Naive Seniors sucked into giving away their SS checks fund this Evil!
jurisprudence: The law, lawyers, and the court.
Who's the Boss?How Pat Robertson's law school is changing America.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Saturday, April 7, 2007, at 6:52 AM ET

Monica Goodling has a problem. As senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, Goodling no longer seems to know what the truth is. She must also be increasingly unclear about who her superiors are. This didn't used to be a problem for Goodling, now on indefinite leave from the DoJ. Everything was once very certain: Her boss's truth was always the same as God's truth. Her boss was always either God or one of His staffers.

This week, through counsel, Goodling again refused to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons. Asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Goodling somehow felt she may be on the hook for criminal obstruction. But it was never clear whose truths she was protecting or even whose law seems to have tripped her up. She resigned abruptly Friday evening without explanation.

Goodling is an improbable character for a political scandal. She's the mirror opposite of that other Monica—the silly, saucy minx who felled Bill Clinton. A 1995 graduate of an evangelical Christian school, Messiah College, and a 1999 graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law (this seems to be her Web page), Goodling's chief claim to professional fame appears to have been loyalty to the president and to the process of reshaping the Justice Department in his image (and thus, His image). A former career official there told the Washington Post that Goodling "forced many very talented, career people out of main Justice so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points." And as she rose at Justice, according to a former classmate, Goodling "developed a very positive reputation for people coming from Christian schools into Washington looking for employment in government."
Click Here!

Start digging, and Goodling also looks to be the Forrest Gump of no comments: Here she is in 1997, fielding calls from reporters to Regent's School of Government admissions office. Asked whether non-Christians were admitted, she explained that "we admit all students without discrimination. We are a Christian institution; it is assumed that everyone in the classes are Christians." Here, in 2004, she's answering phones at the Justice Department about whether then-Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement knew about the abuses at Abu Ghraib when he told the Supreme Court that the United States does not torture. Said Goodling, in lieu of taking the Fifth: "We wouldn't have any comment." (Jenny Martinez, who argued against Clement that day at the court, suggested to Salon's Tim Grieve: "When Mr. Clement said to the court that we wouldn't engage in that kind of behavior, either he was deliberately misleading the court or he was completely out of the loop." Sound familiar?)

Goodling is only one of 150 graduates of Regent University currently serving in this administration, as Regent's Web site proclaims proudly, a huge number for a 29-year-old school. Regent estimates that "approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work." And that's precisely what its founder desired. The school's motto is "Christian Leadership To Change the World," and the world seems to be changing apace. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and graduates have achieved senior positions in the Bush administration. The express goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America (a "lie of the left," according to Robertson) but also to enmesh the two.

The law school's dean, Jeffrey A. Brauch, urges in his "vision" statement that students reflect upon "the critical role the Christian faith should play in our legal system." Jason Eige ('99), senior assistant to Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, puts it pithily in the alumni newsletter, Regent Remark: "Your Resume Is God's Instrument."

This legal worldview meshed perfectly with that of former Attorney General John Ashcroft—a devout Pentecostal who forbade use of the word "pride," as well as the phrase "no higher calling than public service," on documents bearing his signature. (He also snatched the last bit of fun out of his press conferences when he covered up the bared breasts of the DoJ statue the "Spirit of Justice"). No surprise that, as he launched a transformation of the Justice Department, the Goodlings looked good to him.
PAGE: 12NEXT >

There is no forgiveness where there is no effort to help the disabled.
Imus appears on Sharpton's radio show

Ed: Yeah,yeah! We get that it is theater designed to cater to the lowest common denominator who think like the knobby headed guy in the back booth, Bernard, is it? That's about money, not helping anyone learn to think to a higher level. There is no forgiveness where there is no effort to help the disabled. Superficiality is often a crime against reason, sanity, morality, and life itself! There is nothing more "American;" nothing more disabled! maybe the comedy value of "nappy" Should exist at the same level as Blonde jokes, but it DOESN'T, SO DON'T DO IT, DUMB-ASS!!! This is 2007. Are you new here?

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Don Imus took a seat on the other side of the microphone Monday, appearing on the Rev.
Al Sharpton's radio show and enduring more criticism for his offensive comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Real people. Real success stories. Yahoo! Personals. See Stephanie and Mike's story.

Imus issued another apology for referring to members of the team as "nappy-headed hos." Sharpton called the comments "abominable" and "racist" and repeated his demand that Imus be fired.

"Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go to far. And this time we went way too far," Imus told Sharpton.

Earlier Monday, on his own radio show, Imus called himself "a good person" who made a bad mistake.

"Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it," he said. "And because the climate on this program has been what it's been for 30 years doesn't mean it's going to be what it's been for the next five years or whatever."

Tell the Turds to go fuck themselves, George! Stick up for the Kurds, damn you!
AP
Turkey warns Iraqi Kurds on interference

By SUZAN FRASER, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

ANKARA, Turkey - The prime minister on Monday warned Iraqi Kurds against interfering in southeastern Turkey, where the Kurdish majority is fighting Turkish security forces, saying "the price for them will be very high."

