Friday, April 29, 2011

"from dust you came and to dust you shall return"

Governor says Obama leaving Texas in the dust 

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) – Texas Governor Rick Perry criticized the Obama administration on Thursday for not responding to a request for a disaster aid for the parched state, where wildfires have scorched nearly 2 million acres.

"You have to ask, 'Why are you taking care of Alabama and other states?' I know our letter didn't get lost in the mail," Perry, a Republican and frequent critic of the federal government, said after addressing a Texas emergency management conference.

President Barack Obama declared a state of emergency for Alabama, where storms -- including a tornado that ravaged Tuscaloosa on Wednesday -- killed nearly 200 people this week.  The White House said Obama will visit Alabama on Friday.

"There is a point in time where you say, 'Hey, what's going on here?'" Perry said.

Perry had requested a federal declaration of emergency for Texas as the wildfires began to rage across the large state. The request has not been answered, although several federal agencies are supplying firefighters.

"They watch TV, they know what's going on here, they can recognize that there is going to be a request for assistance, a request for help," Perry said.

Two volunteer firefighters have died battling the Texas wildfires, which have destroyed more than 900 buildings.

A federal major disaster declaration could reimburse Texas and local governments 75 percent of the cost of their response. Local departments and the Texas Forest Service have spent more than $60 million since September 1 responding to wildfires, state forest service spokeswoman Linda Moon said.

"Governor Perry's request is currently under review, and will continue our close coordination with the state as they work to protect their residents and communities," FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said.  She said Texas has already received 22 grants to help pay fire management expenses this fire season, including 16 in April alone.

In the past, Perry has charged that the Obama administration is punishing Texas. The Republican governor has been an outspoken opponent of the federal health reform law, and the state is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a proposal to end Texas' independent air quality permitting program for factories and refineries.

Obama took a shot at Perry in an interview last week with the Dallas/Fort Worth TV station WFAA.

"Governor Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help - which he happily took - and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama said, referring to 2009 federal stimulus funds.

LIES, LIES, LIES



APRIL 28--Despite Donald Trump’s claim this week that he avoided serving in the Vietnam War solely due to a high draft number, Selective Service records show that the purported presidential aspirant actually received a series of student deferments while in college and then topped those off with a medical deferment after graduation that helped spare him from fighting for his country, The Smoking Gun has learned.

During a TV interview Tuesday morning, Trump--who spent his high school years enrolled at the New York Military Academy--said, “I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number. I’ll never forget, that was an amazing period of time in my life.”

He went on to recall, “I was going to the Wharton School of Finance, and I was watching as they did the draft numbers and I got a very, very high number and those numbers never got up to.” The word “deferment” was not mentioned by Trump during his chat with the morning show hosts on WNYW, the Fox affiliate in New York City.

However, Selective Service records reveal that Trump, the fortunate son of a multimillionaire real estate baron, took repeated steps to avoid serving in Vietnam.

By the time his number (356) was drawn during the December 1, 1969 draft lottery, Trump had already received four student deferments and a medical deferment, according to military records on file with the National Archives and Records Administration. An extract of Trump’s Selective Classification record, seen here, was provided in response to a TSG records request.

In fact, the December 1969 draft lottery occurred about 18 months after Trump graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied business at the Wharton School. So, while claiming that he would “never forget” being at Wharton watching the draft numbers being drawn, the 64-year-old Trump seems to have misremembered, as candidates are fond of saying.

Trump obtained his first two Class 2-S student deferments in June 1964 and December 1965, when he was student at Fordham University in the Bronx. He was briefly reclassified as 1-A--or “available for military service”--in late-November 1966, but that classification was switched back to 2-S three weeks later.

Another 2-S deferment is dated January 16, 1968, just months before his graduation from UPenn (to which he transferred following his sophomore year at Fordham).

Following his UPenn graduation, Trump--no longer qualified for a 2-S deferment--was again briefly classified as available for service on July 9. However, three months later, on October 15, his classification was switched to 1-Y, which was given to men deemed qualified for military service “only in time of national emergency.”

The 1-Y classification came a month after Trump underwent an “Armed Forces Physical Examination,” according to Selective Service records, which note the results of the exam as “DISQ.” While the military records do not further detail why Trump was granted the 1-Y deferment, a 1992 biography of the businessman by journalist Wayne Barrett reported that Trump received a medical deferment following the September 17, 1968 exam.

Trump’s 1-Y classification stayed in effect until February 1, 1972 when it was changed to a 4-F classification (which covered registrants not qualified for military service). The change in classification was likely prompted by the military’s December 1971 decision to abolish the 1-Y classification.

