Yes, how wonderfully gracious of them. Rice �decided� to follow the law after considering a plan not to. I guess we�re supposed to be grateful? As Kevin Drum put it, �They considered postponing a congressionally mandated report because it might be inconvenient for the president�s war policy? Is there some kind of �political sensitivities� exemption in the law?� Maybe it was in one of the signing statements. Of course, the deadline for producing the document was Monday, but Rice instead chose late on a Friday afternoon, beating the deadline by a few days. I can�t imagine why, can you? [Ed. note: Can you say "Friday document dump'? I knew you could. :-) ] http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10651.html#more-10651

Hmmm. I thought I closed the tag.

I won't go into how I ran across this, but these are some beautiful and interesting pictures of the Libyan desert this guy took. Click on the slideshow to see them all easiest. http://www.flickr.com/photos/15295652@N00/184404127/in/set-72157594191206777/

The level of my disgust is staggering... From WaPo via Firedoglake.com: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/29/in-the-news/#more-8758 (Other interesting news points highlighted at this post also). *********************** As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide. Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" � a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again � the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving." Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims�. More than 10,000 pages of cables, telegraphs and e-mails from U.S. diplomats around the globe � released piecemeal since last fall under the Freedom of Information Act � provide a fuller account of problems that, at times, mystified generous allies and left U.S. representatives at a loss for an explanation. The documents were obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a public interest group, which provided them to The Washington Post. In one exchange, State Department officials anguished over whether to tell Italy that its shipments of medicine, gauze and other medical supplies spoiled in the elements for weeks after Katrina's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005, and were destroyed. "Tell them we blew it," one disgusted official wrote. But she hedged: "The flip side is just to dispose of it and not come clean. I could be persuaded." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html?hpid=topnews

My grandmother and mother used to horseback ride in Central Park occasionally (most of their riding was done in NJ, though). Any city has to evolve, but it is sad when certain institutions have to disappear. Is there anything left for which this administration ought to be ashamed? When I think there's nothing more it can do to embarrass this country, something else arises. :-(

I thought this topic would better suit the whole G*D D**N fuel frenzy, so that's why I'm posting here. NO GAS...On May 15th 2007!! I've received so many e-mails regarding this, I have to wonder if something might actually go down. It made my stomach turn yesterday when I forked out $45 for my tank of gas that wasn't even completely filled! I don't drive a behemoth, but, on the other hand, I don't drive a YUGO either ;-) Somewhere in the middle. Maybe we all can make something happen...(what's the symbol for shrugging shoulders and an "I don't think so" face?

Other than going once a month or six weeks to another state, I almost never need to drive anymore since I've been taking mass transit to work for the past year or so. I only need gas when I go on my trips to PA as noted above. And when I do need gas, I usually make sure to get it in NJ where it's anywhere from 15-20 cents per gallon cheaper than either NY or PA. I get some in NJ for the trip out (which takes about half a tank) and I fill up just before I cross the bridge to NY on the way back.

I'm trying to ride my bike as much as possible around South Austin and downtown, which is a relatively bike friendly town.

They are trying to encourage more bike riding here also, especially now as it's Bike NYC month, but even as they add more bike lanes, they become mostly blocked by doubleparkers...and cabs picking up/letting off fares. I will say I've never noticed so many people riding bikes as I did this evening around 5th/6th Ave near the Union Square area (14th-19th Sts). I had to keep a more headsup approach whenever I went to cross the avenues or they would've hit me. I didn't notice if they followed the lights or would ride through red lights.

There was a report on the Canadian national news last night that Vancouver has the highest gas prices in North America, approximately US$4.32 per US gallon. No wonder we cross the border into Washington state for "cheap" gas!

I find this so interesting. What's even more fascinating is the three different colors of tiger cubs. Dog nurses tiger triplets at Chinese zoo Thu May 17, 3:00 AM ET BEIJING - It's a dog's life for three newborn tiger triplets in eastern China. The cubs, whom officials at the Jinan Paomaling Wild Animal World in Shandong province are so far just calling "One," "Two" and "Three," have been nursed by a dog since they were rejected by their tiger mother shortly after birth, said Paomaling manager Chen Yucai. The trio's adoptive mother, a mixed breed farm dog called "Huani," is expected to nurse them for about a month or until their appetites outpace her supply, Chen said. Chen said it is common for Chinese zoos to use surrogate dog mothers to nurse rejected tiger cubs and that Huani has nursed tigers before. In the past, Paomaling put dog urine on their rejected cub's fur to make the surrogate think she was nursing one of her own puppies but the zoo didn't bother with Huani because she seemed not to mind nursing the tigers, he said. "The family is getting along well and seems to enjoy each other," Chen said. **************************** And I just ran across this. How adorable, a cute family portrait. Ok, not to Mari anyway. ;-D

So pretty... Here's the link to the slideshow I've been looking at. Hope the link works. I got up to about 50. There's another dog in there, a French bulldog (ugly thing) who's another surrogate for another tiger. None of the tigers in Asian zoos seem to like their offspring it seems (she says in a broad generalization ;-)). http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/lf/031802zooanimals&curPhoto=1 Lots of interesting animals, including some with offspring. Never knew what a spring hare was, but it's adorable. There's also some funky monkey creature called a loris that apparently is an offshoot in the evolutionary chain from apes. The one picture shows what look to be virtually human looking hands on it.

