Oh I remember the Chelsea Clinton photos. When she was a student at Oxford. Her boyfriend had to hold her up. Don't recall where I saw them though. (Evelyn)It's"hands-off" family except the Bush twins and Palin kids. Naw, the Bush twins were actually arrested for underage drinking, but I honestly don't recall any pics of them in that state. Do you? They may exist, but the media, rightly, did not jump on them. It was reported, and then quickly forgotten because it was a family matter. In any event, I never thought less of the families becuse of the kids' hijinks. I think any parent can sympathize. The Clintons and the Bushes always strove to protect their girls' privacy, and for the most part they succeeded. Their daughters have all turned out very well, a credit to their families. The eldest Palin daughter is more out there. She was a part of the campaign, and she posed for a cover and photo spread in People mag recently to talk about teen pregnancy. I'm fine with that--BUT when you willingly court the media, you invite both the good and the bad, and leave yourself open to becoming a commodity. If you shun the spotlight and fly under the radar, you tend to be left alone.

Also, was any politician's child more in the media's crosshairs than JFK Jr.? They hounded him. Media camped outside his apartment. Followed him and his girlfriend, later his wife, all around. Always digging for dirt. He couldn't show a hair on his head without it being reported. Where was the "U.S. media bias" then? I honestly don't understand this "poor me" whining and the perpetuation of the "us vs. them" mentality. It's not helpful.

The unmarried pregnancy was blasted first by the blogs. Thanks to the two bimbos from Alaska. The teen pregnancy bit came after all that publicity. Of course, the parents could have said :No interviews ,period. When Chelsea and Bush twins were college age the media was more conosiderate with family privacy and they weren't competing with the internet and blogs. Anyway...that's my opinion;-)

I agree about whining and being "thin-skinned" about any opposing views/comments . ie...the President's constant zingers about FOX. Get over it! No one forced him to take the job. And wanting to curb Talk Radio...hey , he's not Hugo Chavez.... Yet;-)

Thanks to the two bimbos from Alaska. And do you recall reading about that then, about these bloggers? If it was just the bloggers you don't read (let alone ones from Alaska), how would you even have know she was pregnant? Did you even know there were 2 bimbos (and even more) from Alaska writing about anything then?

The unmarried pregnancy was blasted first by the blogs Sure, blame the blogs. No one would've noticed otherwise. ;-) And why would anyone pay attention to her pregnancy at all, pray tell? Not the irony of it vs. her mom's stated platform on abstinence I'm sure.

Actually, what was put out by the blogs was that Trig was actually Bristol's baby, so to counteract that, the McCain/Palin campaign put out a press release stating Bristol was currently pregnant.

George Clooney is in Aquila with Bill Murray today. It seems that Clooney is opening a movie theater there and has brought the new Wes Anderson film to show. They were touring the earthquake rubble area.

I "read it somewhere" that the bimbo bloggers broke the news of Bristol preggers. Anyway...here's two outfits I have missed.... OOOOh, I like that. A little too sedate. Too much like Talbot's stuff. It's by Isaac Miza....(whatever his name it..the guy from Target)

(Evelyn)When Chelsea and Bush twins were college age the media was more conosiderate with family privacy and they weren't competing with the internet and blogs. They still didn't leave JFK Jr. alone. Or his mother. Nowadays anybody can blog, tweet, or snap pics with their cell phones. And the mainstream media has really lowered its newsworthy standards to compete. Wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage? Ehhhh . . . the President's constant zingers about FOX. Get over it! Does he really? I haven't heard that, but LOL! Love the one-shouldered outfit. I like the purple too. In Aquila today, she's in yellow.

(Evelyn), It's by Isaac Miza....(whatever his name it..the guy from Target) ROTF! The guy from Target? If he had known he wold be known as the guy from Target, he might not have done it. ;-) Some of his Oscar gowns have been my fav's. Publicity and the kids: it goes with the public persona of the parents and the media attention. Most of the kids end up using the media later on anyway. Jenna Bush and her book comes to mind. And Caroline K coming out for senator, even if it did not go her way.

I "read it somewhere" that the bimbo bloggers broke the news of Bristol preggers. Perhaps you read it incorrectly or your source was not accurate. The thing the bloggers were saying was what I noted before. It was also known in that community already that she was pregnant. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837862-1,00.html http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/513141.html And an article that briefly touches on things that Mari, you and I mentioned today about Presidential children in the media, also mentioning the Palin/Bush kids momentarily. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102305.html

Saw my first bumper stick today.... Bankrupt America

Bankrupt America "Yes We Can"

America's been bankrupt for a while. The Chinese have been owning us. ;-)

Oh, wait, did it mean financially or morally? ;-)

I'd pay $5 a month for the NYT online without getting the print edition. I pay much more than that now for the weekend only paper. NY Times considers charging for website access 16 hours ago NEW YORK (AFP) � The New York Times Company is considering charging a fee for access to its website, and has begun asking its print edition subscribers how such a charge would affect their subscriptions. In a survey targeting existing subscribers, the media company said it was "considering charging a monthly fee of five dollars to access its content, including all its articles, blogs and multimedia." The survey then asks: "How likely would you be to pay a 2.50 dollar monthly fee -- which would be a 50 percent discount for home delivery subscribers -- for continued, unlimited access to nytimes.com?" At present, users can access all content on the nytimes.com website for free, but the company has experimented with access charges before. In 2005, it launched Times Select, which charged a fee for access to some opinion and editorial content, but it shut the program down two years later. The proposal described by the survey Thursday suggested a much broader attempt to increase revenue for the media company, amid falling profits across the industry. Company spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said that a monthly access fee was only one possibility being considered. "We are doing research on a variety of scenarios," Mathis told AFP. The survey Thursday seemed designed to gauge the effect of additional charges on The New York Times' existing print subscription base, asking subscribers to respond to a series of assertions about possible fees. Respondents were asked to click on a range of options from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" in response to statements including: "I would gladly pay for access to nytimes.com in order to support the Times' quality journalism" and "I think it is wrong for The New York Times to charge anyone for access to nytimes.com."