The Selective Service records also include a copy of the registration card signed by Trump in June 1964, 10 days after he turned 18. The possible future Commander-in-Chief, it turns out, has birthmarks on both his heels.
                                                                                                   The Smoking Gun

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Several presidents have worshipped at Shiloh over the decades, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton - but they weren't black men :-)

Shiloh Baptist Church receives threats after comments from Sean Hannity
By Hamil R. Harris, Wednesday, April 27, 4:41 PM

Shiloh Baptist Church in the District said it has received threatening phone calls and e-mails after an Easter visit from President Obama and a conservative television commentator’s subsequent playing of a videotape in which the pastor said that those espousing racial prejudice do so “under the protective cover of talk radio.”

The Rev. Wallace Charles Smith said the church has received more than 100 threats since Fox News channel’s Sean Hannity aired a tape Monday of a speech Smith gave in January 2010 at Eastern University in Saint Davids, Pa.

“We received a fax that had the image of a monkey with a target across is face,” Smith said. “My secretary has received telephone calls that have been so vulgar until she has had to hang up.”

Smith, who shared several of the e-mails with The Post, said he had not notified authorities but is consulting with church leaders about what to do.

On Sunday, Obama and the first family visited the church, founded in the 1860s by former slaves. On Monday, Hannity aired a clip of a speech Smith gave when he served as president of Palmer Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

“It may not be Jim Crow anymore,” Smith says in the videotape. “Now, Jim Crow wears blue pinstripes, goes to law school and carries fancy briefs in cases. And now, Jim Crow has become James Crow, esquire. And he doesn’t have to wear white robes anymore because now he can wear the protective cover of talk radio or can get a regular news program on Fox.”   AMEN!

Smith, 62, said that he had been asked to give a speech on racism and that he “was giving some background on what I thought were some of the issues regarding race in this country.”

Hannity compared Smith to Obama’s controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama denounced after YouTube videos surfaced showing Wright saying that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were “America’s chickens . . . coming home to roost.”

“Wright’s contentious sermons hit the airwaves and forced Obama eventually to denounce his spiritual leader of more than 20 years,” Hannity said. “Now, here’s the twist: Dr. Wallace Charles Smith doesn’t think that there’s anything wrong with what Jeremiah Wright preached.

“I don’t believe that it is a coincidence out of all the churches in the country that Obama finds himself sitting in, why is he always in pews listening to such controversial spiritual leaders?” Hannity said.

In an e-mail Wednesday, Hannity said he sought out comment from Smith and offered him “an open invitation to explain his comments on our show and he refused. We played his own words in full context but now it’s time for him to explain.”

Several presidents have worshipped at Shiloh over the decades, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

This Is How Far We Have NOT come.

Why Obama shouldn't have had to 'show his papers'

By Goldie Taylor

                                           "Show me your papers!"

Major Blackard, then just 19 years old, dug into his trousers in search of his wallet. He padded his jacket, but could not find his billfold.

"Sir, I done left my wallet..." Blackard said. Before he could finish his sentence, the young man was posted against the brick wall, cuffed and taken to the St. Louis city jail. Unable to prove his identity, he would spend the next 21 days in a cramped, musty cell. That's where his older brother Matt found him, beaten and bloodied. Matt returned with Major's employer later that day, wallet and identification card in hand, to post bond.

The year was 1899. Major Blackard was my great, great grandfather.
The real crime, as Pulitzer Prize winning author Doug Blackmon points on in his seminal work Slavery by Any Other Name, was that my grandfather was a colored man in America.

This morning, as White House staffers released copies of the president's long form birth certificate, I couldn't shake the feeling that something very ugly was going on. For the first time in recorded history, a sitting president of the United States found it necessary to produce his original birth certificate for public inspection. Not once, in 235 years, have we ever demanded proof that our president was born on American soil.

In a stunning display of unchecked ego, Donald Trump quickly hosted a news conference, during which he took credit for forcing President Obama's hand. The sometime real estate developer, socialite, author and television personality went on to caution onlookers to let "experts" examine the document. Lest the president continue perpetrating was Trump has called potentially the "biggest fraud in American history."

For weeks, the thrice married, comb-over construction magnate has enthralled news reporters with his apocalyptic ranting. Trump openly questioned whether President Obama belonged in the White House, a boardroom, or even an Ivy League lecture hall.

And we let him.

We used all manner of excuses to justify giving Trump as much oxygen as he could suck up. Rarely, if ever, did we press him to produce a shard of evidence to substantiate his wild claims. We smiled gingerly as he all but called us stupid sycophants who were in cahoots with an illegitimate president. We allowed him to hold court on issues on which he clearly has no knowledge and no credibility, beyond the limo ride briefings he apparently receives from his merry band of "yes men."

Trump didn't just want the birth record. He wants the president to release his college transcripts. "How did such a bad student get into Harvard?," Trump keeps asking. The implication is the Barack Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action and took the place of a more qualified white student. Apparently, graduating magna cum laude from the nation's most prestigious law school and being named editor of the Harvard Law Review -- the institution's highest student honor -- is not enough for him.
It never is for people like Trump.

"If he gets off the phone, or gets off his basketball court or whatever he's doing at the time," Trump said. "I mean he should be focused on OPEC and getting those prices down."