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was responding to Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish autonomous region in
Iraq, who said Iraqi Kurds would retaliate for any Turkish interference in northern Iraq by stirring up trouble in southeastern Turkey.

"He's out of place," Erdogan said of Barzani. "He'll be crushed under his words."

The verbal sparring was set off by Barzani on Saturday when he said in an interview with al-Arabiyah television that Iraqi Kurds could "interfere" in Kurdish-majority Turkish cities if Ankara interfered in northern Iraq.

The remark touched a nerve in Turkey, where more than 37,000 people have been killed in fighting between Turkish security forces and Kurdish rebels since 1984, most of them in the southeastern region bordering Iraq. Turkey fears that any moves toward greater independence for Kurds in northern Iraq could incite Turkey's own estimated 14 million Kurds to outright rebellion.

Turkey is especially concerned about Barzani's bid to incorporate the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk into his semiautonomous region, fearing that Iraqi Kurds will use revenues from the city's oil wealth to fund a bid for independence.

"Northern Iraq, which is a neighbor, is making a serious mistake: The price for them will be very high," Erdogan warned.

Last week, the Iraqi government decided to implement a constitutional requirement to determine the status of Kirkuk — which is disputed among several different ethnic groups — by the end of the year. The plan is expected to turn Kirkuk and its vast oil reserves over to Kurdish control, a step rejected by many of Iraq's Arabs and its Turkmen — ethnic Turks who are strongly backed by the Turkish government.

Some in Turkey have hinted at military action to prevent the Kurds from gaining control of Kirkuk.

Barzani's remarks were front-page news and angered many in Turkey, with opposition parties criticizing the government for not responding harshly to the Kurdish leader's threat.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul called Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice on Saturday to discuss Barzani's remarks, the government-run Anatolia news agency reported.

Kursad Tuzmen, the Turkish minister in charge of trade, said earlier Monday: "Turkey's hand of friendship is warm and solid. But for those who don't deserve it, it is very heavy — it should never be tested." Turkey is an important trading partner for the Iraqi Kurds.

In the interview with Al-Arabiya on Saturday Barzani said: "Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakir's issues and other cities in Turkey." Diyarbakir is the largest city in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast.

When asked about the Turkmen minority in Kirkuk and Turkey's concern for its ethnic brethren, Barzani shot back:

"There are 30 million Kurds in Turkey and we don't interfere there. If they (the Turks) interfere in Kirkuk over just thousands of Turkmen, then we will take action for the 30 million Kurds in Turkey."

"I hope we don't reach this point, but if the Turks insist on intervening in the Kirkuk matter I am ready to take responsibility for our response," Barzani said.

The ancient city of Kirkuk has a large minority of Turkmen as well as Christians, Shiite and Sunni Arabs, Armenians and Assyrians.

__

Associated Press Writer Benjamin Harvey in Istanbul contributed to this report.

The "Every Sperm Is Sacred" bunch don't seem to grow into the promise of their Intelligence Quotents easily.
Stem cell vote set for Congress this week

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Mon Apr 9, 9:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cells will be at the top of the agenda for the U.S. Senate when it returns on Tuesday with supporters of the research hoping they can change the president's mind on the issue and opponents hoping to have a say about their stand.

The Senate will consider two bills, one virtually identical to a bill vetoed by
President George W. Bush last year that would have expanded and encouraged federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

The other is a compromise measure worked out by Republicans Sen. Johnny Isakson (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota. It would encourage stem cell research on embryos that have naturally lost the ability to develop into fetuses, such as those that have died "naturally" during fertility treatments.

The compromise bill also would support the creation of a bank of stem cells taken from amniotic fluid and placentas -- two recently discovered potential sources.

This bill replaces last year's alternative sponsored by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), which would ban human embryonic stem cell research and encourage research using other types of stem cells.

The House of Representatives passed a bill in January that would expand federal funding of stem cell research, which is now restricted by Bush to batches available as of August 2001. But the bill does not have enough supporters to override a second presidential veto.

It is not clear how much support there is for either Senate bill, although opponents of human embryonic stem cell research, such as Brownback, have signaled they will vote for the compromise bill. They also said they were looking forward to making use of up to 20 hours of scheduled debate.

Stem cells are the body's master cells, giving rise to all the tissues and cells that make up a living creature. Scientists are working with stem cells from a variety of sources to try to cure diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's, and perhaps someday regenerate organs and tissue.

VARIOUS SOURCES

Stem cells taken from days-old human embryos appear to be especially powerful and many scientists consider them among the most promising sources of stem cell research. But most researchers stress that it is important to study all types and sources of stem cells.

The United States has no restrictions on research funded by private sources or by states and several, including California, are actively funding embryonic stem cell research.

Opponents say it is unethical to experiment on human embryos and especially wrong to destroy them.

"Without an understanding that life begins at conception and that an embryo is a nascent human being, there will always be arguments that other uses, takeovers and make-overs of embryos are justified by potential scientific and medical benefits," the White House wrote in a report issued in January.