This is so sad! Zoo May Close, Euthanize Animals Budget Cuts Threaten Boston Zoo POSTED: 9:14 pm EDT July 10, 2009 UPDATED: 7:19 pm EDT July 11, 2009 BOSTON -- The Franklin Park Zoo, the only Boston institution of its kind, may be forced to close and euthanize some of its animals, zoo officials said Friday. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/20021259/detail.html

That's uncalled for. I am sure other zoos would be happy to take them. Making up $4M. is not insurmountable through private donors/foundations. Where is PETA ? Instead of going after women who wear furs.

*snort* Serves him right. Mr. I Was Unconfirmed For A Judgeship Because of My Apparent Racial Bias. What a git. He something else stupid to her too as an inference, though not sure where I saw it. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/14/sotomayor-surprises-sessions/

That is...he *said* something else stupid to her....

"seeking to discredit Judge Sonia Sotomayor�s judicial philosophy, " I have watched the hearings and I wouldn't say Sen Sessions was *discrediting* her philosophy. Instead he was asking for "clarification"; isn't this what hearings are about? And he wasn't stupid unless you were put-off by his southern accent;-)

This seems up Evelyn's alley. :-) http://www.bvonstyle.com/2009/07/13/michelle-obama-fashion-repeat/?icid=webmail|wbml-aol|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bvonstyle.com%2F2009%2F07%2F13%2Fmichelle-obama-fashion-repeat%2F

Hey, I didn't like her on the campaign trail either. In fact , for a while the "Handlers" hid her; too abrasive. I like to think that she is more rested now and relaxed;-) anyway...here are some new outfits I hadn't seen (Wonder how long she can keep this up...it would become tiresome to me) I like the Ghana one the best. The chartreuse skirt is from J. Crew and sweater is Liz Clayborne. Nice how she moves from designer to middle class stuff.

Getting reports on Sky News of some entrances to Capitol building being sealed off due to gun shots?

(Evelyn) Hey, I didn't like her on the campaign trail either. In fact , for a while the "Handlers" hid her; too abrasive. I like to think that she is more rested now and relaxed;-) Funny, this isn't the comment I was expecting. I posted it because of the fashion....her willingness to re-wear things, and your interest in her fashions.... not whether she was liked or not. Hmmmm...

I was refering to a sentence in the article...not your posting. Yes, I am intensely interested in her fashions....hey, she's setting them. She doesn't repeat them too often. Thanks.

That silly "news" channel... Fox News graphics department has shaky grasp of Mideast geography http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907270040 I found the comments rather entertaining.

Can someone in the UK answer this (or anyone from any non-US country)... With your single payer/universal health care, are people who are chronically ill covered indefinitely and with no limits on the types of treatments given for those such as diabetics on dialysis and cancer patients on long-term recurrent chemo txs. I asked someone from the UK last week, when we were discussing health care systems here and around the world, if patients who are on longterm treatments on NHS continue indefinitely and doesn't it become a financial drag on that health system? (I found his answer rather ludicrous...they just stop treating them at some point). Is the NHS going broke? I'd swear I read or heard that somewhere.

It truly boggles the mind.... "As mcjoan wrote earlier, during the second quarter alone, AHIP, the health insurance industry's political arm, has bankrolled anti-reform efforts to the tune of at least $133 million. To put the insurance industry's largesse in perspective, they spent about as much in the second quarter as the Bush-Kerry campaigns spent in the 2004 general election combined and 50% more than the Obama campaign's quarterly average." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/3/761425/-Reform-allies-blast-GOP,-health-insurance-industry It�s not like the industry has been inert. But the insurers have played the inside game, spending about $40 million on an army of lobbyists and lavishing campaign contributions on Democrats and Republicans to kill the public option. In all, the health industry spent $133 million in the second quarter alone, more than a million bucks a day. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25709.html I recommend this and many of mcjoan's stories... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/3/761171/-Healthcare-RoundupWhats-Ahead Just giving the link because of all the hyperlinks embedded http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/3/761171/-Healthcare-RoundupWhats-Ahead

I have to LOL against my will at this. August 5, 2009 GOP turns tables on Democrats Posted: August 5th, 2009 05:00 PM ET From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston WASHINGTON (CNN) — National Republicans turned the tables on their political counterparts Wednesday by redirecting angry telephone calls coming into their switchboard to the Democratic National Committee. The DNC released a Web video early in the morning accusing the GOP of inciting mob activity at town hall meetings. At the end of the video, the DNC instructs people to call the Republican National Committee to express outrage. Callers who dial the RNC's main number to voice their concern about the DNC's charges are told to press 1, which sends them to the DNC's main switchboard. DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse described the RNC's redirection as a "neat trick," but said it just further proves the Democrats' point about the GOP. "The RNC is inciting angry mobs to shout out legitimate discussion at public events across the country and now they want to ignore people who deplore their tactics," Woodhouse said. "Republicans don't want to have a discussion about the future of health care reform – they want to shout out – and now completely ignore – anyone who disagrees with them." RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho dismissed the DNC's charge and accused Democrats of "trying to divert attention from the widespread opposition to President Obama's government-run health care experiment. "The fact is many Democrats are opposed to the president's plan, including many Democrats in Congress," she said. "We wanted to make sure that callers who believe only 'rabid extremists' are opposing the president's health care plan have the opportunity to express those concerns to the DNC." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/05/gop-turns-tables-on-democrats/#more-63234