When they tell you this isn't racial, don't believe them. This controversy was constructed solely as a way to de-legitimize the presidency of a black man. Those who question the location of Barack Obama's birth are the very same people who would pack up and move out of the neighborhood if someone like me moved in next door.

When they say they want to take their country back, they mean from us.

According to a recent Public Policy Polling survey, a stunning 51 percent of Republicans believe the president wasn't born in the United States. In Mississippi, nearly half of all Republicans believe interracial marriage should be illegal. If they had their way, not only would Obama not be president, he never would have been born.That's how far we have not come.

Some 112 years after my grandfather was snatched from a street corner in the central west end section of St. Louis, it seems we still need to prove our right to be here.

I thought we were better than this.

The REAL Donald - A race-baiting, irrepressible, jackass, with gold bathroom fixtures



Ari Melber Ari Melber
Wed Apr 27, 4:33 am ET

The Nation -- If there were any doubts about the racial animus driving Donald Trump’s attacks on Barack Obama, the billionaire reality-show star exposed himself with his latest conspiracy. On Monday night, Trump questioned how Obama could possibly have been admitted to Ivy League schools, since Trump “heard” Obama was a “terrible student.” Trump told the AP that he was investigating the issue, whatever that means, just as he claims to have dispatched investigators to Hawaii in order to find the president’s famous birth certificate.

“How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?” Trump said. “I’m thinking about it, I’m certainly looking into it. Let him show his records.”

By charging that Obama was not admitted based on merit, Trump is suggesting that Obama was admitted because he is black.

In GOP politics, attacking racial minorities as the underachieving beneficiaries of affirmative action is a very old move. Senator Jesse Helms produced the most notorious example, an ad against his black opponent Harvey Grant that blasted affirmative action for taking jobs from deserving white people and giving them to minorities. Even that dark salvo, however, was putatively linked to jobs and active policy debates. Trump is not so smooth. He is blatantly attacking Obama’s teenage qualifications for college—a topic so obscure, it was a non-issue in Obama’s exhaustive, two-year-long presidential campaign. Coupled with the rage of the Birthers, Trump’s adopted conspiracy crowd, the mogul looks more like he is auditioning for a talk radio gig than the presidency.

Still, racial dog whistles only work when a lot of people play along. Otherwise a coded attack—aimed at the racists but clinging to deniability—curdles into public, blatant racism. (That’s bad in politics and business, so it would restrain even a business candidate like Trump.) So far, the press has been quite delicate when confronting Trump.

The editor-in-chief of CBS News, Dan Farber, sounded rather strained when explaining Trump’s Ivy League attack:

“…how could a person from Mr. Obama’s humble background and academic achievements get into Harvard? Trump’s inference is that Mr. Obama is a cipher, cannot be trusted and is concealing a dark secret.”

What is this dark, untrustworthy cipher-secret? I don’t see Trump saying that the president of the United States is a cipher—a zero or nonentity—but rather that back in the day, Obama was not good enough to get into college without a racial boost.

Even respected liberal commentators have given Trump something of a pass for the racial tension animating Birtherism. Hendrik Hertzberg, the authoritative essayist, argues in this week’s New Yorker that Trump’s appeal to birtherism is “part of a larger pattern of rejection of reality” by Republicans, like denying the science of global warming, or believing that “contraception causes abortion.”

I think that a loose relationship with the scientific method surely helps conspiracies spread, but Birtherism draws on passions that depart substantially from greenhouse gasses. It is a putatively non-racial, vaguely constitutional way to challenge the legitimacy of the first black president and appeal to racists without sounding officially racist. Sure, there may be plenty of GOP tenets running counter to reality nowadays, yet none evoke the suppressed fury of the Birthers. They won’t go away. They are an audience-in-waiting for any amplified race-baiter, from Lou Dobbs to unserious presidential candidates. Indeed, Politifact, the fact-checking site for politics, says its article about the issue (with a link to the certification of live birth!) is the most read item that it has ever published.

I asked Hertzberg about his formulation, and while he wouldn’t “exclude racist undertones,” he said the attack is “more about identity.” “Obama’s erudition, his ivy-league-ness, his urbanity, his citizen-of-the-worldness, his foreign-sounding name, his respect for the authority of reason and science, his ‘aristocratic’ ‘aloofness’ (all of which I love, of course) are equally or more part of the package,” Hertzberg proposed in an e-mail.

The analysts who have directly called out Trump’s race-baiting, to their credit, have tended to come more from the credentialed blogosphere or opinionated television. At the Daily Beast, Andrew Sullivan observes that Trump had thrown down “the affirmative action card to pump up the GOP base,” and it’s time to take stock: “We might as well concede it: these are racist smears.” At Salon’s War Room blog, Alex Pareene wrote a crisp lede in his story on the emergence of SATs on Trump’s publicity tour: “Donald Trump added a blatantly race-baiting component to his already racially charged campaign against Barack Obama’s Americanness this week. “ Over on cable, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has been especially strong in calling out Trump, a fellow NBC star, noting that he has become a “hero” to racists. Fareed Zakaria, opting for truth over balance at CNN, flatly dispatched Trump’s birther crusade as “shame[ful] coded racism.”