The issue transcends the abortion debate with conservative Republicans who oppose abortion such as Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record) backing broader federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

Polls show the U.S. public consistently supports embryonic stem cell research, especially using embryos left over from fertility treatments.

"We got a super-majority under the Republican-controlled 109th Congress," said Sean Tipton of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, which lobbies in support of embryonic stem-cell research.

Tipton said the current Democratic-controlled Senate will be even friendlier. "When the Senate passes this bill, the president is going to be under incredible pressure to acknowledge that the science has changed and to acknowledge that the American people support this research," he said in a telephone interview.

Evil Bushco squashes negotiated drug prices for Wisconsin seniors!!
FRI., APR 6, 2007 - 1:30 AM
Waiver for SeniorCare is rejected
MARK PITSCH 608-252-6145
mpitsch@madison.com

Gov. Jim Doyle's administration is reviewing how best to maintain prescription drug services to the elderly after the federal government rejected the state's request to extend the popular SeniorCare program, the governor said Wednesday.

Regardless, Doyle said at a news conference that the decision likely kills the program, forcing the 104,000 people on SeniorCare to use the Medicare Part D drug plan.

"It's pretty hard to say it can be salvaged," Doyle said of SeniorCare.

Losing SeniorCare would cost taxpayers money and increase the price Wisconsin's elderly pay for medications, he said.

He said he will ask lawyers to review the federal decision.

In an April 3 letter to Doyle, Leslie Norwalk, acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the federal government wavier allowing Wisconsin to operate SeniorCare would expire June 30 because state officials had not proven the program was cost-neutral. She said the state's waiver request didn't include information about the assets of program participants, which would help determine if SeniorCare saved taxpayers money.

The agency would consider allowing the program to continue through the end of this year if the state abandoned SeniorCare and created a program to supplement the federal Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, she said.

Kevin Hayden, secretary of the Department for Health and Family Services, said Wednesday he has asked that the waiver be extended through 2007 so the state has time to create a new program. He said he expects it will be granted.

Doyle said one option under consideration by the administration would be the creation of a supplemental program. He said there are other options he wouldn't disclose.
Darlene Finch, 70, of Oregon, was upset by the Bush administration decision.

"It's devastating that they're canceling out SeniorCare," Finch said. "I can't understand. SeniorCare is a very good program. Why are they are so determined to cancel it?"

A retired switchboard operator, Finch said one of her rheumatoid arthritis drugs costs $1,400 a month. She said under Medicare Part D, the government would pay for the first $2,500, then she would have to pay the next $3,000 before the plan would cover additional costs. That's money she said she can't afford. With SeniorCare, she gets the same drug for about $15 per month, she said.

Doyle said Wednesday that the savings for people like Finch comes after the state negotiates big price discounts with drug companies.

This year, SeniorCare will cost the state $57.6 million and the federal government $53.6 million. The program saves $62.2 million through drug company discounts, the state said.

Doyle and advocates for the elderly who attended the governor's news conference Wednesday urged the roughly 104,000 SeniorCare participants not to worry because the program has not ended yet.

"Don't panic," said Tom Frazier, executive director of the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups. "There is time. Take a deep breath."

Administration officials urged people with questions to call the SeniorCare hot line, 800-657-2038. Officials also will contact those in the program to let them know about developments, said Matt Canter, a spokesman for Doyle.
As word spread Wednesday about the waiver, Democrats and Republicans escalated the political rhetoric about who was to blame.

At a news conference, Doyle, a Democrat, said the Bush administration was ignoring the facts on costs savings to taxpayers and the impact on the elderly by forcing them into the Medicare Part D plan. Wisconsin is the last state with its own prescription drug program for the elderly after the Bush administration killed off other state programs, he said.

"This has become a pattern with President Bush," Doyle said. "Stubborn and unwilling to admit a mistake. Relying on ideology while ignoring obvious facts. And putting rich, powerful interests ahead of regular people."

Republicans accused Doyle and the Democrats of trying to score political points. Some blamed Doyle for failing to submit all of the information Norwalk's office requested.

"I am disappointed that the federal government has denied Wisconsin's application to extend the waiver under which we offer the SeniorCare program," Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said in a statement. "I am also disappointed that the Doyle administration failed to collect or provide information the federal government had repeatedly requested as they considered Wisconsin's application."

But state lawmakers also urged cooperation in trying to create a program that will supplement Medicare Part D and be affordable to the state's elderly.

Members of the state's federal delegation from both parties issued statements Wednesday saying they were disappointed with the decision.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, launching his bid for the presidency Wednesday, said he, too, was disappointed in the wavier rejection, according to spokesman Tony Jewell. But Thompson, who approved the state's SeniorCare waiver as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, urged state officials to accept the decision.

Wisconsin began SeniorCare in September 2002 as a way to provide low-cost prescription drugs to the elderly. The Bush administration started Medicare Part D in January 2006.