I'm no longer an Eagles fan. :-( QB Michael Vick signs 2-year deal with Eagles AP By ROB MAADDI, AP Sports Writer Rob Maaddi, Ap Sports Writer � 16 mins ago PHILADELPHIA � Michael Vick is back in the NFL, landing a job with the Philadelphia Eagles. "He signed with the Eagles," agent Joel Segal told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday. He said it was a two-year deal. Vick, once the NFL's highest-paid player, has not played since 2006. The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback was convicted in August 2007 of conspiracy and running a dogfighting operation, and served 18 of a 23-month sentence in federal prison. He also was suspended indefinitely by the NFL. Commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally lifted Vick's suspension on July 27, allowing him to sign with a team, practice and play in the last two preseason games. Once the season begins, Vick can participate in all team activities except games, and Goodell said he would consider Vick for full reinstatement by Week 6 (Oct. 18-19) at the latest. The Eagles went to the playoffs last season under quarterback Donovan McNabb, and are still looking for their elusive first Super Bowl win. The team, though, is a surprise landing point for Vick. It was among 26 clubs that said there was no interest in Vick, but that may have changed when backup Kevin Kolb strained a knee ligament earlier this week. Kolb's injury isn't serious and he's expected to return next week. The Eagles also have veteran A.J. Feeley. When news of Vick's signing circulated in the press box during the first half of the Eagles' preseason opener against New England, even the team's public relations staff seemed surprised. ___

Not sure what the Eagles had in mind with this. Most fans here (not all) are pissed! My own take: I think they did it as a favor to Donovan McNabb. I seem to think they went to Syracuse together (Donovan would have been a senior, Vick a freshman) and I think he saw himself as a mentor. And I think their mothers are friends. Plus, DM said today that he lobbied for it. This way, MV can ease his way back into the NFL, and catch on with another team next year, now that the Eagles have broken the ice. We sure don't need another QB. Am watching a replay of the press conference now. Tony Dungy is vouching for him.

I for one would love to see the day when we could hold up all our celebrities, athletes, movie stars etc. as paragons of virtue and role models for truth, fairness and clean living. Sadly, I live in Canada and although it's lovely it's still not Utopia. Some people are just not very nice. But the man has paid the price for his misdeeds and I think he should be allowed to earn a living to the best of his ability. In fact, seeing him on the field will be a reminder of what he did wrong which may be better than never hearing about it or him again.

(Sandy) I for one would love to see the day when we could hold up all our celebrities, athletes, movie stars etc. as paragons of virtue and role models for truth, fairness and clean living. I don't care if he's some shmuck that lived down the street. What he did was despicable. (Sandy) But the man has paid the price for his misdeeds and I think he should be allowed to earn a living to the best of his ability. In fact, seeing him on the field will be a reminder of what he did wrong which may be better than never hearing about it or him again. Living in obscurity, working as a short order cook would be more appropriate to me. Working again in a high profile job, with a high profile team, making more $$ in a week than I make in a year even if he was being paid the lowest wage for his position in the NFL is too good for him. He's bankrupt? BFD. Cleaning stables or working with animals in some way, being forced to deal with animals in a compassionate manner, everyday, to remind him of what he did is what he deserves IMO. Sound judgemental? Yep. And I'm ok with that. He's a heinous individual. People who can do that to animals also tend not to treat humans properly either.

(Sandy) In fact, seeing him on the field will be a reminder of what he did wrong Could you please explain your reasoning here? Thank you for commenting. :-)

(Me) In fact, seeing him on the field will be a reminder of what he did wrong (Dorine)Could you please explain your reasoning here? Well, my reasoning is that anytime he steps on the field someone is saying "Oh yah, he's the despicable skunk who was so cruel to his dogs. Such a heinous individual shouldn't be allowed the same privileges as other people." And if that message gets across to one person who might have followed his lead, well it's worth it. I'm not trying to defend him or his actions in the least. I agree that he is the lowest of the low. It's just that society/courts have decided that 18 months in jail is an appropriate punishment for what he did and I don't see continuing to punish him. It's not illegal to be pond scum :-)

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' AP By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer � 32 mins ago WASHINGTON � Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AkjzdhrwMz3tiaXHBrUlJaes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM1dG9ncGIzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODE2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2hpdGVob3VzZWFw ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If this is true, it's come to pass as I said. "Healthcare reform" in the US is a sham. For now anyway. If they pass something now on the understanding it's the first step of a complete overhall, I would feel better about it, but then again, I can't think of anything particularly meaningful now to even vote on. But with a dropping of a public option (in lieu of going whole hog on a single payer system) and the deal the White House/the Senate made with the pharma industry (yet again) for starters, I'm not sure what the point is to continue this charade. Forget it this year and try again next year. I hope to be proved wrong in the future and pray this is some sort of "bigger plan" with a capital P. I'd love to know Sen. Kennedy's thoughts on how this is progressing. The irony that he should be in significantly declining health and increasing unable to participate while his career cause is now front and center is almost mindboggling. I've argued against it often enough when the following has been said to me, but it's true, there's a significant amount of stupid Americans in this country. And they revel in it. The mainstream media as a whole at this point is doing none of them or anyone any favors either on this subject by neglecting to give factbased, reasoned reporting and actually doing a service of educating people on what is really in these bills being brought up on the Hill and what is really being proposed. They choose to listen to and broadcast vapidness and outright lies from people like Sarah Palin (who was for End of Life Care counseling in Alaska before she was against it this week), Newt Gingrich, members of Congress, etc. Are there people out there who have valid criticisms of the reform? Absolutely. Unfortunately the media almost universally chooses not to focus on them. They choose to focus on the people on Medicare, Medicaid or who have military insurance who decry the "socialistic"/govt run public option and literally scream about it at Town Hall meetings (though granted, some of them are plants). They themselves are on such govt run plans, but are too stupid to realize it because they listen to their party leaders (and whoever) without doing any kind of due diligence themselves. I know people have sometimes little time to watch much news and feel they have to rely on the mainstream media to get their information, but at this point, as with their own health, it's time to start taking personal responsibility for the information they take in and should be more discerning of the sources they choose to use for that purpose. *steps off soapbox* (*wonders to self...does anyone notice I'm madder than a wet hen?*)

Forgot to say thank you, Sandy, for your reply. LOL, no, it's definitely not illegal to be pond scum (though maybe it should be ;-)), but I will just have to agree to disagree with you about MV. He was on 60 Minutes tonight and forgot to watch it. Though can't say it was necessarily Must See Tv for me either. I'll catch it online if I'm so inclined.