I CANNOT applaud these people or give them kudos enough. Did people hear of the protests from UMass students, faculty, etc over the plan to have Andrew Card, former Bush Chief of Staff, receive an honorary degree in public policy at their commencement ceremony next week. When the protests came up, he apparently contacted a couple of unhappy faculty members and this is their editorial about it. Not only do I agree with the sentiment, it's so well-written and without true malice. http://no2card.umassgss.org/2007/05/16/editorial-from-faculty-members-after-phone-call-from-card/ No Degree for Andy Card! Because War Criminals Don�t Deserve Honorary Degrees Editorial from Faculty Members after Phone Call from Card Card hasn�t earned UMass honor BY PAULA CHAKRAVARTTY AND STEPHANIE LUCE Hampshire Gazette Everything you read in the news about President Bush�s former White House Chief of Staff Andrew (Andy) Card emphasizes the fact that he�s a �nice guy.� But is a reputation for congeniality enough for an honorary doctorate in public policy from UMass Amherst? Card is scheduled to receive this honorary degree at the university�s graduate school commencement exercises on Friday, May 25. We recently had a chance to discuss this with Andy Card himself; he called us after hearing that many people at UMass Amherst are outraged at his honorary degree. Card�s main concern was that he had been unfairly �personally attacked� as �intellectually dishonest.� While acknowledging that we might have differences of political opinion, he asserted repeatedly that he was a man of great personal integrity. �Do you even know me?� he asked incredulously. �How would you feel if someone said that about you?� Taken aback by this line of reasoning, we responded by saying that our charge of intellectual dishonesty was based not on his personal attributes but rather on his very public role in misleading the world about the justification for the devastating war in Iraq. Card suggested we should have called him first to ask him about his �side of the story� before dragging his name through the mud. We appreciated his willingness to talk to a couple of UMass professors, but this is the same man who is currently refusing to testify in front of the Congressional House Government and Oversight Committee about his knowledge of the leak in the Valerie Plame case. This is also the same man who played a central role in an administration that has acknowledged violating domestic and international law and fundamentally misrepresenting the truth for political gain. It takes astonishing rhetorical magic to transform the very definition of a political act - falsifying evidence to �market� an ideologically driven war deemed illegal by the international community - into a personal matter. Honoring a public servant most recognized for his role in misleading the public about the war in Iraq is a deeply political decision and, unfortunately for Mr. Card, the UMass community is not buying his magic marketing tricks this time. The protests at UMass are not about �freedom of expression�; there had been few objections to his right to give a talk on campus earlier in the semester, even though many faculty and students disagreed with what Mr. Card had to say. Granting this degree normalizes Card and his role in the Bush administration, rewarding him as if he were just any other public servant from Massachusetts. It reduces falsification and exaggeration, suppression of documents and the coercion of less powerful nations into alternatives along a reasonable spectrum of actions. War and torture become matters of �personal opinion.� Lying is just �part of the job.� Card seemed genuinely shocked that there would be opposition to this honor, given his commitment to the commonwealth and his humble roots. He told us that he wasn�t just a White House chief of staff, but had held many �regular� jobs in his life, from newspaper delivery boy to McDonald�s employee. We insisted that the growing opposition at UMass had nothing to do with his personal life trajectory, just as recent efforts to revoke an honorary degree given to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe was not a reflection of his personal shortcomings. Within one week, over 1,200 students, faculty, staff and alumni from the UMass community have signed a petition against Mr. Card�s degree on the basis that he does not meet the �high ethical standards� that �exemplify the ideals of the University of Massachusetts.� The undergraduate and graduate student senates, as well as graduate employees and faculty unions, have passed resolutions against Card�s degree. This week, the faculty senate will vote on a similar resolution. On Thursday, graduate students, at whose graduation Mr. Card would be receiving his degree, held a large peaceful rally demanding that the administration revoke the degree. The protests will continue. In our phone conversation last Thursday, we pleaded with Mr. Card to listen to the UMass community and reconsider coming to Amherst on May 25, so that graduate students can celebrate their achievements with their families, faculty and the community. Mr. Card replied by saying that �I have been invited to receive this great honor, and I am not rude.� We ask Mr. Card again to consider if as a �nice man� it might be worth it for him to risk the perception of �rudeness� to a few UMass administrators who have invited him, as opposed to ignoring the outrage of thousands of UMass students, faculty, staff and community who are unequivocally opposed to his receiving this honor for his role in the ultimate act of rudeness: starting an unnecessary war that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Paula Chakravartty is an assistant professor in the UMass Department of Communication. Stephanie Luce is an associate professor of labor studies at UMass. Daily Hampshire Gazette � 2007

What adjective(s) is infinitely stronger than appalled and disgusted? Whatever it/they are is what I am. These feelings extend to our do-nothing, capitulating, wimpy-assed Congress (**esp the Democrats**) and their passing of the Iraq War funding bill today. AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops By RICHARD LARDNER 10 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press. Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, the document says. It blamed the bureaucracy and a "risk-averse" approach by acquisition officials. Among the items held up were a mine resistant vehicle and a hand-held laser system. "Process worship cripples operating forces," according to the document. "Civilian middle management lacks technical and operational currency." The 32-page document � labeled "For Official Use Only" � was prepared by the staff of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force after they returned from Iraq in February. The document was to be presented in March to senior officials in the Pentagon's defense research and engineering office. The presentation was canceled by Marine Corps leaders because its contents were deemed too contentious, according to a defense official familiar with the document. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly. The document's claims run counter to the public description of a process intended to cut through the layers of red tape that frequently slow the military's procurement process. The Marine Corps had no immediate comment on the document. In a briefing Wednesday, Marine Corps officials hailed their "Urgent Universal Need Statement" system as a way to give Marines in combat a greater say in weapons-buying decisions. "What we all liked about (the urgent requests) is they came from the operators out on the ground and there was always a perceived better way of doing things," said Maj. Gen. Dennis Hejlik, who was a commander in Iraq from June 2004 to February 2005. The document lists 24 examples of equipment urgently needed by Marines in Iraq's Anbar province. One, the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, has received attention as a promising way to protect troops from roadside blasts, the leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq. After receiving a February 2005 urgent request approved by Hejlik for nearly 1,200 of the vehicles, the Marine Corps instead purchased improved versions of the ubiquitous Humvee. The industrial capacity did not exist to quickly build the new mine resistant vehicles and the more heavily armored Humvees were viewed as a suitable solution, Marine Corps officials said. That proved not to be the case as insurgent elements in Iraq developed more powerful bombs that could penetrate the Humvees. The mine resistant vehicles are now a top priority for all the military branches, which plan to buy 7,774 of the carriers at a cost of $8.4 billion. Brig. Gen. Robert Milstead, chief of Marine Corps public affairs, said cost was not a factor in choosing the Humvee. "This was not a budgetary decision," Milstead said Wednesday. "You can take that to the bank." The internal document, however, states that the cost of building new vehicles was a primary reason the request was denied by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. Needs of the deployed troops are "competed against funded programs," the document states. "Resistance costs time," it adds. "Unnecessary delays cause U.S. friendly and innocent Iraqi deaths and injuries." A second example cited is the compact high power laser dazzler, an inexpensive, nonlethal tool for steering unwelcome vehicles away from U.S. checkpoints in Iraq. The dazzler emits a powerful stream of green light that stops or redirects oncoming traffic by temporarily impairing the driver's vision. In June 2005, Marines stationed in western Iraq filed an urgent request for several hundred of the dazzlers, which are built by LE Systems, a small company in Hartford, Conn. The request was repeated nearly a year later. "Timely purchase and employment of all systems bureaucratically stymied," the document states. Separate documents indicate the deployed Marines became so frustrated at the delays they bypassed normal acquisition procedures and used money from their own budget to buy 28 of the dazzlers directly from LE Systems. But because the lasers had not passed a safety review process, stateside authorities barred the Marines from using them. In January, nearly 18 months after the first request, the Marines received a less powerful laser built by a different company. Titus Casazza, president of LE Systems, criticized the Marine Corps' acquisition process. "The bureaucrats and lab rats sitting behind a desk stateside are making decisions on what will be given to our soldiers even if contrary to the specific requests of these soldiers and their commanding generals," he said. There are successful examples listed in the briefing document. A December request for an airborne surveillance system � Angel Fire � is expected to be filled this summer. The system provides constant overhead surveillance of large urban areas, such as Ramadi or Fallujah, and is able to track the movement of people and vehicles. Len Blasiol, a civilian official with the Combat Development Command, said the speed with which requests can be met is largely dependent on how much research and development work needs to be done. "The first question is, 'Is this something we can go out right now today and buy? Is it sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for us to buy?' And if it is, then we figure out how to buy it," Blasiol said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_critical_gear;_ylt=AuvtSgfYPf8LWpF4bjV3lbys0NUE

nothing wrong with appalled and disgusted but adding just of few others: offended, nauseated, repelled, repulsed, revolted, sickened, mortified, outraged