For more information

On Medicare Part D:

800-633-4227

www.medicare.gov

On SeniorCare:

800-657-2038

dhfs.wisconsin.gov/seniorcare/

Other resources:

Dane County benefits specialists at the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups: 608-224-0606, 800-488-2596

Disability Rights Wisconsin, 608-267-0214

AARP, 888-687-2277


Copyright ? 2007 Wisconsin State Journal

Trusting the great WHITE FATHER (MUTHER) in Washington DC speakng in forked tongues isn't working out!
'Our Homes Are Going into the Sea'

Interview with Sheila Watt-Cloutier*, Inter Press Service (IPS) Fri Apr 6, 10:14 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 6 (IPS) - "The ice is not only our roads but also our supermarket," says Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit leader who has been fighting for the rights of indigenous peoples in the Canadian Arctic region for many years.

The Inuit people journey across the frozen ocean for much of the year. For them, sea ice allows for safe travel on the perilous Arctic waters and provides a stable platform from which to hunt its bounty.

But all that has begun to change as a result of global warming. The ice is melting from below, and the Inuit hunters can no longer trust its stability.

In the past few years, many hunters have died or been injured after falling through thin ice. Changing weather patterns have forced many native communities who lived in coastal areas for thousands of years to move to other places.

Testifying at a hearing of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission in Washington last month, Watt-Cloutier said that global warming "is destroying our right to life, health, property, and means of subsistence."

At the hearing, Watt-Cloutier, who has been nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, also raised critical questions about the role of governments that refuse to acknowledge the disastrous effects of climate change on the environment and indigenous communities in the Arctic region.

Following are excerpts from a recent interview IPS conducted with Watt-Cloutier.

IPS: We all know that the Arctic region is becoming increasingly vulnerable to global warming. Could you explain how is it affecting the biodiversity of the region, and the lives and culture of your people?

Sheila Watt-Cloutier: Our hunting culture is very much based on the snow, the ice. Nowhere else in the world does the ice and snow represent mobility and transportation [as it does] for us. So the changes are really great in terms of the ice forming much later in the fall and breaking up much earlier in the spring, and we also are having the ice conditions changing as well, in terms of it not forming as thick as it used to be. And because this is our highway, it becomes an issue of safety and security.

The permafrost is melting in certain areas much more than others. At certain areas in our region, like where I come from in Nunavut, we've had to move and relocate some houses because they were bucking inwards because of the permafrost melting. And then we have places like Alaska where the coastal erosion is so big, so huge, that homes, over the years, have just gone into the sea.

Some of the other things are different species of fish and different species of birds and insects that have found their way into the Arctic now, for which we don't even have names, because they are following the warming trend and they end up in the Arctic. The glaciers are melting so fast that what used to be safe streams for our hunters and our families to cross sometimes have become torrential rivers.

IPS: What about the communities that have suffered from displacement. Is there any assistance from the governments of the region?

SWC: In Alaska, they are trying to find ways in which to relocate them, yeah, but really who fits the bill? That's the problem. Because no one has been able to address this issue as seriously as it needed to be addressed over the years. And now as a result it's too late for some of those communities where there are no adaptation programmes [and] there is no help in terms of relocating them.

IPS: In your testimony before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights you said that all of this is a violation of human rights. Could you explain?

SWC: Well, we filed a petition to the Commission citing that the inaction of the United States, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, is indeed violating the human rights of the Inuit of the Arctic by their inaction to address this issue of mitigation of greenhouse gases. I testified about the legal impact and the connection between human rights and the climate change. But we have yet to hear back from them.

IPS: Tell us about how you look at the role of the Arctic Council, which includes Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the United States, in addressing the issue of global warming?

SWC: Well, the Arctic Council was created as a high-level governmental membership of those eight countries to deal with sustainable development of the circumpolar world. It has the indigenous people as permanent participants, but not as voting members of it. What we had thought when it was created in 1995 was that it would be able to take more effective action than it has. It has become very good at technical assessments, but it gets paralysed in the politics afterwards.

IPS: U.N. treaties on biodiversity and climate change are already in place. What more do you think the international community can do to minimise the damage that has been done to the biodiversity of the planet, particularly in your region, and its indigenous peoples?

SWC: Well, I think already the
United Nations has played a positive role, for example in the contaminants issue, the persistent organic pollutants, which led to the Stockholm Convention, which is now one of the fastest conventions to have been signed, ratified, and enforced in the history of the U.N.. So when the world comes together to do the right thing, it can do the right thing when the will is there. So that's a success story. But when it comes to climate change issues, it becomes once again paralysed not only at the Arctic Council level, but when the negotiators go in, for example, from powerful countries like the United States who have decided not to sign onto Kyoto.

IPS: The U.S. has not signed onto the treaty on biological diversity either. This treaty recognises the indigenous peoples' knowledge as an essential aspect of global efforts to reverse the loss of biodiversity. What do you say about that?