Sad. :-( Well not for them I guess. Healthcare insurers get upper hand Obama's overhaul fight is being won by the industry, experts say. The end result may be a financial 'bonanza.' By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger August 24, 2009 Reporting from Washington - Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall. The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums. "It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc. Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!" The insurers' success so far can be explained in part by their lobbying efforts in the nation's capital and the districts of key lawmakers. The bills vary in the degree to which they would empower government to be a competitor and a regulator of private insurance. But analysts said that based on the way things stand now, insurers would come out ahead. "The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide -- plus their administrative costs." One of the Democratic proposals that most concerns insurers is the creation of a "public option" insurance plan. The industry launched a campaign on Capitol Hill against it, grounded in a study published by the Lewin Group, a health policy consulting firm that is owned by UnitedHealth Group. The lobbyists contended that a government-run plan, which would have favorable tax and regulatory treatment, would undermine private insurers. Opposition increased this month when boisterous critics mobilized at town hall meetings held by members of Congress home for the August recess. The attacks, supplemented by conservative critics on talk radio and other forums, drew national attention. Leading insurers, including UnitedHealth, urged their employees around the country to speak out. Company "advocacy hot line" operations and sample letters and statements were made available to an army of insurance industry employees in nearly every congressional district. Some insurers supplemented the effort with local advertising, often designed to put pressure on specific members of Congress. Late in the spring, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina -- the home state of several conservative Blue Dog Democrats -- prepared ads attacking the public option. Leading Democrats have fought back, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) last month calling the industry "immoral" for its past treatment of customers and suggesting insurers were "the villains" in the healthcare debate. Still, recent support for the public option has declined, and the stock prices of health insurance firms have been rising. Undermining support for the public option wasn't the only gain scored by insurance lobbyists. In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies. Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans. "It is vital that individuals, families and small-business owners have the flexibility to choose an affordable coverage option that best meets their needs," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying shop. Consumer advocates argue that a lower government minimum might quickly become the industry standard, placing a greater financial burden on patients and their families. "These are a bad deal for consumers," said J. Robert Hunter, a former Texas insurance commissioner who works with the Consumer Federation of America. Meanwhile, companies would probably see a benefit by providing less insurance "per premium dollar," Hunter said. "It would be quite a windfall," said Wendell Potter, a former executive at Cigna insurance company who has become an industry whistle-blower. Consumer and labor advocates acknowledged the industry's lobbying success. In the first half of 2009, the health service and HMO sector spent nearly $35 million lobbying Congress, the White House and federal healthcare offices, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. With more than 900 lobbyists, that sector -- whose top spenders are insurance giants UnitedHealth, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna -- was poised to spend more than in 2008, a record lobbying year. UnitedHealth spent the most, $2.5 million in the first half of 2009, and hired some of Washington's most prominent political players, including Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who served as an informal health policy advisor to Obama. "They have beaten us six ways to Sunday," said Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO. "Any time we want to make a small change to provide cost relief, they find a way to make it more profitable." tom.hamburger@latimes.com kim.geiger@latimes.com http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-healthcare-insurers24-2009aug24,0,6925890.story

"UnitedHealth spent the most, $2.5 million in the first half of 2009, and hired some of Washington's most prominent political players, including Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who served as an informal health policy advisor to Obama." Wasn't he nominated to be Secretary of Health & Human Services under the Obama administration til some tax problems surfaced? So along with being a tax evader he also seems to be deficient in loyalty.

Yeah, though I think I did read somewhere around that time that he did have some industry ties that may not have seemed kosher for the position he would be in. Or maybe if he couldn't beat 'em, he'd join 'em.

I'll guess by the time anyone reads this they'll know Ted Kennedy died. What an immense loss, especially at this time. I'd like to think a healthcare reform would be in a different place now had he been able to really contribute to the fullest.

And Eunice Shriver dying just a week or so ago. How awful for everyone in that family.

There was a picture from Eunice Shriver's funeral I wanted to post, but apparently forgot. It's of one of the (great?) granddaughters putting her hand to Sargent Shriver's face like she's comforting him while he's sitting in one of the church pews. It was adorable and a little heartbreaking at once. I'll go back and look for it later.

Here it is. She's like a living doll.

He has Alzheimer's; must be almost mid- ninety. I think the little girl's grandmother is the one who wrote the book explaining Alzheimer's to children.

Maria Shriver was one of the people behind the Alzheimer's Project, a multi-part series on HBO. She hosted the and narrated the segment entitled "Why Grandpa(?) Doesn't Know Me" (or something like that). There were some lovely stories with children who actively provided companionship for their afflicted grandparents.

"What's Happening to Grandpa" I saw her interviewed on The Today Show.

"Grandpa, Do You Know Who I Am?" http://www.hbo.com/alzheimers/ I missed one because it had two parts and I only DVR'd one. Guess I'll have to watch it online.

I quoted the name of the book, not the TV series. I know there were many parents and grands who found the book most inspiring and helpful. A devastating disease.

Anyone watching the Kennedy funeral? Beautiful. Loving his son Teddy's eulogy.

Man, Patrick's shouting his eulogy as it goes on.

V. impressive. Placido Domingo and Yo Yo Ma together performing the Panis Anglelicus was memorable . Never have heard them together. I missed the soprano who sang the Ave Maria ..I think it was Susan Graham from the Met. Three of the finest artists from today's classical world Great music from pre-guitar Catholicism.

Yes, it was Susan Graham. They're running waaaaayyyy behind on stopping at the Capitol and on to Arlington. They were supposed to be at the Capitol almost 2 hrs ago. Sen Byrd is out front waiting for them with the staffers. Even the public is there. He is looking frail. In a wheelchair. And they say it's pretty hot there today.

I have to say, I'm not sure that I knew Bobby Kennedy was buried at Arlington very close to JFK. And I've been there several times. If I did know, I'd completely forgotten.

I was/am deeply offended by the attacks on the President over this education speech. The far right will credit him for nothing. I feel sorry for the children whose parents refused to let them hear this message, and in turn what that parental message sent to the kids. Staying in School and the 'Socialist Agenda' By E.J. Dionne | September 8, 2009; 1:30 PM ET Washington Post We have just gone through one of the most shameful episodes of the young Obama presidency -- shameful because of the behavior of the right wing, shameful because the media played into an extremist agenda, shameful because we proved that our political system has become so dysfunctional that a president gets punished for doing the right thing. Upon Barack Obama�s election, even my most conservative friends who supported John McCain said Obama could do a world of good for poor children in the country by stressing the importance of education, hard work, staying in school and taking responsibility. Yes, those are often thought of as conservative values. But when Obama proposed to do just that on the first day of school, the far right -- without asking any questions or seeking any information -- decided to pounce, on the theory that everything Obama did should be attacked relentlessly as part of some secret and dangerous ideological agenda. Out popped Jim Greer, the Florida Republican chairman, who accused the president of trying to �indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." In a normal world, the media would have asked Greer for proof of such a wild charge and, since he didn�t have any, his press release would have gone into the circular file. But, no, the media is so petrified of being criticized for being �liberal� that it chose to take a lunatic charge seriously and helped gin up this phony controversy. The only rationale for assailing Obama was a single line in a long memo from the Department of Education listing eight steps that students could take to further their goals. It listed the categories for those goals as �personal, academic, community, country." Far from encouraging students to fight for a political agenda, the guidelines emphasized that teachers should focus on �personal and academic� goals. Then came the �controversial� sentences: �Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." In validating their decision to allow the madcap right to dominate several news cycles with their attacks on Obama, many reporters and commentators kept repeating that all this was the fault of that single sentence written by Education Department �bureaucrats� -- as if this sentence was reason enough to give wide publicity to an outright lie about what Obama was up to. In context, it was absolutely clear that the supposedly offending sentence was in no way about politics. But just to make sure, the Education Department rewrote the passage to clarify that the students� letters should focus on their �short-term and long-term education goals.� Yes, it would have been nice if the Ed Department had used such a sentence in the first place. (In general, it would be nice if memos of this sort were written in plain English.) But nothing in the original document justified the paranoia the far right let loose. And, of course, Obama�s speech was not at all �political� in any conventional definition of that word. It was about highlighting the importance of individual achievement. Here is an example of the president�s �socialist� propaganda, from the text of his speech: I�ve talked a lot about your government�s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren�t working where students aren�t getting the opportunities they deserve. But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world -- and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. And that�s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. If that�s �socialist,� then Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and just about every parent in America are �socialists.� Oh, yes, and after reading the president�s remarks, the aforementioned Jim Greer, the Florida GOP chairman, declared: �It's a good speech. It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education, and I think that's what a president should do.� But not a word of apology for helping set off a dishonest and destructive episode that led who knows how many parents to keep their kids home today or to forbid them from listening to a president urging them to do well in school. One other point: Defenders of the right-wing argue that the left said terrible things about George W. Bush. That�s true. What the apologists miss is that the deep anger at Bush did not set in until he had been president for several years. Despite the rage over Florida and the Supreme Court�s Bush v. Gore decision, Bush did not face until much later in his administration anything like the hostility that Obama already confronts. Liberals, staunch liberals, were even willing to work with Bush on some issues -- remember, for example, Ted Kennedy�s work on the �No Child Left Behind� Act. And the entire country, including almost all of the left, united behind Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (Here, to provide a personal example, is my own column of Oct. 12, 2001. Yes, what I wrote looks naive now, but I�m still glad I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at that moment.) The far, far left that trashed Bush immediately after 9/11 was isolated and treated as cranky and even subversive by the mainstream media. Note how quickly Van Jones was driven from his administration job for singing that wacky post-9/11 petition. The far left faces much tougher public and media discipline than the far right. The right-wing decided almost from Day One that a president elected with 53 percent of the vote (and 365 electoral votes) was illegitimate. They are trashing a moderate liberal as a socialist propagandist. They are getting a lot of press coverage for doing so. Where is the accountability? Am I continuing to be naive in believing that, one of these days, a phalanx of responsible conservatives will stand up to the extremists? Boy, do I miss William F. Buckley Jr.

I'd like to say it boggles the mind, but at this point, perhaps I'm becoming inured to this type of ridiculousness from people who promote such distorted agendas and the media that eggs it on, as well as the people who exist from day to day "without asking any questions or seeking any information". Ignorance breeds contempt. On the other hand, it all incenses me.

I realize that you must be offended, Mari. I was too when George Bush's speech was criticized . That seems to be the MO for the opposition. I listened on C-Span and found the speech v. inspiring. However, let's role the tape some .. The president's political advisers met with the Education Secretary and suggested that a component be added to the lesson plan accompanying the speech: Clarence Page today explains it better than I can: " The Education Department didn't help matters with the darkly suggestive wording that someone, dare I say, stupidly included in a set of classroom activites posted on the department's web site to accompany the speech. It suggested that students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president"..A WH spokesman acknowledged that the original was 'inartfully worded'. Translattion from government-ese: Somebody messed up." "Out went the old wording. The updated version asks students to write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and 'long-term education goals'" Good. The speech went on TV to rave reviews. The Florida Republican chairman was on TV last night on the Leher Report and said he found the speech excellent and yes, his children would view it. On "Face the Nation" Sunday Education Arne Duncan acknowledged that some of the materials provided to local school officials were poorly worded and may have lead to some confusion about the speech's goals. Now: Imagine the hoop-la from the liberal left if such materials would have accompanied a speech by George Bush. Case closed. But remember folks: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" Or does that only apply to liberals. ;-)

(Evelyn)I was too when George Bush's speech was criticized . Which one? Bush didn't come in for heavy criticism from the left until well into his term. The right pounced on O from the start. It suggested that students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president".. That is a very innocuous statement and you know it was meant in the context of education, improving youself, working hard, helping the country by succeeding in your life, making a contribution. Only those who would willfully misinterpret it would take exception. The "oops" from the WH and Duncan went overboard; there was nothing to be sorry about. Another example of O bending over backwards to meet halfway with people who have no intention of meeting him anywhere. The Florida Republican chairman was on TV last night on the Leher Report and said he found the speech excellent and yes, his children would view it. With no regret expressed over the trouble he caused. Shouldn't he have asked for a copy f the sppech to review before he shot his dumb mouth off? No, shout first, ask questions later. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" This isn't honest dissent. It's about manipulating public opinion no matter the cost to the country. It's about teaching kids that it's ok to blow off the president and disrespect the office because you don't like him. The radical right will continue to self destruct.

Some people will dispute your perception of honest dissent. I understand your disappointment.....believe me,I was there for 8 yrs. It's a sinking feeling. At least no Republican has called the president a liar from the House floor. Now that was disrespect for the office. No president ever gets all of his policies through Congress easily. He's going to have to get used to it.

(Evelyn) At least no Republican has called the president a liar from the House floor. Now that was disrespect for the office. It appears you are incorrect.

I know...last night when I heard the heckler, I though "Yikes!" I spoke too soon. But Rep Wilson did apologize immediately. More than Senator Kennedy (RIP)or Speaker Pelosi ever did. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/10/gop-lawmakers-heckling-draws-fire/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_more_news_carousel And Pres Bush (43) is still ahead of him by one ...*and* a shoe;-) Still , it was a shocking display of bad manners, disrespect and inexcusable.

That's m'boy.... Berlusconi says is best leader in Italy's history "why Italians like me and I have 68.4 percent of approval and admiration," said Berlusconi, who has been elected three times and is now the longest-serving leader in Italian post-war history." http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5894RC20090910

"You like me! You really like me!! ;-D

Italians really do like him. Except Livia and her cavaliere husband. Every chance he gets he tries to put B down in interviews. No Italian leader has had those kinds of approval ratings ever. Go Silvio, annoy the hell out of Colin & Co! LOL I was surprised to receive an email from my son's highschool asking if we would allow him to see Obama's speech!? Since when? It's not as if he's Bin Laden. What a ridiculous world we are living in.

Good article from Salon. Can't believe anyone would defend this old pig. Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

Damn it. I just spent a ton of time typing up a response (in between work stuff) and it disappeared. &*^*&^*%*%!!!

Poor Do. :-(

All is not as it seems, Mari. I don't condone it, but the girl looked much older, she looked 18, plus she was wearing a outfit that would not be suitable for a 13 year old. She told him she was 18, she did the drugs. Her mother sent her to get a film role. The whole thing is screwed up but as I said, but it's not just a case of rape case. He was also a victim of one of the worst crimes ever committed in the US. He has paid his dues. He's not some sort of pervert that we must fear.

She "looked older?" So, it would be ok to drug, rape and sodomize an 18 year old? She told him no, pled with him to stop, repeatedly. I am not insensitive to the tramua in his life. It's heartbreaking. But many millions of people have endured the murder of loved ones or survived the Holocaust without becoming rapists. What dues did he pay? Having to live in France and suffer snooty Parisian waiters for the past 30 years? No one is above the law. He chose to run. Now he's caught. The fact that many years have passed does not change his crime. Here's an interesting quote from an interview he gave Martin Amis, a year after fleeing: �If I had killed somebody, it wouldn�t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But� f�ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f� young girls. Juries want to f� young girls. Everyone wants to f� young girls!� Uh, even if you have to take them by force, right RP? Pig.

I certainly don't condone what happened, but the "justice" system that Slate (Salon?) writer spoke so passionately about did not appear to mete out the punishment one would think for this crime in the first place. First off, because he pled way down to a much lesser charge (which also threw out the drug charges). Then they ordered him to a 90 psych eval, which was suspended while he....wait for it....went out of the country!, to finish a film! Strangely (or not), he came back at that point to do that eval. Then, they let him out....wait for it....early! After 42 days. Then he ran, after he thought they were going to give him a harsher sentence than had been bargained for (probably probation and/or extremely short jail time). I'm curious how much time he thought he was going to end up with. A short 6 mos to a year could've freaked him out for all anyone knows, which doesn't seem that much considering. I also frankly am of the mindset that if the victim wants that part of it to be done with at this point, so be it. She's a middle aged woman and if she's ok with him not being punished for it at this point, I'm ok with that. There are people who forgive people's murderers too, believe it or not and advocate for various things on the criminals' behalf. If they're ok with it, who am I to say otherwise, esp after an extended period of time? If the woman in RP's case felt the civil suit settlement was the end of it, ok. And really, at this point, unless they give him the sentence he was going to get originally after the plea bargain, how could they even address it clearly now? Throw him in jail for however long for the act of fleeing before the sentence was given, fine. I find it all a bit hypocritical at this point on the justice side. I've read the excuses that he couldn't be apprehended sooner because of a variety of BS reasons. I really am very curious as to why now. Oh right I remember a plausible explanation, the Swiss are being more cooperative probably in light of their settlement with the US over helping people with tax evasion and such in their banks. Remember that woman who had been in one of those domestic terrorist groups and found "hiding" as a years married housewife in Minnesota or some such place? Maybe she turned herself in? I think she ended up serving like 2 yrs or something? I can't remember if originally she escaped from jail, or escaped prior to sentencing like him or prior to conviction? Anyone know who I mean? I can't remember her name or I'd look her up. I think she served some time, they let her go, then took her back when they discovered they let her go a bit early by mistake.

Of course everyone will realize above I meant a 90-day psych eval. :-)

It was either leave the US or be charged. He left. As I've said, all is not what it seems, her mother dropped her off, she was dressed to seduce, she told him she was 18, she did the drugs. It's a case of she said he said, IMO. But she did go to see him to get a movie part, let's not be naive, she's not the first one to F or be sodomized for a role. I see it as a big publicity stunt by the mother. I don't condone what he did, but there are two sides to this story. �If I had killed somebody, it wouldn�t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But� f�ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f� young girls. Juries want to f� young girls. Everyone wants to f� young girls!� That is the sick/sad truth of this modern world. He was only stating the obvious. :-(

A nude photograph of the actress Brooke Shields aged 10 has been removed from a Tate Modern exhibition on police advice. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article6856148.ece?&EMC-Bltn=CAIDIB

It was either leave the US or be charged. It was either leave the US or be charged. Moon, he was already charged, copped a plea, and convicted. He was awaiting final sentencing. But she did go to see him to get a movie part, let's not be naive, she's not the first one to F or be sodomized for a role. And the sad part is it still continues to happen on a daily basis. Wasn't it a fashion designer who was just sentenced to like a bazillion yrs in jail for preying on young women wanting to be models? And in a similar case to Polanski, James Barbour, a Broadway actor just went through the same thing and I think got a slap on the wrist. I don't think he got jail time. That I'll look up.