Meanwhile, another CNN story topped the political blogosphere this week, (according to data from Memeorandum), under the bizarre headline, “CNN investigation: Obama born in U.S.”

Does anyone, at any news organization, consider this news? Of course not. Launching another “investigation” into Obama’s birthplace in 2011 and “reporting” the results is not really objective journalism. It is an overreaction to conspiracy theories, masquerading as fact-checking. Let’s leave the politicized, air-quote investigations to Trump. The facts in this area have been established. The only thing left to do is call out the lies—and the racism.
Updates: In New Hampshire on Wednesday, Donald Trump claimed credit for the White House release of Obama’s “long form” birth certificate, and declared that the president should “get off his basketball court” and focus on gas prices. The dog whistles are getting less subtle.

While The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg did not think race was the primary factor driving Trump’s attacks, David Remnick, The New Yorker’s editor-in-chief and the author of an accalimed book about Obama’s background, published an unusually blunt critique of Trump’s “race-baiting” on Wednesday afternoon. “What is there to say anymore about Donald Trump?,” Remnick asks. “That he is an irrepressible jackass who thinks of himself as a sly fox? That he is a buffoon with bathroom fixtures of gold? Why bother, after so many decades? There is no insulting someone who lives in a self-reinforcing fantasy world.” Remnick, a scrupulously measured writer, says we must face facts: “to do what Trump has done (and he is only the latest and loudest and most spectacularly hirsute) is a conscious form of race-baiting, of fear-mongering. And if that makes Donald Trump proud, then what does that say for him?” (Read the entire piece here.)

Finally, over at Jack and Jill Politics, a blog focused on black issues, Cheryl Contee responds to this article and analyzes Trump’s “very savvy racism.” “I’ve heard resentment over college affirmative action from even liberal friends,” she writes, “it’s a huge source of racial resentment.”

































Wednesday, April 27, 2011

USAID & World Vision Defrauded

Aid workers get 12 years for US aid fraud in Liberia


Tue Apr 26, 7:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two former humanitarian workers were sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison each Tuesday for defrauding the US aid agency of $1.9 million destined for thousands of poor families in post-war Liberia.

US District Court Judge Reggie Walton in the capital Washington also ordered Joe Bondo, 39, and Morris Fahnbulleh, 41, to pay a total of $1.2 million in restitution, In addition to their 142-month jail term, they also were sentenced to three subsequent years of supervised release.

The pair, both from Monrovia, were convicted in November to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, four counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud and four false claims counts.

Bondo got another two counts of witness tampering, while Fahnbulleh was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.

"Bondo and Fahnbulleh defrauded USAID of nearly $2 million intended to provide food for the needy and build infrastructure in war-torn Liberia. Serious crimes deserve serious punishment," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

The US Agency for International Development awarded a grant in 2005 to non-profit group World Vision to assist Liberia as it recovers from a 14-year civil war that ended in 2003 after 250,000 people lost their lives.

The grant was intended to fund a two-year humanitarian project for communication reconstruction in Liberia.

Bondo and Fahnbulleh were assigned under the agreement to supervise World Vision employees assisting Liberia with infrastructure projects, such as building roads, wells and latrines. USAID was then due to distribute food to residents of the communities in exchange for their work.

But a 2008 World Vision internal audit found that up to 91 percent of the food never reached the impoverished Liberian communities. Evidence presented at the trial found Bondo and Fahnbulleh had instead sold the food, kept the proceeds and told World Vision employees to falsify food distribution files.

The pair also ordered USAID employees to renovate their own personal compounds rather than build the roads, clinics, schools and other projects paid for by the US federal government.

And they intimidated World Vision employees with threats of getting them fired and by paying "hush money" to some of their subordinates, according to court documents.

"As a result of the defendants' conduct, thousands of families never got the food or reconstruction assistance they were intended to receive," the Justice Department said, noting that over 250 Liberian towns had filed statements to the court detailing the fraud's impact.

World Vision was said to have reimbursed about $1.9 million to USAID through Catholic Relief Services, another charity.

THRIFTY FAMILIES AND OTHER LIES

The typical American family cannot live within its means because it cannot earn enough to sustain its lifestyle.
By Ted Rall Ted Rall
Tue Apr 26, 8:02 pm ET

Like Their Government, Americans Live on Debt

NEW YORK--During his State of the Union address President Obama repeated this ancient canard: "We have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in," he said. "That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

Republicans have used this "families balance their budgets, so should government" line for years. Now Democrats are doing it too. Everyone is jumping aboard the pseudo-austerity bandwagon. (Why pseudo? Neither party really wants to balance the federal budget because it can only be done by bringing home the troops, shrinking the Pentagon by 90 percent, ending corporate welfare, and soaking the rich--i.e. major campaign donors--with higher taxes.)