SWC: The U.S. sterilised the process. And it becomes so hard that even if the global community is moving ahead in those areas, the United States continues to be the odd-man out. But I am still very hopeful that things will change in the United States as well.

IPS: How do you assess the role of the international financial institutions in addressing these issues? How important is the funding aspect?

SWC: Well, it's just one of those situations where we fall through the cracks, because any of these big institutions usually don't fund developed countries. We, in the Arctic, Canada, the United States, Greenland, are considered developed countries, yet we are challenged almost like Third World countries.

We don't qualify to get effective funding to address these issues because our own governments are supposed to be looking after us. There have been no real climate change programmes yet, either in the United States or Canada, to address this issue on our behalf.

IPS: What about the participation of indigenous communities and the significance of their role in the overall efforts to address climate change?

SWC: Well, what we have been trying to say is that we are a people who still feel very connected to our environment, we are very connected to our food source, so we understand the cycles and the rhythms of nature very well. We are not just powerless victims over these compelling issues. Of course, we are very challenged, of course we become the net recipients of these contaminants and are disproportionately negatively impacted.

But we want to play an active role with the world, because we are still a people who connect so much to our hunting way of life and to the ecosystem that we know about sustainability. We have thrived, and not just survived. We want to be equal partners in this. And, of course, the world sometimes tends to view the indigenous people as a thorn in their side rather than equal partners that have solutions to offer to this debate.

*Haider Rizvi is a U.N.-based journalist who has covered indigenous issues for IPS for many years.

Iraq war protester marches to Bush's ranch
Iraq war protester marches to Bush's ranch

By Steve Holland Fri Apr 6, 4:52 PM ET

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) -
Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan urged
President George W. Bush to "end this madness" in Iraq on Friday in a march toward Bush's ranch.

Sheehan, a vocal protester of the war since her soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004, also expressed disappointment with Democrats in charge of the U.S. Congress for failing to stop the war.

Sheehan took advantage of a heavy media presence covering Bush's Easter weekend by leading an anti-war protest of about three dozen people in a march to the security checkpoint outside Bush's ranch.

Sheehan asked police at the security checkpoint for permission to go see Bush and was told no. She and her group set up an altar with candles on top and she read aloud some of the names of the more than 3,200 American soldiers killed in Iraq.

She said her message to Bush was for him to "end this madness" in Iraq before more people are killed.

"There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and America who are dead forever, and there are families who are destroyed forever because of
George Bush's policies," she told reporters.

Sheehan started visiting Crawford in the summer of 2005 when she wanted to meet with Bush while he vacationing at his ranch. Bush had met with her after her son died but did not see her again, although he sent some top aides to talk to her.

Bush and the Democrats are on a collision course over the president's request for $100 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Democrats have attached a troop withdrawal timetable to their legislation, and Bush has vowed to veto it if it reaches his desk.

Sheehan said the anti-war movement has been betrayed by Democrats because their legislation delays the withdrawal.

"We think the timeline is now, not 18 months or two years or whenever they feel like it," she said, adding that, "Yeah, people are feeling betrayed."

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined comment on Sheehan's march.

He said Democrats calling on Bush to compromise need to reach agreement among themselves on which elements they support among competing versions of their bills in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

"They need to negotiate with themselves, figure out what their positions are," Johndroe said.

If this business philosophy hurt Disney financially, this stand would dissappear.
Disney opens weddings to gay couples

By GARY GENTILE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

LOS ANGELES - Same-sex couples who want to exchange vows in front of Cinderella's Castle now have the chance.

The Walt Disney Co. had limited its Fairy Tale Wedding program to couples with valid marriage licenses, but it is now making ceremonies at its parks available to gay couples as well.

"We believe this change is consistent with Disney's long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment," Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said Friday. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

The company said it made the change after being contacted by a gay couple who wanted to use the wedding service, which offers ceremonies at Disneyland in California, Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and Disney's cruise ships.

The service offers flowers, dining, music and many optional Disney touches, from ceremonies in front of the parks' iconic attractions to having Mickey and Minnie Mouse in formal wear as guests. The packages start at $8,000 and can cost more than $45,000.

Groups not affiliated with Disney have held annual "gay days" celebrations at Disney parks for years. Company officials have taken a tolerant attitude to the weekend, allowing party promoters to rent out parks after hours and rebuffing religious groups that condemned Disney.

In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating "moral righteousness and traditional family values."

Why don't the damned spin artists just stay the hell out of this!
Soldier friend of Prince William killed

21 minutes ago

LONDON - A British female soldier killed by a roadside bomb in
Iraq was a close friend of Prince William, a spokesman for the royal family said Friday.


Second Lt. Joanna Yorke Dyer, 24, was among four soldiers killed when a British patrol was attacked early Thursday in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

William, who is second in line to the British throne, met Dyer while both were at the Sandhurst military academy, family spokesman Patrick Harrison said.

"Prince William was deeply saddened to hear the tragic news of Jo Dyer's death," said Harrison, press secretary for
Prince Charles, William's father.