Here's the bit about James Barbour from Wikipedia. He got a little jail time. In April 2006, Barbour was arrested and charged with sex abuse and sodomy for having inappropriate relations with a female minor four years prior.[16][17][18] In the Fall of 2006, he was indicted by a grand jury in New York for said crime.[19][20][21][22][23] In January 2008, Barbour pleaded guilty to two misdemeanour counts of endangering the welfare of a minor in exchange for a lesser sentence of 60 days in jail and three years probation. Also, in accordance with his plea bargain, Barbour, under oath, made a public allocution admitting to his felonious acts.[24][25][26] On February 29, 2008, Barbour began his sixty-day jail sentence at Rikers Island and three years probation.[27] And the NY Times summary http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/nyregion/04actor.html?ref=nyregion I do have to admit I'm curious about something. In both this and the Polanski case, why were they allowed to plea down if the crimes were so bad?

All I can say is assuming Polanski makes it back to the US, I'd hate to be the presiding judge. What a circus that will be.

(Dorine), I do have to admit I'm curious about something. In both this and the Polanski case, why were they allowed to plea down if the crimes were so bad? I'll let Polanski answer that one: �If I had killed somebody, it wouldn�t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But� f�ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f� young girls. Juries want to f� young girls. Everyone wants to f� young girls!� The sick/sad truth of the modern world. Why do you think the internet porn industry is so huge? And one of the most popular subject: young school girls. :-(

Ok, now this is really stupid. This is the first time I've read any specifics on how much he'd have had to go to jail for which made him run. From an AP report: "However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country, on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced to the additional time." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091002/ap_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski What an incredible doof. The guy gets a gift (not to the victim obviously) of pleading down with a slap on the wrist sentence and he chooses to run.... from an extra 48 days in jail?? I guess he completed the "voluntary deportation" part of the sentence. And now he'll probably get more than that for skipping out. That's something.

To say she asked for it (by her dress, her mother's actions, etc.) implies that she had it coming to her. And that is so wrong, IMO. Victims have been subjected to that macho, misogynistic argument forever. No wonder relatively few decide to come forward. Their actions are put on trial--not the bastard who raped them. Of course the woman (now adult) wants no part of it. Her privacy is destroyed. Plus she received a financial settlement from him. He brought this on himself. He drugged and raped a child. Then he ran away to avoid being subject to the law. But now he is so lawyered up that I doubt he will ever have to come back. His attorneys will tie this up for years, whatever it takes. If you have enough money you can buy enough justice.

(Mari) Then he ran away to avoid being subject to the law. Yeah, the brutal 90 days in jail (or the 48 extra days). Amazing. He'll come back. Too much made of this now. The prosecutor would look like a laughing stock after all this if he didn't make sure he got back. Whatever happens it'll probably be reduced to time served for however long it takes him to deal with this. Of course the woman (now adult) wants no part of it. Her privacy is destroyed. Plus she received a financial settlement from him. If that works for her at this point in time, that works for me.

(Mari) Of course the woman (now adult) wants no part of it. Her privacy is destroyed. Plus she received a financial settlement from him. (Dorine) If that works for her at this point in time, that works for me. She has no part of it. It was a criminal case, not civil. Besides, he pled out to a lesser offense. It was over. She was totally done, after giving testimony. Nothing about what will go one with the extradition, sentencing, or imprisonment has anything to do with her. Requires nothing of her. She has no further obligations to do or say anything in conjunction with his case. Maybe Roman's lawyers covered every eventuality in her payoff papers and they can require she speak as a "character witness" at sentencing. LOL! All the crying about the judge's improper behavior (or renegging on the deal) is nonsense. Deals are struck between the prosecution and defense and presented to the court, when agreement has been reached. Just as a judge can vacate a jury's decision, he can deem a plea unacceptable. Could be the judge figured out that there would be outrage at time served or 42 days for rape, though no longer the charge on the table.

(Karen) Just as a judge can vacate a jury's decision, he can deem a plea unacceptable. Right, but if it's true in that AP piece, the judge just wanted to give him the full 90 days. And it says he fled on the day of his final sentencing. The lower charge was standing and final, but the sentence was potentially changing, correct? I don't know what the sentencing range was for that particular charge. I'm just rather amazed that all the ire is directed at Polanski and his crime (and rightly so), yet none at the "justice" system that was basically giving him a slap on the wrist or had up until that point. And that same justice system that waited until 2005 to put out an international warrant for him. Yeah, they were really workin' on getting him back up until then.

the judge just wanted to give him the full 90 days. Within his rights. Evidently the judicial misconduct has to do with an ex parte conversation with the prosecutor. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsR1

(Karen) She has no part of it. It was a criminal case, not civil. Besides, he pled out to a lesser offense. It was over. She was totally done, after giving testimony. This isn't true, not everywhere anyway. In regular proceedings, a variety of people can speak on behalf or the opposite about the convicted to the court prior to sentencing that the judge can take into account or ignore. The victims of Bernie Madoff were virtually (but not literally) lined up around the block for the chance to speak about him before sentencing. They picked 10 to represent I believe. "The court shall consider the risk assessment report and presentence reports, if any, including any victim impact statement and criminal history, and allow arguments from the prosecutor, the defense counsel, the offender, the victim, the survivor of the victim, or a representative of the victim or survivor, and an investigative law enforcement officer as to the sentence to be imposed." http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.500

Yeah, I saw that about that guy. I don't believe his claim now that he lied for a second. I find his excuse BS and non-sensical.

(Karen) She has no part of it. It was a criminal case, not civil. Besides, he pled out to a lesser offense. It was over. She was totally done, after giving testimony. (Dorine) This isn't true, not everywhere anyway. In regular proceedings, a variety of people can speak on behalf or the opposite about the convicted to the court prior to sentencing that the judge can take into account or ignore. Obviously you're not reading what I wrote, as I mentioned the "character witness" portion of the sentencing hearing in my first posting on this matter. She isn't required to do it. The key words are "allow." She isn't required to speak. Frankly, given his fleeing the country, I doubt anything anybody would say matters, if he actually makes it into a court room.

I didn't say I believed this guy but that was what Polanski's people and the doc are claiming. Anyway, this is what Marcia Clark says in conclusion: But Polanski wasn�t willing to risk any time waiting in prison while his lawyer figured it out. No doubt, any improper sentence would�ve been set aside, but that doesn�t mean Polanski would get the benefit of his bargain, either. Generally speaking, a judge is never bound to accept a plea bargain he doesn�t approve of. Judge Rittenband could legally have let Polanski withdraw his plea and either set the case for trial or set new terms for the plea bargain and see if Polanski would accept them. If the director had agreed to do more time, it certainly wouldn�t have been because he thought he deserved it. His statements both then and now show he doesn�t think what he did was any big deal. According to him, �no one got hurt.�

(Karen) Frankly, given his fleeing the country, I doubt anything anybody would say matters, if he actually makes it into a court room. Yes. His statements both then and now show he doesn�t think what he did was any big deal. According to him, �no one got hurt.� I read last night that the woman was awarded $500K in that settlement, but she and her lawyer were fighting 2 years later to get the money as he hadn't paid. It's not known for sure if he did finally, but with interest, the amount would be $600K.

(Mari), To say she asked for it (by her dress, her mother's actions, etc.) implies that she had it coming to her. And that is so wrong, IMO. Victims have been subjected to that macho, misogynistic argument forever To clear this up. Her mother set her up. Her mother knew what would happen. IMO, it is the mother who should go to jail. She sent her daughter to a Hollywood party dressed to seduced, told her she should fake her age to 18 if asked. That's wrong. And when the daughter came back without a promised film role, the mother decides for publicity. She's despicable. I don't agree with the macho/misogynistic argument, but it is obvious her mother was counting on it. :-( According to him, �no one got hurt.� True.

Need a new O&E topic. So forgive my faux-pas. Dorine, please ask them if it might show on BBC/America. The late night saga continues, this was funny: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b147625_david_lettermans_drama_may_be_craig.html

OK, I'm in shock, you know what I'm talking about. He must really be the Messiah/Devil if things just keep going to him with no effort. Wow. But to keep things in perpective, they gave it to Arafat too. ;-) It is a indeed a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

I have to admit I don't think it's a great choice at this point. I understand their reasoning, but I'd have liked to have seen it even a year down the road to see what fruits his labor will bear. Something more concrete that his efforts made a difference.

I am very proud of him. Obama's remarks on winning Nobel Peace Prize By The Associated Press (AP) � 17 minutes ago Text of President Barack Obama's remarks at the White House Friday on winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, as provided by the White House: OBAMA: Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective. I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize � men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build � a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action � a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions. We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children � sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy. We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own. We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for � the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future. And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people. Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration � it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world. And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity � for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometimes their lives for the cause of peace. That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead. Thank you very much.

I am optimistic that one day Obama will truly deserve this honour but at this point I think it is very premature. What has he actually accomplished? I am also inclined to think that it is inappropriate to award the honour to the leader of a country that is actively at war, regardless of whether that war is "just".

AP Newsbreak: Nobel jury defends Obama decision By IAN MacDOUGALL and KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writers – 19 mins ago OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president. Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism. Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment. "We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done." Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe. "All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe. He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals. "I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will. "Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?" Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit. "Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That's fine." In Friday's announcement, the committee said giving Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration. The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. However, the decision stunned even the most seasoned Nobel watchers. They hadn't expected Obama, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year. The award drew heated derision from Obama's political opponents in the Republican party, and was even questioned by some members of Obama's own Democratic party, who wondered what the president had done to merit the $1.4 million honor. Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said naming Obama showed "how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become." In a fundraising letter, Steele wrote that "the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way." Columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times that Obama "has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award." Even in Europe, where Obama is hugely popular, many editorials and pundits questioned what he had done to deserve the award. "Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize," foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox wrote in The Times of London. "It's an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace. President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique." Yet Obama was humble in acknowledging the prize. "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," Obama said Friday in the White House Rose Garden. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Nobel Committee member Inger-Marie Ytterhorn noted that the president didn't greet the news with joy. "I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told AP. Some of the most celebrated peace prize laureates include Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The award has occasionally honored more controversial figures, like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Sometimes it raises the profile of peace workers or activists, such as Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala in 1992 or Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai in 2004. "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it," said Ytterhorn, a nine-year veteran of the award committee. Asked whether there was a risk that the prize could backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and give ammunition to his critics, Ytterhorn said "it might hamper him," because it could distract from domestic issues such as health care reform. Jagland said he didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize would hurt Obama domestically but added the committee did not take U.S. politics into consideration when making their decision. "I'm not so familiar with American politics, and I don't want to interfere with it, because this is a totally independent committee," he said. "We should not look at internal politics." Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member, said "we all expected that there would be a discussion" about awarding Obama. She declined further comment, deferring to the Nobel Peace Prize tradition of only having the committee chairman discuss prize selections publicly. Valle, who left her seat in Parliament last week because of her Nobel panel appointment, said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by the prize. "Of course I expected disagreement and debate on the prize, on giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament." ___ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama;_ylt=AsiWcj2nZEV2eFCj.yy8zays0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTMyM2YyaDAzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDEzL2V1X25vYmVsX3BlYWNlX29iYW1hBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDaW5yYXJlcHVibGlj

I have been in Europe the past three weeks and their papers reflected surprise at the choice. Even though the President is hugely popular. But, I have to agree with John McCain . �I congratulate President Obama on receiving this prestigious award. I join my fellow Americans in expressing pride in our president on this occasion,...� Polanski is a creepy pig ;how can anyone condone the actions of this man. Good to be back.