The family budget talking point is a fascinating theme that reflects a rarely considered national blind spot. As with other cases of mass denial (we think we're generous do-gooders around the world, foreigners see us for the crazy mean torturers we also are), we give ourselves more credit than we deserve.

We Americans value thrift and personal responsibility. We believe we should live within our means. These cultural ideals stem from our Puritan history.

But we don't live up to our ideals. Not even close. Americans are up to the ears in debt.

Four out of five individuals have at least one credit card. The average family has an outstanding balance of $10,700. It spends 21 percent of its monthly income to pay interest on that balance.

The average American family has assets: It owns a house worth $160,000. But it owes $95,000 to the bank. As the housing market continues to crash, equity shrinks.

Our average family's savings are virtually nonexistent: $3,800 in the bank, no retirement account whatsoever (for half of families, average retirement savings $35,000 for the other half), no mutual funds, no stocks, no bonds.

The claim that American families live within their means is a joke.

To be fair, it's not entirely their fault. The typical American family only earns $43,000. It's hard to buy much of anything, much less the house that embodies the American Dream, with that. And it's impossible to save.

So they/we borrow.

As grim as a life of indebted servitude may seem, imagine what the American economy would look like if families really did live within their means, spending no more than they earned. No debt. No credit.

Markets for big-ticket items--homes, automobiles, major appliances--would crash and burn. Countless businesses would go under.

According to the National Association of Realtors 23 percent of homebuyers paid cash in January. That's more than ever before but that still leaves at least 77 percent relying on mortgage financing. (Why "at least"? Most "cash" transactions include money borrowed from banks and credit unions.) Take 77 percent of purchasers out of the buy side of the equation and million-dollar homes would be worth five figures.

Pop! Credit is the biggest bubble of all.

If credit went away, most Americans' biggest asset would vanish. Everyone would be "under water" to their lenders. The burbs would soon look like Afghanistan.

The same goes for cars: At least 88 percent of buyers take out a loan.

What would happen if these buyers had to save actual cash money before they could hit the showroom? They wouldn't buy a car. Air would get cleaner but the economic collapse that began in 2008, which has put one out of five Americans out of work, would accelerate dramatically.

Two-thirds of the U.S. economy directly relies on consumer spending. People can only purchase goods and services using one of three sources: income, savings or credit. As we've seen, the average American family doesn't have savings. Its income has been falling since 1968.

That leaves credit. If consumer credit vanished, the corporato-capitalist system currently prevailing in the U.S. would deteriorate from its current, merely unsustainable form into total chaos. Without credit cards and other loans citizens would seethe, trapped between the mutually irreconcilable forces of falling wages and the aggressive advertising and marketing of products they would never be able to afford. There would only be two possible long-term outcomes: revolution, or the ruling classes would be forced to pay substantially higher wages to workers. To corporate elites, the latter choice would be too unpalatable to countenance.

The typical American family cannot live within its means because it cannot earn enough to sustain its lifestyle. Were it to downgrade its living standards to a level it could afford, there wouldn't be enough consumer spending to drive the economy. This would force further personal austerity. Eventually we'd all be living outside.

You know what's funny? Unlike the American family, the U.S. government can spend less than it earns. It can increase revenues by raising taxes. Unlike families, it spends trillions of dollars on stuff--wars--that it doesn't need and actually makes things worse.

It could even use its power to force employers to pay workers what they deserve. If the government did that, families might not need credit.

They could (finally) live within their means.

(Ted Rall is the author of "The Anti-American Manifesto." His website is tedrall.com.)

Monday, April 25, 2011

Password-protect your wireless router!

NY case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers
Sun Apr 24, 11:20 pm ET

.BUFFALO, N.Y. – Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.

That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.

"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."

"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."

"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.

Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.

Plenty of others would agree. The Sarasota, Fla. man, for example, who got a similar visit from the FBI last year after someone on a boat docked in a marina outside his building used a potato chip can as an antenna to boost his wireless signal and download an astounding 10 million images of child porn, or the North Syracuse, N.Y., man who in December 2009 opened his door to police who'd been following an electronic trail of illegal videos and images. The man's neighbor pleaded guilty April 12.

For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner's desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife's iPads and iPhones.

Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn't him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.

It's unknown how often unsecured routers have brought legal trouble for subscribers. Besides the criminal investigations, the Internet is full of anecdotal accounts of people who've had to fight accusations of illegally downloading music or movies.

Whether you're guilty or not, "you look like the suspect," said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who said that's just one of many reasons to secure home routers.

Experts say the more savvy hackers can go beyond just connecting to the Internet on the host's dime and monitor Internet activity and steal passwords or other sensitive information.

A study released in February provides a sense of how often computer users rely on the generosity — or technological shortcomings — of their neighbors to gain Internet access.

The poll conducted for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes wireless technology standards, found that among 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, 32 percent acknowledged trying to access a Wi-Fi network that wasn't theirs. An estimated 201 million households worldwide use Wi-Fi networks, according to the alliance.

The same study, conducted by Wakefield Research, found that 40 percent said they would be more likely to trust someone with their house key than with their Wi-Fi network password.

For some, though, leaving their wireless router open to outside use is a philosophical decision, a way of returning the favor for the times they've hopped on to someone else's network to check e-mail or download directions while away from home .

"I think it's convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network," said Rebecca Jeschke, whose home signal is accessible to anyone within range.

"Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I'm happy to participate in that — and lots of people are," said Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues.

Experts say wireless routers come with encryption software, but setting it up means a trip to the manual.

The government's Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends home users make their networks invisible to others by disabling the identifier broadcasting function that allows wireless access points to announce their presence. It also advises users to replace any default network names or passwords, since those are widely known, and to keep an eye on the manufacturer's website for security patches or updates.

People who keep an open wireless router won't necessarily know when someone else is piggybacking on the signal, which usually reaches 300-400 feet, though a slower connection may be a clue.

For the Buffalo homeowner, who didn't want to be identified, the tip-off wasn't nearly as subtle.

It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn't immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"They are screaming at him, 'Get down! Get down on the ground!' He's saying, 'Who are you? Who are you?'" Covert said.

"One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he's got the cuts and bruises to show for it," said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed.

The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.

But this wasn't a case of officers rushing into the wrong house. Court filings show exactly what led them there and why.

On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of "Doldrum," the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.

The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.

Investigators could have taken an extra step before going inside the house and used a laptop or other device outside the home to see whether there was an unsecured signal. That alone wouldn't have exonerated the homeowner, but it would have raised the possibility that someone else was responsible for the downloads.

After a search of his devices proved the homeowner's innocence, investigators went back to the peer-to-peer software and looked at logs that showed what other IP addresses Doldrum had connected from. Two were associated with the State University of New York at Buffalo and accessed using a secure token that UB said was assigned to a student living in an apartment adjacent to the homeowner. Agents arrested John Luchetti March 17. He has pleaded not guilty to distribution of child pornography.

Luchetti is not charged with using his neighbor's Wi-Fi without permission. Whether it was illegal is up for debate.

"The question," said Kerr, "is whether it's unauthorized access and so you have to say, 'Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not?'

"We don't know," Kerr said. "The law prohibits unauthorized access and it's just not clear what's authorized with an open unsecured wireless."

In Germany, the country's top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.

The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.

Friday, April 22, 2011

... AND THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES LOST

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent
1 hr 37 mins ago

NEW YORK – Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq.

Freer to speak now than he was as an international civil servant, the Nobel-winning Egyptian accuses U.S. leaders of "grotesque distortion" in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, when then-President George W. Bush and his lieutenants claimed Iraq possessed doomsday weapons despite contrary evidence collected by ElBaradei's and other arms inspectors inside the country.

The Iraq war taught him that "deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators," ElBaradei writes in "The Age of Deception," being published Tuesday by Henry Holt and Company.

The 68-year-old legal scholar, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997 to 2009 and recently a rallying figure in Egypt's revolution, concludes his 321-page account of two decades of "tedious, wrenching" nuclear diplomacy with a plea for more of it, particularly in the efforts to rein in North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

"All parties must come to the negotiating table," writes ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IAEA in 2005. He repeatedly chides Washington for reluctant or hardline approaches to negotiations with Tehran and Pyongyang.

He is harshest in addressing the Bush administration's 2002-2003 drive for war with Iraq, when ElBaradei and Hans Blix led teams of U.N. inspectors looking for signs Saddam Hussein's government had revived nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

He tells of an October 2002 meeting he and Blix had with Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others, at which the Americans sought to convert the U.N. mission into a "cover for what would be, in essence, a United States-directed inspection process."

The U.N. officials resisted, and their teams went on to conduct some 700 inspections of scores of potential weapons sites in Iraq, finding no evidence to support the U.S. claims of weapons of mass destruction.

In his own memoir, published last November, Bush still insisted it was right to invade to remove a "homicidal dictator pursuing WMD." But the ex-president also wrote of a "sickening feeling" when no arms turned up after the invasion, and blamed an "intelligence failure" for the baseless claim, a reference to a 2002 U.S. intelligence assessment contending WMD were being built.

But that assessment itself offered no concrete evidence, and Bush and his aides have never explained why the U.S. position was not changed as on-the-ground U.N. findings came in before the invasion.

ElBaradei cites examples, including the conclusion by his inspectors inside Iraq that certain aluminum tubes were designed for artillery rockets, not for uranium enrichment equipment to build nuclear bombs, as Washington asserted.