"Jo was a close friend of his at Sandhurst and he is very much thinking of her family and friends right now. They are in his thoughts and prayers."

William and his younger brother, Prince Harry, are both serving officers with the Blues and Royals, an elite cavalry regiment. Harry, third in line to the throne, is to be deployed to Iraq, the Ministry of Defense has said.

Dyer's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Mark Kenyon, said in a statement that the soldier was "a talented and energetic officer who was determined to make the most of her deployment to Iraq."

Prime Minister
Tony Blair called the ambush an "act of terrorism" Thursday and suggested it may have been carried out by elements linked to
Iran, although he stopped short of blaming Tehran.

The British patrol struck a roadside bomb and was hit by small-arms fire, a British military spokeswoman, Capt. Katie Brown, said. The explosion created a 9-foot crater in the road.

A civilian interpreter was also killed and a fifth British soldier was seriously wounded, Brown said.

Does Putin have a cold, yet?
Former spy shadows Putin for throne

By Guy Faulconbridge Fri Apr 6, 3:59 AM ET

SARANSK, Russia (Reuters) - Sergei Ivanov walks and talks like a man who wants to be the next president of Russia, except for one thing: he has not said he is running for the job.

On a trip to a central Russian province that had all the hallmarks of a campaign trip, he toured factories, chatted with townsfolk and squeezed the hand of a four-year-old girl.

Then came the awkward moment. "We hope to see you as president," one resident shouted out.

Ivanov, a suave former KGB spy, tensed for just a fraction of a second, blinked and then resumed his conversation about mortgages and child benefit.

It is still anybody's guess who will succeed President
Vladimir Putin when his second and final term ends next year. His potential heirs are careful not to show any naked ambition until Putin himself has expressed a preference.

What is clear, though, is that the candidate who gets the blessing of the hugely popular Putin is highly likely to stroll through the 2008 presidential election.

And Ivanov, along with his fellow First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, is a front-runner to be that person.

"If Putin does leave, then Ivanov has the number one chance," Olga Kryshtanovskaya, an academic who has studied the Russian elite since 1989, told Reuters.

"Ivanov is the closest person to Putin, a close friend and they have very good relations. If Medvedev is, say, Putin's adopted son, then Ivanov is his brother," she said.

FRONT-RUNNER

Ivanov's front-runner status has left Russian voters -- as well as foreign investors -- keen to get a feel for the man, and the sort of president he would make.

The 54-year-old worked as a spy in Scandinavia, Africa and Western Europe. The period left its mark: Ivanov speaks fluent English, though he prefers not to use it in public, and has a taste for English espionage novels.

Ivanov has a wry sense of humour and is noticeably more of a natural performer than Medvedev.

He also has a keen eye for populists slogans. This week he urged Russian consumers to boycott goods from ex-Soviet Estonia, which has angered many Russians with plans to move a memorial to Soviet troops.

Dressed in a black polo-neck sweater and navy blazer, Ivanov last week toured the railway-truck factory in Saransk, a town 630 km (390 miles) east of Moscow.

Officers from the Federal Security Service kept a close eye on a Reuters reporter during Ivanov's tour.

Displaying his common touch, he told workers at the factory he had come to learn about the economy, asked about their wages and joked about the weather.

"It was very pleasant to speak to him," said Valentina, a worker at the plant. "He speaks in a laid-back manner."

One person who has been in close contact with Ivanov over several years said he was more at home with grand strategy than talking to the people.

"He is a master strategist, an intellectual and quite brilliant, but for him people are part of a system, elements in a strategy - he doesn't feel people. There is a coldness there," the source said.

From the factory, Ivanov went on to light a candle in Saransk's Orthodox Church and then walked out to speak with a mother walking her baby.

"I see you are fulfilling the demographic plan," Ivanov said wryly.

Ivanov has made political missteps. In his previous job as defence minister, he was caught out by news that a conscript had his legs and genitals amputated after a bout of bullying.

He initially told reporters that if the case was important his aides would have told him about it.

But his promotion in February to the post of first deputy prime minister released him from the defence portfolio. His new duties, in overall charge of industrial policy, give him a higher profile, and greater exposure on television.

Cruise liner accidents since 1980
Cruise liner accidents since 1980

By The Associated Press 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

A look at cruise liner accidents since 1980.

• Dec. 17, 2000: The Sea Breeze I sinks following engine failure 200 miles east of Cape Charles, Va. No passengers are aboard the ship, which is sailing from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Charleston, S.C. All 34 crew members are saved.

• Aug. 4, 1991: Luxury Greek liner Oceanos sinks off the coast of South Africa when the engine room floods. The 571 people on board are rescued. The ship's crew had failed to replace ventilation pipes it removed during repairs.

• Aug. 31, 1986: The Admiral Nakimov, a Soviet cruise ship carrying 1,234 passengers to a holiday resort, collides with a cargo vessel twice its size and sinks into the Black Sea eight miles off the port of Novorossysk. Seventy-nine people are killed, 836 are rescued and 319 people are never found.