(Dorine)These feelings extend to our do-nothing, capitulating, wimpy-assed Congress (**esp the Democrats**) and their passing of the Iraq War funding bill today. Dorine, I understand your feelings, but PLEASE don't lump the Dems in with the architects of this war. Joe Biden explains in the article below why he voted for the bill. He has a point. Unfortunately, in the current sound-bite climate, there is little room for nuanced discusssion about why you could be against the war, yet vote to fund it (a reason might be to avoid the atrocious situations referenced in your article). Just look at the predictably callous platitudes that McCain and Romney have voiced: Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent AP Sens. Barack Obama Hillary Rodham Clinton earned praise from anti-war activists but criticism from Republicans on Friday for voting against a measure to pay for the Iraq war that sets no timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops. The two leading 2008 Democratic presidential contenders had been under heavy pressure from the party's influential anti-war wing and from other Democratic candidates to oppose the emergency funding bill sought by President George W. Bush. Unlike an earlier funding bill that Bush vetoed on May 1, the bill comfortably passed late on Thursday by both the Senate and House of Representatives was not tied to deadlines for troop withdrawals. Obama and Clinton had refused for days to say how they would vote, but ultimately sided with opponents of the increasingly unpopular war. Liberal advocacy groups like MoveOn.org had warned Democrats who backed the measure of possible political consequences. Republican presidential contenders John McCain and Mitt Romney blasted Obama and Clinton for not supporting U.S. troops -- a criticism certain to linger into next year's general election campaign and the November 2008 vote for the White House. "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender," said McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the bill. "This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda," he said. Two other Democratic senators running for president split their votes on the bill, with Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd voting against it and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden for it. The votes against the bill, which passed 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate and is now set for Bush's signature, pleased anti-war groups. Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, said no member of Congress who voted for the bill could pretend to be an opponent of the war. "Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd stood up and did the right thing -- voting down the president's war policy," he said. "They're showing real leadership toward ending the war, and MoveOn's members are grateful. This bold stand ... won't soon be forgotten." Other Democratic contenders like John Edwards, a former senator, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had urged Congress and their rivals to reject the measure. Clinton has angered some anti-war Democrats with her refusal to apologize or repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Obama has stressed his early opposition to the war. While initially reluctant to back withdrawal timetables, both Clinton and Obama supported the earlier bill that included them. Analysts said opposing the bill was the safe choice for Democrats in a country that has turned against the war. But the delay in making a decision by Obama and Clinton could make them appear calculating, said Cal Jillson, a political analyst at Southern Methodist University in Texas. "Neither Hillary nor Obama have been beacons of courage," he said. "People are saying 'Do you guys have the sense of self and the confidence to state a position and then defend it?' And both of them have been hiding in the bushes." Clinton, of New York, said she supported the troops but ultimately opposed the bill because "it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq." Obama said U.S. troops deserved more. "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one," said Obama, a senator from Illinois. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and proponent of a plan to partition Iraq into three regions, said Democrats did not have the votes yet to overcome Bush's veto and should face the political reality that troops needed to be funded. "The president may be prepared to play a game of political chicken with the well-being of our troops. I am not. I will not," Biden said.

I have a great deal more to say on this, but for now.... So what you're saying is that it's ok for them to say essentially, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" I'm all for compromise, but what in this scenario did the White House give up?

While I don't live there like some here, I've driven in NJ enough to know how true these are. ;-D How To Drive In New Jersey Posted On: 5/25/07 at 12:26 PM 1. You must first learn to pronounce the city name; it is New-erk not New-ark. 2. The morning rush hour is from 5:00 a.m. to noon. The evening rush hour is from noon to 7:00 p.m. Friday's rush hour starts on Thursday morning. 3. The minimum acceptable speed on the turnpike is 85 mph. On the parkway it's 105 or 110. Anything less is considered "Wussy." 4. Forget the traffic rules you learned elsewhere. Jersey has its own version of traffic rules. For example, cars/trucks with the loudest muffler go first at a four-way stop; the trucks with the biggest tires go second. However, in Monmouth county, SUV-driving, cellphone-talking moms ALWAYS have the right of way. 5. If you actually stop at a yellow light, you will be rear ended, cussed out, and possibly shot. 6. Never honk at anyone. Ever. Seriously. It's another offense that can get you shot. 7. Road construction is permanent and continuous in all of Jersey. Detour barrels are moved around for your entertainment pleasure during the middle of the night to make the next day's driving a bit more exciting. 8. Watch carefully for road hazards such as drunks, skunks, dogs, cats, barrels, cones, celebs, rubber-neckers, shredded tires, cell-phoners, deer and other road kill, and the homeless feeding on any of these items. 9. Mapquest does not work here -- none of the roads are where they say they are or go where they say they do and all the Turnpike EZpass lanes are moved each night once again to make your ride more exciting. 10. If someone actually has their turn signal on, wave them to the shoulder immediately to let them know it has been "accidentally activated." 11. If you are in the left lane and only driving 70 in a 55-65mph zone, you are considered a road hazard and will be "flipped off" accordingly. If you return the flip, you'll be shot. 12. Do not try to estimate travel time -- just leave Monday afternoon for Tuesday appointments, by noon Thursday for Friday and right after church on Sunday for anything on Monday morning.

Over the years I've been embarrassed by events which have taken place in my adopted home of Cincinnati: The Larry Flynt and Robert Mapplethorp obscenity trials; Marge Schott's racist comments; the stampede at the Who concert; Jerry Springer's stint as mayor, etc. But the new creation museum truly takes the ignorance cake. :-( I'm still reeling from the fact that at the most recent debate, three Republican Presidential hopefuls raised their hands when asked if the believed in creation over evolution. :-( from Salon: Inside the Creation Museum May 31, 2007 | PETERSBURG, Ky -- The Creation Museum swung open its stegosaurus-guarded gates to the public Monday, and I have to say it's out of this world. For those of us raised in natural history Meccas like the American Museum in New York, the Smithsonian in Washington, or the Field in Chicago, the beautifully designed museum induces an eerie vertigo. All the familiar characters are here: T. rex, giant skeletons of triceratops and apatosaurus, a pterosaur spreading its wings above the crowd, live exhibits of birds, amphibians and reptiles, and the dripping, hooting and chirping soundtrack of the primeval forest. There are also a couple of unfamiliar faces, for a natural history museum, in the tan and finely muscled bodies of Adam and Eve. At the ribbon cutting, Ken Ham, the rugged-faced CEO and president of Answers in Genesis, the nonprofit ministry that built the museum, tells an enthusiastic crowd that the Creation Museum will undo the damage done 82 years ago when Clarence Darrow put William Jennings Bryan on the stand in the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tenn. "It was the first time the Bible was ridiculed by the media in America, and that was a downward turning point for Christendom," Ham says. "We are going to undo all of that here at the Creation Museum. We are going to answer the questions Bryan wasn't prepared to, and show that belief in every word of the Bible can be defended by modern science." The Book of Genesis, that famous first chapter of the Bible, which Ham's group has interpreted to claim that the universe was created in six 24-hour days a mere 6,000 years ago, serves as the blueprint for the museum. Astronomy, geology and evolution, as they are commonly understood in mainstream science, have no place here. As Ham later tells me, the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of man and a modern antagonism toward faith. On the other hand, he says, the Book of Genesis is true "from the first word to the last." Read the entire article here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/31/creation_museum/index.html

(Ham) The Book of Genesis, that famous first chapter of the Bible, which Ham's group has interpreted to claim that the universe was created in six 24-hour days a mere 6,000 years ago......the Book of Genesis is true "from the first word to the last." Oh...my....god! (figuratively and literally) The entire stance of these people is pitiful.

so upset I forgot to close tags

I'm glad you posted about that Lisa. I was going to a week or so ago, but got too busy. There was a great editorial or story about it in the LA Times that I wanted to post. I'll go back to find it when I get a chance. (Lisa) I'm still reeling from the fact that at the most recent debate, three Republican Presidential hopefuls raised their hands when asked if the believed in creation over evolution. :-( Talk about really pitiful.

I find these Everest and other similar pioneers amazing. Now it's done with such sophisticated equipment, though still dangerous, but think about the challenges 60 odd years ago. And how great to own a chalet with a view of Mont Blanc. *sigh* Updated:2007-06-09 12:08:26 Climber Who Helped Blaze Everest Trail Dies By ERICA BULMAN AP GENEVA (June 8) - Ernest Hofstetter, part of the Swiss team that first traced the route to "The Roof of the World" used by Sir Edmund Hillary to conquer Mount Everest, has died, his son said Friday. He was 95. Hofstetter, who died June 1 at his French chalet with a view of Mont Blanc, was a member of the Swiss expedition that had to turn back just short of the peak in 1952 but is credited with forging the path that Hillary and Tenzing Norgay used in their successful assault a year later. The path is still used today in climbs to the 29,035-foot peak. Acknowledging the Swiss contribution, Hillary's team sent them a telegram after peaking: "To you goes half the glory." "He was kind, but he could also be hard. But it's not a softy who climbs Mount Everest," his son, Michel Hofstetter, told The Associated Press. The Swiss expedition remains one of the most charming and astonishing feats in mountaineering history: During a weekly get-togethers in a Geneva square, a bunch of climbing buddies hatched the plan to scale Everest. Unexpectedly, the Swiss received from the Nepalese government the permit for 1952, taking it away from the British who had monopolized it the previous 21 years. Hofstetter and his friends surpassed all expectations, although they had a big asset: like Hillary, they also had Norgay, the legendary Sherpa. They conquered the Khumbu Icefall - one of the most dangerous stages of the expedition, which has claimed many lives due to collapsing towers of ice and large crevasses that open without warning. Reaching the broad glacial basin called the Western Cwm, they scaled the huge Lhotse face at 23,620 feet to reach the desolate, wind-swept South Col. While Tenzing and Raymond Lambert forged on, Hofstetter remained with another group at 26,250 feet, ready to try if the pair failed. The story of the climb is full of astounding details. Lambert and Tenzing, for instance, camped at 27,560 feet, despite having forgotten their sleeping bags. The group was also essentially climbing without oxygen because their Swiss-designed sets failed. In the thin air at 26,250 feet, many climbers experience hallucinations and poor judgment. Lambert and Tenzing reached 28,380 feet but were forced back down because of fatigue and bad weather. They came within 650 feet of the summit on May 26, 1952. Presuming George Mallory and Andrew Irvine failed to reach the summit in 1924, the Swiss had climbed higher than anyone before. Hofstetter, who ran a sporting goods store in Geneva, had to persuade his wife to let him go. "My mother had three children and a business to run," said Michel, who was 8 when his father made the climb. "Still, she let him go. It was a great act of love." "Nowadays, they've got sophisticated instruments and a meteorologist tells climbers whether it's safe to advance," Michel said. "In those days, you simply looked out the tent to see if there were clouds coming in. Hillary's team was more organized than the Swiss. It also had working oxygen equipment, although it weighed significantly more. Hofstetter's expedition was led by Edouard Wyss-Dunant. Others included Rene Dittert, head mountain guide; Gabriel Chevalley, the team's doctor; Rene Aubert; Leon Flory; Lambert; Andre Roch; and Jean-Jacques Asper, now the sole surviving member. A geologist, a botanist and an anthropologist from the Geneva University also participated. All were members of Geneva's local "L'Androsace" Alpine club. "They were very lucky," Michel said. "They didn't have any accidents or frostbite. But it could have easily ended a lot differently." Besides Michel, Hofstetter is survived by his other children, Gerard and Catherine, and granddaughter Yasmine. There will be no memorial service. Relatives will scatter the ashes of him and his late wife, Jeanne, together in the mountains of southeastern Switzerland. http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/climber-who-helped-blaze-everest-trail/20070608205809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I know there must be a couple of poeple here who remember the old Philly Wanamakers! I vaguely remember being in it once when I was 12 or 13 while visiting my aunt, but never went in it in the whole 4 years I lived in Philly 10 years later. I think it was a Lord and Taylor's then. I'd love to hear that organ. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/arts/music/09orga.html?em&ex=1181620800&en=54443d8e9cdc3ca1&ei=5087%0A

Just something silly I found funny. A "Skim milk cow." What will they find or think of next? Updated:2007-06-04 15:52:10 Researchers Find 'Skim Milk Cows' By ANDREA THOMPSON A genetic trait causes certain cows to produce skim milk. (May 29, 2007) -- In a few years, skim milk may come straight from the cow, it was reported this week. Skim milk is usually produced by taking all of the fat out of regular milk, but in 2001, researchers found a cow that skipped that step. While screening a herd of cows, they found one with a natural gene mutation that makes her produce lower-fat milk than a normal cow. Marge, as researchers later named her, makes milk that has 1 percent fat (as compared to 3.5 percent in whole milk) and is high in omega-3 fatty acids. And remarkably, Marge�s low-fat milk still has the same delicious taste as conventionally produced low-fat milk, according to the report in Chemistry & Industry magazine. The low saturated fat content of Marge�s milk also means that butter made from it is spreadable right out of the fridge, while most butter has to come to room temperature before it can be spread on toast. After researchers found that Marge�s daughters also produced low-fat milk, they surmised that the genetic trait was dominant and planned to breed herds of skim milk-producing cows. (Marge and her offspring live in New Zealand.) ViaLactia, the company that owns Marge, expects the first commercial herd of cows supplying natural low-fat milk and spreadable butter for the market by 2011. But because cows are normally selected for breeding because they give a high milk yield, this new selection criteria could mean the skim milk cows would produce less milk, said Ed Komorowski, technical director at Dairy UK and who is not affiliated with the research�so more cows could be needed to produce the same amount of milk. And "normal" cows wouldn�t disappear, he told LiveScience, as their milk would still be needed to make fattier products such as cream. The Associated Press contributed to this report. http://reference.aol.com/article/_a/researchers-find-skim-milk-cows/20070530155709990002

I'd post the article's text but the graphics are v. necessary: Check this out: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-07/st_infoporn

This seems rather on topic given how several of us have been checking one person's twitter periodically: Clive Thompson on How Twitter Creates a Social Sixth Sense Clive Thompson 06.26.07 | 2:00 AM Twitter is the app that everyone loves to hate. Odds are you've noticed people — probably much younger than you — manically using Twitter, a tool that lets you post brief updates about your everyday thoughts and activities to the Web via browser, cell phone, or IM. The messages are limited to 140 characters, so they lean toward pithy, haiku-like utterances. When I dropped by the main Twitter page, people had posted notes like "Doing lunch and picking up father-in-law from senior center." Or "Checking out Ghost Whisperer" or simply "Thinking I'm old." (Most users are between 18 and 27.) It might seem like blogging taken to a supremely banal extreme. Productivity guru Tim Ferriss calls Twitter "pointless email on steroids." One Silicon Valley businessman I met complained that his staff had become Twitter-obsessed. "You can't say anything in such a short message," he said, baffled. "So why do it at all?" They're precisely right: Individually, most Twitter messages are stupefyingly trivial. But the true value of Twitter — and the similarly mundane Dodgeball, a tool for reporting your real-time location to friends — is cumulative. The power is in the surprising effects that come from receiving thousands of pings from your posse. And this, as it turns out, suggests where the Web is heading. When I see that my friend Misha is "waiting at Genius Bar to send my MacBook to the shop," that's not much information. But when I get such granular updates every day for a month, I know a lot more about her. And when my four closest friends and worldmates send me dozens of updates a week for five months, I begin to develop an almost telepathic awareness of the people most important to me. It's like proprioception, your body's ability to know where your limbs are. That subliminal sense of orientation is crucial for coordination: It keeps you from accidentally bumping into objects, and it makes possible amazing feats of balance and dexterity. Twitter and other constant-contact media create social proprioception. They give a group of people a sense of itself, making possible weird, fascinating feats of coordination. For example, when I meet Misha for lunch after not having seen her for a month, I already know the wireframe outline of her life: She was nervous about last week's big presentation, got stuck in a rare spring snowstorm, and became addicted to salt bagels. With Dodgeball, I never actually race out to meet a friend when they report their nearby location; I just note it as something to talk about the next time we meet. It's almost like ESP, which can be incredibly useful when applied to your work life. You know who's overloaded — better not bug Amanda today — and who's on a roll. A buddy list isn't just a vehicle to chat with friends but a way to sense their presence. Are they available to talk? Have they been away? This awareness is crucial when colleagues are spread around the office, the country, or the world. Twitter substitutes for the glances and conversations we had before we became a nation of satellite employees. So why has Twitter been so misunderstood? Because it's experiential. Scrolling through random Twitter messages can't explain the appeal. You have to do it — and, more important, do it with friends. (Monitoring the lives of total strangers is fun but doesn't have the same addictive effect.) Critics sneer at Twitter and Dodgeball as hipster narcissism, but the real appeal of Twitter is almost the inverse of narcissism. It's practically collectivist — you're creating a shared understanding larger than yourself. Mind you, quick-ping media can be a massive time-suck. You also may not want more information pecking at your frayed attention span. And who knows? Twitter's rabid fans (their numbers are doubling every three weeks) may well abandon it for a shinier new toy. It happened to Friendster. But here's my bet: The animating genius behind Twitter will live on in future apps. That tactile sense of your community is simply too much fun, too useful — and it makes the group more than the sum of its parts. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-07/st_thompson

Unfuckingbelievable!! Or not so unbelievable really. It's really true. There is to be absolutely no justice for any of these administration criminals. And Libby is a *convicted* criminal. Not just a presumed or so-called one like the rest of them. He got thrown under the bus to protect Cheney, and they returned the favor and gave him his Get Out Of Jail card before he even needed it. The irony is I found this news out on CNN in the train station having just come from seeing a play, Frost/Nixon, about another criminal president.

And another irony was pointed out as I read across the web, Paris Hilton served more time than Libby did. And she wasn't instrumental in outing a covert CIA spy. How did this country get to this point?

And this kinda sums it up for me quite nicely... http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/02/late-late-nite-fdl-no-more-words/

What is an "excessive sentence" to me is the black teenager sentenced to something like 10 years for having consensual sex with another teenager. Where is the presidential commutation/pardon when it's really needed.

Oh! I didn't realize that kid was black.

(Dorine) Paris Hilton served more time than Libby did. And she wasn't instrumental in outing a covert CIA spy. How did this country get to this point? *shaking head* Naturally it was done at what would normally be considered a slow news time. The late night pundits are on vacation (reruns). Must check if Stewart and Colbert are working this week or similarly on vacation. But what's going on (in its totality) is criminal. Then I get madder and madder thinking about the ethanol/corn situation/price of milk business. Anything to keep the automakers in business with their internal combustion engine, when the completely electric car was the way to go!! Then milk wouldn't be like $3/gallon.

(Dorine) Paris Hilton served more time than Libby did. And she wasn't instrumental in outing a covert CIA spy. How did this country get to this point? Dorine, I'm furious as well. My blood pressure goes up every time I think about it. And don't even get me started with the recent Supreme Court decisions. :-( These are dark days. I truly believe our government is broken. I just hope it isn't beyond repair.

(Karen) Anything to keep the automakers in business with their internal combustion engine, when the completely electric car was the way to go!! Interesting you brought that up. I was going to mention at some point that I finally saw (most of) "Who Killed the Electric Car?" the other night. I still need to finish the last little bit, but it's a great documentary. Sad, really. Maybe GM would be doing a lot better if they had put a fraction of the effort to market the electric car that they do for regular ones rather than continue in cahoots with the oil industry. Look where that's gotten them. The oil companies are swimming in more $$$ than you can shake a stick at and GM's losing $$$ hand over fist. Serves them right.

Again, having seen Frost/Nixon last night, the concept of a President covering up crimes is very fresh in my mind. Especially from the final scene where Nixon finally admits to Frost that he was involved in the Watergate coverup after Frost confronted him with "new" evidence during the interview. This tidbit is pointed out in a blog and I will have to read the whole transcript of the interview, or find it on You Tube later.... 1) CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Joe Wilson tonight. (Read the transcript). One line struck me: "[B]y commuting the sentence, I think the president raises the very real suspicion that he's party to the obstruction of justice or the cover-up of the original crime." [Ed. note- Their bold highlights, not mine.] But then again, it's most likely another Cheney scheme directed from behind the scenes. Did anyone read that 4 part Washington Post series on Cheney's tentacled, yet subtle and behind the scenes, efforts to direct foreign and domestic policy? Riveting. I mean, I still find myself amazed that my jaw can still drop and my head still shake in disbelief. People make jokes about the shadow presidency of Cheney, well read this, and it won't be such a joke. I'll find the link later.

Yeah, let us know the link.

(Dorine) but it's a great documentary. I agree. Shows you that we're still going down the wrong path, supposedly pursuing alternative solutions (ethanol and the ultra expensive hydrogen) that make no economic sense, except to certain vested interests. People make jokes about the shadow presidency of Cheney From Day One, everything about the Bush presidency has reminded me of a very old series of books written by Allan Drury, the Advise and Consent series. It doesn't exactly foreshadow the Bush Admin, but it certainly demonstrates the idea has been around for a long time. Drury wrote in the 1950s and early 1960s, as I recall.

Well, bless the Washington Post for putting the four-part Cheney series on a nice organized page. That's new since I read it. I didn't see any sidebars before either, though they seem interesting also, the little bit I skimmed over them. They aren't super long, but they aren't real short either. I'll be curious to hear other opinions. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=moreheadlines

Hee. Kind of an out of the mouths of babes type statement that kind of says it all from their point of view. (Scott Stanzel is deputy White House press secretary) Pointed out by Daily Kos, among others (the rest of this entry is interesting, too): From today's White House press briefing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070705.html), truer words were never spoken: Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment? MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law."

Some good choices, I think, though I thought Stonehenge was a no-brainer. 7 new wonders of the world chosen By BARRY HATTON, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago LISBON, Portugal - The Great Wall of China, Rome's Colosseum, India's Taj Mahal and three architectural marvels from Latin America were among the new seven wonders of the world chosen in a global poll released on Saturday. Jordan's Petra was the seventh winner. Peru's Machu Picchu, Brazil's Statue of Christ Redeemer and Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid also made the cut. About 100 million votes were cast by the Internet and cellphone text messages, said New7Wonders, the nonprofit organization that conducted the poll. The seven beat out 14 other nominated landmarks, including the Eiffel Tower, Easter Island in the Pacific, the Statue of Liberty, the Acropolis, Russia's Kremlin and Australia's Sydney Opera House. The pyramids of Giza, the only surviving structures from the original seven wonders of the ancient world, were assured of retaining their status in addition to the new seven after indignant Egyptian officials said it was a disgrace they had to compete. The campaign to name new wonders was launched in 1999 by the Swiss adventurer Bernard Weber. Almost 200 nominations came in, and the list was narrowed to the 21 most-voted by the start of 2006. Organizers admit there was no foolproof way to prevent people from voting more than once for their favorite. A Peruvian in national costume held up Macchu Picchu's award to the sky and bowed to the crowd with his hands clasped, eliciting one of the biggest cheers from the audience of 50,000 people at a soccer stadium in Portugal's capital, Lisbon. Many jeered when the Statue of Liberty was announced as one of the candidates. Portugal was widely opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Another Swiss adventurer, Bertrand Piccard, pilot of the first hot-air balloon to fly nonstop around the world, announced one of the winners � then launched into an appeal for people to combat climate change and stand up for human rights before being ushered off the stage. The Colosseum, the Great Wall, Machu Picchu, the Taj Mahal and Petra had been among the leading candidates since January, while the Statue of Christ Redeemer received a surge in votes more recently. The Statue of Liberty and Australia's Sydney Opera House were near the bottom of the list from the start. Also among the losing candidates were Cambodia's Angkor, Spain's Alhambra, Turkey's Hagia Sophia, Japan's Kiyomizu Temple, Russia's Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, Germany's Neuschwanstein Castle, Britain's Stonehenge and Mali's Timbuktu. Weber's Switzerland-based foundation aims to promote cultural diversity by supporting, preserving and restoring monuments. It relies on private donations and revenue from selling broadcasting rights. The U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, keeps a list of World Heritage Sites, which now totals 851 monuments. But the agency was not involved in Weber's project. The traditional seven wonders were concentrated in the Mediterranean and Middle East. That list was derived from lists of marvels compiled by ancient Greek observers, the best known being Antipater of Sidon, a writer in the 2nd century B.C. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Colossus of Rhodes and the Pharos lighthouse off Alexandria have all vanished. On the Net: http://www.new7wonders.com http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_eu/new_seven_wonders;_ylt=Aksm8uJWCxBhppGl3e5od5Cs0NUE

Was reading a Reuters article entitled, "Americans tired of Iraq war, split on withdrawal" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070712/ts_nm/iraq_usa_people_dc;_ylt=ApyEacCqfWaUehtgNvMbeELMWM0F) and came across this statement in the middle... Americans were divided over the president's stand..... "I think he's doing a wonderful job. These people are out to get us and if we back off they'll come after us here," said Kessler, a Cincinnati Republican who voted for Bush." The depths of my repugnance for the unadulterated ignorance this woman displays at this point knows no bounds.

Grr. I was distracted by my irritation at her (and others like her...the 26 percenters, I imagine).

Sorry, I read further and found another one... But security officer Roshad Lyons, a Democrat, said Iran will take over in Iraq if U.S. troops pull out. "I don't see any reason to go there and not complete the job. The priority should be getting the (Iraqi) military up and running. It's almost done," said Lyons. On what planet or bizarro world is he living on where getting the Iraqi military up and running is almost done?! Obviously reading the news isn't a big priority for him. At the very least, they are part of the problems.

Since the subject of hybrid cars came up a couple of weeks ago... Hybrid lovers: The Honeymoon May Be Over As the reality of fuel efficiency sinks in, fewer new car buyers are considering a hybrid, according to J.D. Power By CNNMONEY.COM NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The percentage of car shoppers considering hybrid vehicles has declined in the past year, according to a survey released Tuesday by J.D. Power and Associates. Fifty percent of new vehicle shoppers surveyed said they are considering a gasoline/hybrid electric vehicle. That's down from 57 percent last year. "In the 2006 study, we found consumers often overestimated the fuel efficiency of hybrid-electric vehicles, and the decrease in consideration of hybrids in 2007 may be a result of their more realistic understanding of the actual fuel economy capabilities," said Mike Marshall, director of automotive emerging technologies at J.D. Power. Interest in hybrid vehicles declined the most among younger shoppers. Last year, 73 percent of car shoppers between ages 16 and 25 said they were interested in a hybrid vehicle. This year, 60 percent were. Car shoppers also said they were willing to pay an extra $2,396 for a hybrid powertrain while expecting a fuel economy improvement of 18.5 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, consideration for diesel-powered vehicles stands at 23 percent. Last year, only 12 percent of car shoppers considered purchasing one. New clean-diesel models, which have much cleaner exhaust than older versions, have just begun appearing on the market this year along with the low-sulfur diesel fuel needed to run them. Shoppers expected to pay $1,491 extra for a diesel powertrain. They also expected to get about 15 mpg better fuel economy. "As the automotive industry steadily offers more alternative powertrain/fuel options to consumers, buyer preferences will continue to shift the market in the coming years," said Marshall. " The consumer research company also released an Automotive Environmental Index which ranks auto companies and specific models according to their fuel economy and emissions as determined by data from the Environmental Protection Agency and vehicle owners. Toyota was the highest-ranking car brand in J.D. Power's Automotive Environmental Index, followed by Volkswagen and Honda. This is the second year J.D. Power has released that Index and Toyota has moved up six rank positions since last year. The index is based on a car's emissions as reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its fuel economy as reported by the EPA and by drivers responding to a separate survey by J.D. Power. Of the top 30 vehicles in the J.D. Power index, 10 were hybrids from Ford (Charts, Fortune 500), General Motors (Charts, Fortune 500) and Toyota. Toyota, including its Lexus luxury brand, had more vehicles in the list than any other manufacturer. http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/hybrid-lovers-the-honeymoon-may-be-over/20070719145609990001?ncid=AOLCOMMautoDYNLsec000

How much havoc can Cheney wreak while he's *officially* President for a few hours? ;-) Bush's Exam Will Leave Cheney in Charge AP Posted: 2007-07-20 16:34:21 Filed Under: Politics WASHINGTON (July 20) - President Bush will have a routine colonoscopy Saturday and temporarily hand presidential powers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said. Press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Friday that Bush will have the procedure at his Camp David, Md., mountaintop retreat. He last had such a colorectal cancer check on June 29, 2002. "As reported at the time and in subsequent physical exams, absent any symptoms, the president's doctor recommended repeat surveillance in approximately five years," Snow said. "The president has had no symptoms." Two polyps were discovered during examinations in 1998 and 1999, while Bush was governor of Texas. That made Bush a prime candidate for regular examinations. For the general population, a colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer is recommended every 10 years. But for people at higher risk or if a colonoscopy detects precancerous polyps, follow-up colonoscopies often are scheduled in three- to five-year intervals. "Although no polyps were noted in the exam in 2002, age and history would suggest that there's a reasonable chance that polyps will be noted this time," Snow said. "If so, they'll be removed and evaluated microscopically." Bush is 61. Snow said results would be available after 48 hours to 72 hours, if not sooner. The procedure will be supervised by Dr. Richard Tubb, the president's doctor. It will be done by a team from the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md. Because the president will be under the effects of anesthesia, Bush has elected to implement Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, making Cheney acting president until Bush indicates he is prepared to reassume his authority. In 2002, Bush transferred presidential powers to Cheney for more than two hours. During Saturday's transfer of power, the vice president will be at his home on the Chesapeake Bay in St. Michaels, Md., about 30 miles east of Washington, Snow said. The 2002 transfer was only the second time that the Constitution's presidential disability clause was invoked. President Reagan was the first to invoke the Constitution's 25th Amendment since its adoption in 1967 as a means of dealing with presidential disability and succession. The earlier colonoscopy for Bush also was done at the medical facility at Camp David near Thurmont, Md. Bush felt well enough afterward to play with his dogs and take a 4 1/2-mile walk with first lady Laura Bush and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Card's wife. Bush then went to the gym for a light workout. The 2002 procedure began at 7:09 a.m and ended at 7:29 a.m. Bush woke up two minutes later but did not resume his presidential office until 9:24 a.m., after Tubb conducted an overall examination. Tubb said he recommended the additional time to make sure the sedative had no aftereffects. AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.

I thought that Hillary article I mentioned on O&E was in the NYT, but couldn't swear to it. What I do find fascinating is that there are *women* who can't seem to handle the idea of a woman president for mere fact of that candidate being a woman rather than being competent. Women Supportive but Skeptical of Clinton, Poll Says By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and DALIA SUSSMAN Published: July 20, 2007 Women view Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more favorably than men do, but she still faces skepticism among some women, especially those who are older and those who are married, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Women hold more positive views than men of all the leading Democratic candidates. But winning the support of women, who made up 54 percent of voters in the last presidential election, is especially important to Mrs. Clinton, who has sought to rally them behind her quest to become the nation�s first female president. The poll found that over all, women tend to agree with her on the issues and see her as a strong leader and as a positive role model. All of those polled � both women and men � said they thought Mrs. Clinton would be an effective commander in chief, suggesting she has made headway in diminishing concerns that her sex would impede her from leading the nation in wartime. A majority of those polled also said they thought she would win the White House if she captured the Democratic nomination. But the poll also held some warning signs for Mrs. Clinton, 59, the junior senator from New York. Forty percent of voters view her unfavorably, more than for any of the other major candidates for president (although they are not as well known). Neither men nor women fully trust that she is saying what she really believes, the poll found. Mrs. Clinton�s choices as a woman and a political figure have been intensely scrutinized during her 15 years on the national stage, and as she runs for president, the debate about her remains polarizing, politically and culturally. Her role as the first woman to contend so seriously for the White House has also raised questions about how much to trust polling about her. Some polls in other elections have overstated the strength of minority candidates, perhaps because respondents were not being honest about their feelings or changed their minds in the privacy of the voting booth. It is unclear whether a similar phenomenon may occur in the case of a woman. A third of Americans in the poll say most people they know will be �less likely� to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman � more than twice the number who say her being a woman will make people more likely to vote for her. Still, half of those polled said her sex would not matter. The vast majority of all voters � more than 80 percent � think it very likely or somewhat likely that Mrs. Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. More than 60 percent think she is likely to win the presidency. The poll was conducted by telephone across the country from July 9 to July 17 among 1,554 adults. Of those, 1,068 were women, a deliberate oversampling designed to examine the views of different groups of women. The margin of sampling error for all adults and for women is plus or minus three percentage points. Among all registered voters, 46 percent of women have a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, while 33 percent have an unfavorable view. The rest are undecided. The numbers are opposite for men, with 34 percent having a positive view of her and 47 percent holding a negative one. The support for Mrs. Clinton is most pronounced among unmarried and less affluent Democratic women. More than 8 in 10 working women say she understands their problems. The older the woman, the more negatively she views Mrs. Clinton: 27 percent of those under age 45 view her negatively; 33 percent of those 45 to 64 view her negatively; and 40 percent of those 64 and older view her negatively. �I like her strength, and I like that she�s been behind the scenes in the White House and knows the process and has the Senate experience,� Karla Whitt, 32, a small-business owner in Charlotte, N.C., said in a follow-up interview. �I do like that she is a woman,� Ms. Whitt added, �but that�s not the main thing.� Marilyn Bielstein, 69, a retired nurse in Gig Harbor, Wash., said flatly, �I don�t like her politics, and I don�t admire her as a woman.� Ms. Bielstein added, �I�ve followed her history back to her college days, and I just don�t trust her. I think she�s a socialist, and I think that�s exactly where she wants to take us.� A majority of single women view Mrs. Clinton favorably, while married women are split. Thirty-nine percent of married women like Mrs. Clinton � about as many as like her two closest Democratic rivals, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. But 39 percent also view her negatively � significantly more than have a negative view of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, who are not as well known. Linda Carroll, 59, who lives in Crystal Springs, Miss., and works at an assembly plant, said she supported Bill Clinton and admired Mrs. Clinton for standing by her husband through their marital problems. But Ms. Carroll said she was �not ready for a lady president.� �I�m not for this women�s lib stuff,� she said. The poll shows that Mrs. Clinton might find additional supporters among certain groups. A third of politically independent women say they have not made up their minds about her. Similarly, liberal women make up one of her most reliable bases of support (66 percent of them have a favorable view) although one-fourth of them are still undecided. But she faces skeptical voters like Mona Hughes, 64, an independent who lives in Orlando, Fla. �There are certain things she has voted on since she has been in Congress that seem to me to lean more toward the Republican view of things, which doesn�t make me too happy,� said Ms. Hughes, a retired newspaper columnist. �I want her to be strong and express strong feelings, not just fit her feelings to that audience at that moment,� she said. Those who like Mrs. Clinton offered adjectives like forceful, courageous and strong to describe her. Thirty percent of women used those words, compared with 24 percent of men. The second-most-offered reason was that she is smart and well spoken, the view of 19 percent of women and 12 percent of men. Among those who do not like her, women and men equally (2 in 10) said that they did not trust her. They also said equally (12 percent) that they disagreed with her views and values. A similar percentage said they saw her as �too much of a politician� and �a phony.� But her favorable ratings have inched up in the past few months, and her unfavorable ratings have ebbed to where they are now even. Mrs. Clinton entered the nation�s consciousness in 1992 as her husband sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Since then, The New York Times and CBS News have been tracking her favorability ratings. She started out in March 1992 with 31 percent of registered voters viewing her favorably, 17 percent unfavorably and the rest undecided or not knowing enough about her. As time went on, public opinion was generally divided about her. Shortly after she announced her presidential candidacy in January, the balance of opinion was beginning to turn negative. But opinion is now evenly divided with 40 percent of registered voters having a favorable opinion and 40 percent unfavorable. (Among all respondents to the poll, 41 percent viewed her favorably and 38 percent unfavorably.) Sonya McMahon, 57, who lives in San Diego and works in health care administration, said she had long viewed Mrs. Clinton as �harsh and cold.� Although still undecided, Ms. McMahon said she was now finding Mrs. Clinton more appealing. �Watching bits of her actual comments, I think some of that softening is coming through,� said Mrs. McMahon, who was not part of the poll but who was contacted after her daughter, who did participate, discussed her views with a reporter. �I say to myself, �That�s not so bad.� I�ve warmed up to her.� http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/us/politics/20poll.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics

(Dorine)reticence isn't all about a woman, it's that particular woman. .....about Hillary exactly mirrored mine about her. (Karen) An excuse. So because I'd have any objections at all about her...or perhaps a woman, they're reduced to "an excuse"? Or am I misunderstanding something? I would apply those concerns to any male candidate equally and have.

(Dorine) How much havoc can Cheney wreak while he's *officially* President for a few hours? ;-) I don't know why they're making such a big deal over it. He's been president for the past 6-1/2 years. ;-) What I do find fascinating is that there are *women* who can't seem to handle the idea of a woman president for mere fact of that candidate being a woman rather than being competent. Personally, I find it sickening that women think that way, with many acting like they're their husbands' chattal while voting as their husbands do. Women are more than 50% of the population and can't seem to understand their own political power. One one woman on the Supreme Court! A bunch of men making decisions over what women can and cannot do! Women are truly to blame for this situation and I've been saying this for decades. Ms. Bielstein added, �I�ve followed her history back to her college days, and I just don�t trust her. I think she�s a socialist, and I think that�s exactly where she wants to take us.� A socialist! Gimme a break! I want to see Ms. Bielstein's tax return. ;-) Linda Carroll, 59, who lives in Crystal Springs, Miss., and works at an assembly plant, said she supported Bill Clinton and admired Mrs. Clinton for standing by her husband through their marital problems. But Ms. Carroll said she was �not ready for a lady president.� �I�m not for this women�s lib stuff,� she said. Gimme this woman's phone number! Doesn't she see how ludicrous her statement is? An assembly plant worker who isn't for equality? Does she like it if a man standing next to her on the line makes more? �There are certain things she has voted on since she has been in Congress that seem to me to lean more toward the Republican view of things, which doesn�t make me too happy,� said Ms. Hughes, a retired newspaper columnist. �I want her to be strong and express strong feelings, not just fit her feelings to that audience at that moment,� she said. OK, I'll buy this. Valid criticism.

not just fit her feelings to that audience at that moment, Yes, bingo! Her war stance over the last year is greatly disturbing to me also.

(Dorine) So because I'd have any objections at all about her...or perhaps a woman, they're reduced to "an excuse"? Not you, personally, but how women are generalizing about her. I think the article you posted backs it up. Excuses and lame ones at that.