The IAEA chief reported this conclusion to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27, 2003, and yet on the next day Bush — in a "remarkable" response — delivered a State of the Union address in which he repeated the unfounded claim about aluminum tubes, ElBaradei notes.

Similar contradictions of expert findings occurred with the claim, based on a forgery, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, and an Iraqi exile's fabrication that "mobile labs" were producing biological weapons.

"I was aghast at what I was witnessing," ElBaradei writes of the official U.S. attitude before the March 2003 invasion, which he calls "aggression where there was no imminent threat," a war in which he accepts estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed.

In such a case, he suggests, the World Court should be asked to rule on whether the war was illegal. And, if so, "should not the International Criminal Court investigate whether this constitutes a `war crime' and determine who is accountable?"

Formidable political and legal barriers would seem to rule out such an investigation. But ElBaradei, citing the war-crimes prosecution of Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, sees double standards that should end.

"Do we, as a community of nations, have the wisdom and courage to take the corrective measures needed, to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again?" he asks.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

A SALES PITCH IS A SALES PITCH - EVEN WITH THE CHOIR

Rob Bell's What if There's No Hell - Is it A Threat to the Evangelical Business Plan?
By BILL SAPORITO Bill Saporito
Wed Apr 20, 8:10 am ET


There are more reasons than mere theology why Evangelical Christian leaders are raising Cain over the message now being wholesaled by the Rev. Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church, featured in TIME's current cover story, "What If There's No Hell?" Bell's I'm-O.K.-you're-O.K., we're-not-going-to-hell-today spin is not merely a refutation of a basic belief.

If this piece of theological reordering takes hold, it's the Evangelicals' business plan that's going to hell.

Fire and brimstone has been one of the Evangelicals' main product lines. It's based on a zero-sum outcome: heaven or hell. Believe or perish. And part of the deal, at least in practical application, is that you can't get spiritually right without monetarily supporting the church. Pay to play, in other words. It's the same with most religions. No one says so in those crude terms - it's all about the mission - but a sales pitch is a sales pitch, even one accompanied by a choir. You can't build the Crystal Cathedral on prayer alone. There's a mortgage to pay. (See pictures in a brief history of hell.)

And contributing money is a perfectly reasonable investment for the faithful. You may not be able to pay your way into heaven (sorry hedge funders), but you can help build the pathway on earth. Corporations like to measure return on equity, usually expressed as ROE. But you could say that church donations offer a different kind of ROE: return on eternity. And they're tax deductible to boot.

But what happens if Bell is right? Is it possible that the return on eternity on these contributions has dropped compared with other spiritual investments? For instance, maybe there's a bigger ROE in giving to the poor or volunteering for Habitat for Humanity. Tithing your church may be too much of an investment risk if the returns are less certain.

The adverse reaction to Bell's Hell among some Evangelical leaders is based first on deeply held belief, not economic consequences. But it should really put the fear of God in their accountants. There are plenty of other reasons to invest in your church other than buying eternity insurance. But these are not the zero-sum, repent-or-burn outcomes that have underwritten the business so effectively over the years. Indeed, there's no hell to pay anymore.

French mathematician Blaise Pascal famously pondered ROE in the spiritual-investment quandary called Pascal's Wager. It's an exercise in game theory. A rationalist, Pascal thought about how he might bet against God's very existence and behave accordingly: more ROEs, fewer rosaries. But he also knew that had he pursued a hedonistic lifestyle and if God existed, a negative outcome would ensue. And he'd be totally, eternally screwed. Better to believe, he reasoned. In Pascal's logic, the rational spiritual investor becomes risk averse and spends a big chunk of the portfolio with God. Pascal, in other words, recommended that you hedge your spiritual investment.

Preacher Bell is now positing that the endgame is different. If, in mathematical terms, you assign a zero probability that hell exists, then the rational spiritual investor reduces his exposure, since the expected ROE has been declined. "What do you give up?" asks Yale University professor Keith Chen, a game-theory expert. What's relevant in game theory is the difference between the good and bad outcomes. "If the idea is everybody goes to heaven and everybody enjoys the same privileges, then it unwinds Pascal's Wager," he says.

But both Chen and another game theorist at Yale, Barry Nalebuff, immediately posed another possibility: Is there a nonhell that's still not heaven? (Bell even suggests as much.) If there is heaven and a not-so-good nonhell, there's still a wager, although the spiritual investor might adjust it. Say, by moving it to a church like Bell's. Says Nalebuff: "The trick is, what's the cost of leaving? In my view he brings down the cost of leaving." In this view, Pascal's Wager is more like playing the lottery, says Nalebuff. If you win, heaven is the prize. If you don't, it's just a couple of spiritual bucks lost.

And that could be a competitive advantage. Churches operate in a marketplace of spiritual ideas, but they're directly connected to the temporal economy. The competition for the faithful can be downright unholy. Churches can and do go bankrupt if they cannot attract enough participants.
 









$4.00 per Gallon in the U.S. = 1 Meal per Day & No Drinkable Water in Kenya/Uganda

Kenya, Uganda protest as maize prices skyrocket

By JASON STRAZIUSO and TOM ODULA, Associated Press Jason Straziuso And Tom Odula, Associated Press
1 hr 46 mins ago

NAIROBI, Kenya – Stephen Omandi scratched out the number "55" on the sign advertising buckets of maize (corn) and wrote in the new price: 60 Kenya shillings.  The price hike amounted to only $0.06. But for the residents of Nairobi's largest slum, where most people live on $1 a day, that 10 percent increase is enough to make the essential food stuff unaffordable.

"We haven't gotten many customers because they complain, 'Why have you increased the price?'" said Omandi. "Five shillings. It's a lot of money, because many people could not afford it at 55, and now it's 60."

Food prices are rising across the globe, driven in part by the higher transport costs that accompany rising oil prices. The World Bank said last week that food prices are 36 percent higher today than a year ago, and are pushing people "deeper into poverty."

But no region has been hit harder by rising food costs than Africa over the last three months. Wheat costs 87 percent more in Sudan. Rice is up 30 percent in Chad. Maize has risen at least 25 percent in Uganda, Somalia, Mozambique and Kenya.

Omandi used to sell 40 small buckets of maize a day, but on one recent day — the first of his most recent price hike — he sold only two. Omandi was forced to increase his price because the government had just raised the price ceiling it sets for gasoline. The whole cycle made customers grumble.

"They said, 'Have you increased it again?' It used to be 35 Kenya shillings late last year. Now it has increased almost 100 percent," Omandi said.

About 100 people blocked traffic near parliament in downtown Nairobi on Tuesday to protest the price increases. A day earlier the government cut taxes on kerosene and diesel, but protesters said the cuts were too small. Yash Pal Ghai, a constitutional law expert who took part in the demonstration, said the issue was both prices and corruption.

"The revenue authority said recently that one-third of the (tax) revenue is stolen by politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen," he said. "Some people have a single meal a day while others live in obscene luxury and comfort. It is amazing there has not been a rebellion by now."

Some parliamentarians were heckled as they were driven in luxury vehicles into parliament, where a debate on food costs was held. One demonstrator held a sign that read: "Parliamentarians are just filling their potbellies while the common citizen is getting thinner."

In Uganda, Kenya's western neighbor, the country's top opposition politician has led three marches over the last 10 days to protest higher food and fuel prices. Police have unleashed tear gas and bullets on the protests, and even shot the opposition leader, Kizza Besigye, in the hand. Protests have been held countrywide.

Thomas Mugisha, a worker in a mattress factory in Kampala, Uganda's capital, said he now walks to work because the price of public transport rose from $0.30 to $0.60. The protest walks have been a reflection of that reality.

"We decided to walk to places of work as a sign of solidarity with other many Ugandans who are suffering from high prices," said Alice Alaso, an opposition parliamentarian who invoked the example of the French Revolution during an interview. She complained of high military spending at a time when people can't even afford food.

"Our government has become insensitive toward its people's suffering," she said.

The price of maize in Uganda has risen 114 percent over the last year, according to the World Bank. That's the highest year-over-year increase in the world. Gasoline and meat prices are also soaring.

"We used to eat meat three times a week, but now we eat beans due to the high price of meat," said Zaida Namuli, 35, a Kampala resident.

An elementary school teacher, Silvia Acha, said she pays twice as much for rice as she used to, but that her $85 monthly salary has remained unchanged. "The government should come to our aid," she said.

The World Bank said much of the recent increase of food prices was due to a 21 percent rise in oil prices in the first quarter, which increased because of unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. Higher crude oil prices mean products like corn and vegetable oil are more frequently used as biofuels. Transportation costs rise.

"More poor people are suffering and more people could become poor because of high and volatile food prices," said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick. "We have to put food first and protect the poor and vulnerable, who spend most of their money on food."

In Nairobi's largest slum, Kibera, many people eat what more affluent Kenyans simply don't want: Dried mini sardines, cow lungs, and fish heads discarded from higher-end shops and restaurants.

Many of the slum's youngest are fed by the World Food Program or aid groups. First Love, a U.S. group, feeds 1,150 students a day in Kibera. Breakfast is a cup of porridge.

"Kids will sneak an extra cup and take it home. We're OK with that because we know that will be his dinner," said the group's Philip Muthui, who was fed by the program himself when he was a student.

In Kibera's skinny dirt lanes, where goods are transported by wheelbarrow, Benjamin Mwalepe sells buckets of charcoal for $0.30. Mwalepe, who cares for six children, some his nieces and nephews, noted that the price of a jerry can of potable water has risen from $0.03 two months ago to $0.05 today.

When asked what costs more today, he answered "everything." But there is no more money, so there's only one solution.

"You have to eat a smaller portion," he said.