• Feb. 16, 1986: The Soviet cruise ship Mikhail Lermontov sinks in 100 feet of water off the northern tip of New Zealand's South Island after hitting a reef. One of the 330 crew members dies, but the rest of the crew and all 409 passengers, mainly elderly Australians, are evacuated.

• Sept. 11, 1982: A 152-foot cruise liner, the Majestic Explorer, got stuck on a shoal in Frederick Sound off southeastern Alaska. One woman dies and two are injured during the rescue. The remaining 77 passengers and 21 crew are safely evacuated.

• Oct. 4, 1980: The luxury liner Prinsendam, a Holland America Line ship carrying 319 passengers and 203 crew members, catches fire during a violent storm. All passengers and crew are successfully evacuated.

Can anyone tell me why it was more appropriate to establish a pluralistic state founded by reformed Jewish ideals in Ukrane?
Ukraine's political crisis deepens

Ed: Can anyone tell me why it was more appropriate to establish a pluralistic state founded by reformed Jewish ideals in Ukrane, than the fascist like Israel back in '48?

By MARA D. BELLABY, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 5, 2:17 PM ET

KIEV, Ukraine - President Viktor Yushchenko threatened his rival Thursday with criminal charges if he refuses to prepare for early parliamentary elections next month, suggesting the Ukrainian leader was losing patience in the deepening political crisis.

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych remained defiant, however, vowing to first wait for a ruling from the Constitutional Court on the legality of the dissolution order. He also said called for the involvement of a European mediator to defuse the crisis, Ukraine's worst since its 2004 Orange Revolution.

The court said it would issue a decision within one month of opening its hearings, but did not announce when they would start.

Yushchenko has been reluctant to leave the matter in the hands of the 18-judge court, which has a reputation for moving slowly and being susceptible to political influence. He's been pressing Yanukovych to make a political decision and accept the elections.

"I stress again that this order is binding," Yushchenko said as he opened a session of the presidential Security and Defense Council. "Failing to fulfill it will result in criminal charges."

The battle for power between the president and the premier began Monday when Yushchenko signed an order to dissolve parliament and call early elections. Yanukovych and his majority coalition said it was illegal and refused to abide by it. Since then, both men have accused each other of violating the law and warned of unspecified consequences.

On Thursday, Yanukovych's coalition partners, the Communists, called for a nationwide strike next week, and thousands of Yanukovych's supporters rallied outside the Central Election Commission to demand it halt preparations for the May 27 vote.

The security council gave Yanukovych — who controls Ukraine's budget — until Saturday to release funds to pay for the election, a deadline he said was impossible. He also said Yushchenko should instead "take his order off the table" and return to negotiations and appealed for outside mediation.

Ukraine "needs to take advantage of European political experience which we lack here," he said, telling journalists that he'd asked Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer to mediate after talking with him by telephone.

There was no immediate response from Gusenbauer.

Foreign Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, however, said that foreign mediation was not necessary.

The dispute between the pro-Western Yushchenko and the Russian-leaning Yanukovych echoes their struggle in the bitter presidential race and subsequent Orange Revolution — only with the roles seemingly reversed.

During the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko's supporters erected a tent city in Kiev's Independence Square and remained there for weeks in freezing temperatures to protest Yanukovych's fraud-tainted victory. Yushchenko appealed Yanukovych's victory to the Supreme Court, which threw the win out and ordered a new vote that Yushchenko won.

Yanukovych returned as premier in August 2006 after his party won the most votes in a parliamentary election and put together a majority coalition. Under new constitutional changes, the parliamentary majority became the authority who could nominate the premier, forcing Yushchenko into an awkward power-sharing arrangement.

The two leaders began bickering almost immediately over the division of power and foreign policy. But their dispute reached a breaking point last month after 11 lawmakers from pro-presidential factions defected to Yanukovych's ruling coalition. That raised the likelihood that the premier would soon have a 300-seat majority that could override presidential vetoes and make changes to the Constitution.

Yanukovych supporters have set up a tent camp near parliament, and have scattered tents on Independence Square. Most appeared empty on a recent night, though, with about a dozen men milling around, guarding them. Yanukovych's allies have also led supporters on daytime rallies around the capital; some supporters say they were paid to be there.

Vadym Glushchenko said he came to protest outside the Central Election Commission because "we do not want to go through new elections and suffer from it."

The United States and Russia have appealed for calm.

The thoughts of stupid voters insisting these villians know best! You Go, Girl!
Cheney accuses Pelosi of "bad behavior" in Syria

By Susan Cornwell 2 hours, 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President
Dick Cheney accused U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) on Thursday of "bad behavior" on her Middle East trip, saying she bungled a message for Syria's president that was later clarified by
Israel.

Cheney harshly criticized Pelosi's visit to
Syria this week and declared in an interview, "The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House."

Pelosi's Syrian stopover was opposed from the start by the Bush administration, which accuses Damascus of sponsoring terrorism and says it should be isolated from the international community.

While in Damascus on Wednesday, Pelosi announced she had told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Israel was prepared to negotiate with Syria. That prompted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks -- including that Syria abandon its "support for terrorist groups."

Cheney, pointing to the Israeli reaction, said it was obvious Olmert had not authorized the message Pelosi delivered.

"It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement and didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror," the vice president said on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.

"I think it is, in fact bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it," Cheney said. "Fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the Untied States in those circumstances, she doesn't represent the administration."

Pelosi, the top House Democrat and next in line to the U.S. presidency after Cheney, is the most senior U.S. official to visit Syria in more than two years.

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, asked to respond to Cheney's criticism, said the speaker accurately relayed the message from Olmert to Assad.

"The tough and serious message the speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah," Daly said, referring to the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, which Israel fought in a war last year.

Pelosi's decision to defy the White House and meet Assad stepped up a tug of war between the Democratic-led Congress and Republican
President George W. Bush over foreign policy.

The two sides are already doing battle over
Iraq policy, with Democrats trying to force Bush to accept a date for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Pelosi was also slammed on Thursday by a Washington Post editorial that was headlined "Pratfall in Damascus" and called her Middle East shuttle diplomacy "foolish."

...and here all these decades we thought Sweden was a progressive's valhala...
Couple fights for baby 'Metallica' name

46 minutes ago

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Metallica may work as a name for a heavy metal band, but a Swedish couple is struggling to convince authorities it's also suitable for a baby girl.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sweden's tax agency rejected Michael and Karolina Tomaro's application to name their 6-month-old daughter after the legendary rock band.

"It suits her," Karolina Tomaro, 27, said Tuesday of the name. "She's decisive and she knows what she wants."

Although little Metallica has already been baptized, the Swedish National Tax Board refused to register the name, saying it was associated with both the rock group and the word "metal."

In Sweden, parents must get the names of their children approved by the tax authority, which is in charge of the population registry and issues personal identification numbers, similar to
Social Security numbers in the United States.

Tomaro, who has appealed the decision, said the official handling the case also called the name "ugly."

The couple was backed by the County Administrative Court in Goteborg, which ruled on March 13 that there was no reason to block the name. It also noted that there already is a woman in Sweden with Metallica as a middle name.

The tax agency appealed to a higher court, frustrating the family's foreign travel plans.

"We've had to cancel trips and can't get anywhere because we can't get her a passport without an approved name," Tomaro said.

Significant information from Rowan at UNCOMMONTHOUGHT.COM
Iran hostage crisis becomes clearer Printable Version | [eMail this article!] | The headline reads "US rejects Iran captives exchange." My initial response was "Why is the US doing rejecting a captive exchange"? My second thought was, "not those hostages". Yes, Iran has asked for the five Iranian Consulate staff seized by the from Irbil, Kirkuk in January, 2007. You may recall that Bush had approved an attack on the Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk. Why did it take from March 23rd to March 31st for the issue at play in the holding of 15 UK sailors to be brought to light? Iran's arrest of 15 UK sailors has largely been painted as a "provocative" move by Iran. Presented as another "crazy" move by Ahmadinejad. However, now a totally different issue arises. In January, more than two months ago, the US raids a recognized Iranian Consulate in Kirkuk, Iraq. Along with taking computers and files, the US military also takes into custody, five staff people from the Consulate. Kirkuk and Iran issue a protest and a demand for the release of the captive consulate staff. The US claims they are part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard al-Qods force, and refuse to release them. We can imagine what has happened in the ensuing time. Through back channels and intermediaries, Iran has continued to demand the release of their five consulate staff. The US has denied or ignored the requests - through back channels and intermediaries as the US won't talk to Iran. Instead, the US decided to launch massive "war games off the coast of Iran." However, they were not seen as games by Iran. Iran ups the ante by taking their own hostages as a negotiating chip for their consulate staff. It even makes sense that they would arrest UK personnel rather than US military - who are surely in and near Iran. The US would take the capture of US personnel as a directly hostile move and a legitimation of retaliatory strikes. Bush seems to just be waiting for the opportunity to legitimate his "tactical" nuclear war against Iran. Instead, they arrest UK personnel, where any action to be taken is by the UK. In fact, if the US utilizes this as the opportunity to attack, it will make the UK look very bad indeed. One might even say it would preempt the UK's sovereignty and be "emasculating" of their national honor and rights. Suddenly, this very public action by Iran takes on a very canny sense. They are also making clear to the world that the UK sailors are being well cared for. For all that their statements may be coerced, the videos show them to be intact and in good shape. I am relatively sure that Iran has no such assurance about their five captive consulate staff. Regardless, the presentation of the UK sailors (while protested by the UK) is a very public statement that undermines a military response to the situation. What has happened (or is happening) to the five consulate staff who were captured by the US? Why isn't the corporate press or our Congress asking the Bush administration to report on the status of these high visibility captives? Will they ask now that Iran's hostage negotiations have become public - at least public in the UK? Posted by rowan at March 31, 2007 7:53 AM | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |