Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense ...

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston joins us to talk about his new book, “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense
(And Stick You with the Bill).”

JUAN GONZALEZ: As voters head to the polls in Nevada and South Carolina Saturday, the economy remains one of the top issues for voters across party lines. Today, we’re going to spend the rest of the hour examining the growing income gap in the United States.

Economic figures show that in 2005, the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the country’s population had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the lower economic half of the country. Of each dollar people earned in 2005, the top ten percent got 48.5 cents, the highest percentage since 1929, just before the Great Depression.


AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston has been closely tracking the nation’s income gap in the pages of the New York Times. In 2004, he published the bestselling book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich—and Cheat Everybody Else. David Cay has just published a new book. It’s called Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill). He joins us now from the PBS station WXXI in Rochester.


Welcome to Democracy Now!, David.


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Thank you for having me, Amy and Juan.


AMY GOODMAN: Explain the wealth transfer.


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, I was struck, listening to the program from Kenya, where they talked about the president and his power to give money to people, give land, and that’s why many people identify with it. We have created in the United States, largely in the last thirty years, a whole series of programs—a few of them explicit, many of them deeply hidden—that take money from the pockets of the poor and the middle class and upper middle class and funnel it to the wealthiest people in America. And among the biggest recipients of these subsidies are the wealthiest family America, the Waltons; George Steinbrenner; Donald Trump; a whole host of healthcare billionaires. And these are policies that either have not been reported on or the news reporting on them generally has not informed people about what they really are.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I was struck—you have numerous chapters in the book on the various aspects of this transfer, but I was especially struck by your material on the New York Yankees and Steinbrenner and Joyce Hogi, who you mention in the book, who I know well, and this whole issue of sports teams across America and how the public is subsidizing them. Could you elaborate on that part of it?


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Sure. George Steinbrenner is getting over $600 million for the new Yankee Stadium in New York. The New York Mets are getting over $600 million. In fact, the City of New York gave them money to lobby against the taxpayers to get more money. Rudy Giuliani gave $50 million to the two teams for that purpose.


The new owners of the Washington Nationals baseball team in Washington, D.C., paid $450 million for the team. But, in fact, they got the team for free, because the subsidy they’re getting for the new stadium is worth $611 million. We actually paid these people to buy the team.


Now, in this country right now, we are spending $2 billion a year subsidizing the big four sports: baseball, basketball, football and hockey. It accounts for all of the profits of that industry and more. Now, there may be individual teams that make money, but the industry as a whole is not profitable. And that’s astonishing because the big four leagues are exempt from the laws of competition. By the way, irony is not dead, because here are people who are in the business of competition on the field who are exempted by law from the rules of economic competition.


If you go to England and you want to start a soccer team, they have to let you join the soccer league. There are thirteen commercial soccer teams in the London area. New York City, the biggest city in the country, there are two baseball teams, because there’s no free entry into the market. In Los Angeles, there’s no football team. And the owners use this power to prevent others from owning teams, to prevent municipal governments from owning teams, to prevent nonprofits from owning teams, to extract money from the taxpayers to build them new stadiums.


At the same time that we’re doing this, we are starving our public parks for money. And I show in Free Lunch how the rise of urban gangs and now suburban gangs is connected to this. We used to have all sorts of programs in this country after World War II for young men and young women on Saturdays and during the summer and school holidays, where even if you didn’t have any money—didn’t matter that your parents didn’t have any money, because—and I know this because I did it as a child—you could go to any one of a half-dozen different places, and there were organized activities to keep you out of trouble. After all, idle hands are the devil’s workshop is not exactly a radical new idea. Well, we’ve cut and cut and cut those programs to fund two different subsidies: one to sports teams’ owners, one that goes to Tyco, General Electric, Honeywell and some other big companies. And, lo and behold, we’ve had a big rise in urban violence because of the vacuum being filled by young people who no longer have these organized activities.


AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of sports teams, talk about President Bush and where you believe, really, ultimately, he got his wealth.


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, it isn’t a function of belief, Amy. I’ve got the documents. President Bush, who will go down in history as the great tax cutter, owes almost all of his fortune to a tax increase that was funneled into his pocket. What happened is, an oil man named Eddie Chiles wanted to sell his money-losing Texas Rangers baseball team. They played in a little stadium, smaller than the one we have here in Rochester, New York, and of course couldn’t make any money. So George Bush put together a group of very wealthy investors to buy the team. He put up himself $600,000 of borrowed money. The partners then gave him a 10 percent stake as the managing partner. That’s a very common arrangement in business. Then they held a special election in January of the year in question to increase the sales tax in the town of Arlington, Texas, by one half-cent. That money was used to build a new baseball stadium. It’s an incredibly nice baseball stadium.


Then the power of government to seize land by eminent domain—and I go back to what was talked about in Kenya, the leader there can give you land, he can presumably therefore also take it away—the government used its power of eminent domain to seize land from people, not for a public purpose—not for a military base, for a school, for a highway, for a sewer plant—but because it was coveted by President Bush and his friends, and they were unwilling to go into the market and buy it through market economics. So the government seized this land. People were paid far less than they were owed, and we know that because one family fought back, and a jury, after being out just a matter of minutes, awarded them about six times what they had been offered by the government of Arlington.


The value of this subsidy, according to Ray Hutchison, who is the husband of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, is a prominent Republican insider in Texas and is the leading authority on municipal bond finance in Texas, was $202.5 million. The profit that President Bush and his partners made when they sold the team was $164 million. What does that tell you? Every single penny of additional money President Bush got from that investment, his gain, came from the taxpayers. He did not add one cent to the value of that team through his skill as an MBA manager. This gets repeated all over the country.


And then when President Bush filed his tax return, he should have reported that the 10 percent share he had, the one that was given to him as compensation for being general manager, was wage income. And, of course, we tax wages at a higher rate than we do capital income, like capital gains. President Bush therefore shorted the government $3.4 million. Under our system, you sign your tax return subject to audit. If you’re not audited and you don’t pay the government the right amount, if it’s too much, the government keeps it, if it’s too little, you short the government, but nothing happens to you.


AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His new book is called Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). We’ll come back to David Cay Johnston in a minute.


[break]


AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, has written the book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). Juan?


JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, David Cay Johnston, the American home subprime crisis has been much in the news and the enormous impact it’s having on the economy. You’ve got a few chapters here where you talk about the home and home robbery, and you even delve on an issue that very few people have ever talked about: title insurance companies and the enormous wealth transfer that have gone on there. Could you talk about that?


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, sure. You know, when you buy a home—and I remember the first time I did it as a young man—you have this enormous sense of accomplishment, and you sit down in a room, and they throw all these papers at you—“Sign this, sign this, initial this page, OK, sign this.” So when you’re all done, you get a little sheet listing all the costs you have, and you get dinged for $15 here and $25 there. But there’s one big item called land title insurance. If you buy a $200,000 house, it will probably cost you close to $1,000. Well, it turns out that ninety cents out of every dollar you are forced to pay for this goes to pay commercial bribes. And this goes on all throughout the industry all across the United States, and nobody is prosecuted for it.


And here’s what happens. Well, you wrote the check for the $1,000, the land title insurance companies, who are insuring the risk that someone will come along and say, “That’s really my piece of land,” or “I have the right to put an oil well in your backyard. Here’s this document from 1848,” or your new outbuilding encroaches one inch onto the neighbor’s land, supposedly. That’s what you are insuring against. These companies’ real customers are the real-estate agent that you thought was representing you or the lawyer you paid to represent you or the mortgage broker who arranged to get you the mortgage, because they steer you to the title company. And in return, they get kickbacks.


The state insurance commissioners of California and Washington wrote very detailed reports about this, because one of the land title companies tried to spear the insurance commissioner of Colorado. And there’s emails and tape-recorded conversations about a very Machiavellian plot to use the news media to a plant a question that would smear this woman. And what did the insurance commissioners say should be done after they found that 90 percent of this money is paid in kickbacks? And by the way, one of the big title companies, in its report to shareholders, says that its customers aren’t you and me, when we buy a house; it says its customers are the bankers and the brokers and the lawyers. Well, the insurance commissioners said what we need is an education program. We need to make sure that the land title companies know that they can’t pay these kickbacks and referral fees, as they’re politely called. Well, if the education program worked, the cost of land title insurance would have dropped 90 percent. It hasn’t. So it’s another example of the kind of institutionalized corruption that I write about in Free Lunch that takes money from the many and concentrates it in the hands of the politically connected few.


AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Barack Obama’s comments, David Cay Johnston, who praised—


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, one thing, Amy, I don’t do, Amy, I don’t talk about the presidential campaign, because—


AMY GOODMAN: Oh, you don’t have to—you don’t have to talk about them—


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: OK.


AMY GOODMAN: —but just the substance of what he had to say, which was very interesting, as he talked about former President Ronald Reagan. He was in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, appearing to express admiration for what he called Reagan’s “clarity” and “optimism” and overcoming “excesses” of the ’60s and ’70s. This is what he said.


SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and ’70s and, you know, government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. And I think people just tapped in—he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.



AMY GOODMAN: In response, rival candidate John Edwards said Reagan “did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day.” He said, “I can promise you [this: I will] never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.” So, David Cay Johnston, without getting into presidential politics, you write extensively about Ronald Reagan in this book.


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Yes. Well, Ronald Reagan, whether you love Ronald Reagan or you hate Ronald Reagan, was a great leader. He did, in fact, dramatically change the country.


Between 1945 and the election of Ronald Reagan, we had a government that was focused on creating and nurturing the middle class. When I was a young man, I was able to go to college only because it was free. It didn’t matter that I didn’t have any money—my dad was a 100 percent disabled veteran, and I went to work when I was ten years old and full time since I was thirteen—because it was free.


Today, the cost of a college education, a state college education, is about $10,000 a year. The average income of the bottom half of taxpayers—that’s not families, that’s taxpayers—is about $15,000. Think you can go to college if two-thirds of your income would have to go to college? I don’t think so.


Well, Mr.—what Mr. Reagan did in 1980 was he asked a question that had a very powerful effect. He said, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” And Americans said no, they weren’t. And they elected him to office, and they set in motion a major change in government policy, a change that I think has been perverted. I do not believe Reagan intended all of the things that have been done since he started this happening.


But I’m asking the question in Free Lunch: Are you better off than you were in 1980? And on the surface, America is much better off. The country is more than twice as wealthy in real terms as it was in 1980. Per person, adjusted for inflation, the economy now puts out $1.70 for every dollar that it put out in 1980. Those are absolutely tremendous economic numbers.


So how come we’re not all really well-off? Why is it one-in-seven families has filed bankruptcy in the last twenty-five years? Why is it people are so mired in debt that television ads are just full of debt relief and take on more debt ads, sometimes at 99 percent interest? Why is it that so many people don’t have health insurance and so many people no longer have a retirement plan?


And by the way, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans, what I call the vast majority, is smaller today than it was in 1980. And since the year 2000, when we really got serious about this tax cut business, the average income of Americans every year—2001, ’02, ’03, ’04, ’05—has been smaller than it was in 2000. There have been some gains in 2004 and ’05, but they haven’t gotten up to equal 2000. And of those gains in the year 2000—it’s either ’05 over ’04 or ’04 over ’03—half went to people who make over a million dollars a year. What’s happened is—

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t that wealth transfer massively begin—I mean, accelerate with Reagan?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, yes. No, that’s—I’m sorry, that’s exactly my point, Amy, is that what happened is that we put in place all sorts of new programs, many of which were never written about in the news media, that got no attention whatsoever. We created healthcare billionaires while making healthcare unavailable to one-in-seven Americans. And we did this with government money. We allowed people to buy public assets for, in some cases, a fraction of a penny on the dollar and then poured government money into them.

And, you know, our national myth that Ronald Reagan ran for office on was that there were all these welfare queen Cadillacs—welfare queens driving Cadillacs out there. I think there was, in fact, one scam artist who went to prison. But what’s really going on is welfare at the top, and way beyond what’s been reported in the news media as corporate welfare. We have built into the scaffolding of the new economy rules that funnel money to the top.

And that this has happened really shouldn’t surprise us, because under our campaign finance system, which has gotten worse and worse and worse with campaign finance reform that hasn’t worked, politicians running for high office spend a great deal of their time talking not to you and me and school teachers and police officers and firefighters and factory workers, but to rich people and their paid representatives. And they hear about their concerns and what they say they need to make things fair.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You also delve into this whole phenomena across America of the big box stores, the Targets and the Wal-Marts and the Kmarts. And obviously they’ve—to some, they at least offer cheaper goods, cheaper consumer goods. Your analysis of their impact?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, they say they offer cheaper goods. I don’t accept that that’s necessarily true.

But here’s what happens. And this is a good example of where the news media hasn’t done a good job. I have tons of news clips that say, oh, this new shopping mall is coming or a new Wal-Mart or a new Cabela’s store, and thanks to tax increment financing, this store is going to be built. Well, what is tax increment financing? I’ll tell you what it is. You go to the store with your goods, you pay for it at Wal-Mart, and there’s a very good chance that that store has made a deal with the government that the sales taxes you are required to pay, that government requires you to pay, never go to the government. Instead, those sales taxes are kept by Wal-Mart and used to pay the cost of the store. And typically in those deals, the store is tax exempt, just like a church.

Now, there are two ways that it’s important to think about this. One is, that means your kid’s schools, your police department, your library, your parks are not getting that money. And you’ll notice we keep saying we’re starved for money. We’re twice as wealthy as we were in 1980, but we’ve got to close hospitals, and we’ve got to close schools, and we don’t have money for all sorts of things like after-school programs, even though we’re twice as wealthy. The second thing to think about is, imagine that you own Amy Goodman’s or Juan’s department store across the street. You suddenly have to compete with people whom the government is giving a huge leg up on. You think you would go broke after a while? Well, in fact, you will.

And I tell about a man named Jim Weaknecht who owned a little store in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. He sold fishing tackle, hunting gear, stuff like that. And the way he made his living in his little tiny store, enough that he was able to have his wife stay at home and raise their three kids full time, was by charging less than a company called Cabela’s. Well, then Cabela’s came to town. This little city of 4,000 people made a deal to give Cabela’s $36 million to build a store. That’s more than the city budget for that town for ten years. It’s $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in that town to have this store. And even though he charged lower prices, he was pretty quickly run out of business.

That’s not market capitalism, which is what Ronald Reagan said he was going to bring us. He said, you know, government’s the problem, we need markets as a solution. Well, that’s not the market. That’s corporate socialism. And what we’ve gotten is corporate socialism for the politically connected rich—not all the rich, the politically connected rich—and market capitalism for everybody else.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, many of those folks need lobbyists to be able to get these kinds of breaks from the government, and you talk about the explosion of lobbyists and their influence on government.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: There are twice as many registered lobbyists in Washington today as there were in 1980. If the lobbying community had grown in revenues since the ’70s at the same rate as the economy, there would be one-tenth as many lobbyists in Washington. And those people are not there doing the good of the public. You know, the Constitution’s Preamble talks about the—

JUAN GONZALEZ: They’re not just in Washington, right? They’re not just in Washington. They’re also at the state level.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: No, no, they’re in all the state capitals, they’re in city halls, they’re all over the country. The lobbying business is one of the fastest-growing businesses in America, because—you know why? It’s easier to mine gold from the government’s treasury than from the side of a mountain. Why wouldn’t you go do that if you could get the government to give you money? And Donald Trump—a tax that’s supposed to serve the poor, his company got $89 million for a tax designated for the poor. Somehow, Mr. Trump’s public image suggests to me that he does not think of himself as a poor person.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cay Johnston—we’ll leave it there—Free Lunch is his book, How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill), speaking to us from the PBS station WXXI in Rochester, New York.

DNA frees Colo. man convicted of murder

By P. SOLOMON BANDA, Associated Press
FORT COLLINS, Colo. - A judge on Tuesday ordered the release of a man convicted of murder after DNA evidence pointed to another suspect.

Timothy Masters, 35, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1999, was ordered freed on a personal recognizance bond. Prosecutors promised to decide quickly whether to try him again.

New tests announced last week showed DNA found on the victim's clothing was not from Masters but from someone else.

Applause broke out in the courtroom as the hearing ended, but Masters showed little emotion as he hugged members of his defense team.

In 1987, the manager at a woman's clothing store was found stabbed and sexually mutilated in a field south of Fort Collins, but police investigated for more than a decade before arresting Masters. He was 15 at the time the woman died and lived near the field where her body was found.

Masters' new attorneys have said detectives wrongly focused on Masters instead of other suspects.

During recent appeals, both the defense and special prosecutors assigned to the case said crucial information was withheld from Masters' trial lawyers.

About 50 people packed the small courtroom Tuesday morning.

"It's (like) saying there was a death, and all of a sudden, it turns out he is alive again," said Master's uncle, John Masters.

Anna Nicole "effect" Still alive

~Flash Back~

The Mitchell Report

Obama calls Bill Clinton untruthful

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press

Barack Obama challenged Bill Clinton's truthfulness Monday in a deepening feud with the husband of Obama's Democratic presidential rival.

Obama's rebuke of the former president, who is still extremely popular with Democrats, came on the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., when both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton focused on the civil rights leader.

In an interview on ABC, Obama twice questioned Bill Clinton's veracity.

"I have to say just broadly, you know, the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. You know, he continues to make statements that aren't supported by the facts, whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq, or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas," Obama said on "Good Morning America."

"You know, this has become a habit," he said. "And one of the things that I think we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's not making statements that are factually accurate."

The former president has accused Obama of exaggerating his anti-war record and handing out undeserved praise to Republicans. Clinton said he personally witnessed Obama's union forces intimidating Nevada caucus voters and said an Obama radio ad suggested how Democrats could keep votes from his wife.

During an event honoring King in his hometown, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, an Obama backer, made a not-so-subtle pitch for Obama at historic Ebenezer Baptist Church — right in front of the former president.

"We are at the cusp of turning the impossible into reality," Franklin said. "Yes, this is reality, not a fantasy, or a fairy tale."

While the largely black crowd erupted in applause, Bill Clinton sat with his hands clasped in front of him. He has been criticized in the black community for casting aspects of Obama's candidacy as "a fairy tale."

When Clinton spoke, he toned down his remarks about the campaign and never mentioned Obama by name when saying Democrats had "bad choices" in the party's nomination race.

In an interview that aired Monday on NBC's "Today" show, Bill Clinton agreed that King would be excited about Obama's candidacy.

"A great speaker, a smart man, someone who loves our country," the former president said of the Illinois senator.

Clinton said he and his daughter, Chelsea, witnessed voter intimidation in Nevada, prior to the caucuses that his wife won on Saturday. He said a representation of the Culinary Workers Union, which endorsed Obama, was "following along behind us going up to everybody ... saying, 'If you're not gonna vote for our guy we're gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can't be there.'"

The union denied engaging in any intimidation. The Las Vegas Sun concluded it depended on who was talking. Its column, by Michael Mishak, said Clinton's campaign and her supporters claim the union intimidated a member into caucusing for Obama while the member herself called the incident more of a misunderstanding.

Bill Clinton has criticized an Obama radio spot, saying: "There's a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

Obama's ad did say Nevada independents and Republicans could switch their registration, but it did not mention Hillary Clinton.

The former president also criticized Obama for his comments about Republicans. He contended that Obama said that "since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. ... I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years."

Obama did praise Republicans, but he criticized them in the same comment: "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times."

Role "The" Dice

Politics ... can be so so ugly .. As it became clear Barack was viable, "despite" little to no support in the Black Community ... Clinton faced The reality that she would LOSE a large % of Black Votes as the Contest continued past New Hampshire ...
(That wasn't supposed to happen)

It was as Iowa "narrowed" that Bill "Let" loose with "ROLE The Dice" ...

That comment seems all but forgotten in MSM as well as
Progressive MSM ....Justified and Understandable
was The pronouncement on MLK and Fantasy .....
In Fact The Spin indicates Equal "blame" for The Race "Card" ....
In Totality ?
A "Trained" eye See's Bill Introduce Race to gain "more" white votes ,in The hopes of offsetting Those lost in The Black Community.
What is it about Power ?
The Clinton's say They know how to "Navigate" Washington ...
yet Clinton was impeached over a sexual innuendo?
Hillary failed to advance health Care ... Bill was prevented from "properly" addressing Bin Ladin by republicans "whispering" wag The Dog ...

Bill wanted to expand public school to 14 years via "civil service"

it didn't happen ...
Sadly once in The Senate Hillary played nice ...
In Fact her votes are nearly identical to Lieberman's ,
a man widely regarded "turncoat" in Democratic circles ..
She was "unapologetically" with Bush on Iraq ... with Bush on Iran ... and cant say troops out by 2013 ....

Yeah I'm disappointed in "The" Clinton's

Dennis the Menace?The Vegas debate, missing in…Vegas

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

For Democrats, Obama the pick

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/20/08


According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going in our country, with just 24 percent believing we're headed in the right direction. The deep discontent reflected in those numbers have made Democrats optimistic about their party's chances of electing one of their own to the White House in November.

However, the situation represents more than a mere opportunity; it imposes an obligation on the Democratic Party to offer the country a candidate who can inspire the American people, a candidate capable of addressing the many critical challenges, foreign and domestic, that will confront our next president and commander in chief.

At times of crisis, this country has always been blessed with strong, even visionary, leadership. But that has not been true for the last seven years. To the contrary, on almost every front we are suffering the consequences of slapdash, divisive leadership.

Economically, the country appears to be sliding into a recession; internationally, our reputation on the world stage has perhaps never been lower. Militarily, our men and women in uniform have been burdened with responsibilities that they lack the manpower to carry out over the long term, and with the aging of the Baby Boom generation and a soaring national debt, our financial obligations likewise threaten to overwhelm the resources we have committed to meet them.

In Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the Democrats offer Georgia voters three candidates with the experience, leadership and character to begin to turn this country around. However, only two of those candidates now harbor realistic hopes for the nomination.

Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North Carolina, has used his campaign to voice the growing anxiety and fear of many in America's working and middle classes. It's an important message, as recent days have confirmed, and with economic troubles ahead, the issues that Edwards has highlighted could prove central in determining the outcome of the general election.

However, judging from the reaction of primary voters, Edwards' impassioned, crusading style may be better suited to a House or Senate race than a race for the presidency. He remains a distant third in most polls, and his hopes for the nomination no longer seem realistic.

That leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. On questions of policy, not much separates the two. Their approaches toward health care, tax policy, foreign relations and the suppression of Islamic terrorism vary only at the margins.

(In fact, that similarity probably accounts for the dismaying pettiness of the disputes between the Obama and Clinton camps in recent days. Campaigns have to argue, and with little of real import separating them, they are now arguing over the little things and in some cases the imaginary things.)

The question, then, is which of the two candidates would be more able to implement the policies they agree upon.

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she has the better grasp of official Washington, which is probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she has built an admirable record of success as a senator that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.

Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband's administration, she has too often chosen to play within the Washington system rather than dare to challenge its assumptions. And that's not the kind of leadership needed at the moment.

The prime example of that instinct was probably Clinton's vote last year in favor of naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising push toward military confrontation with Iran that was unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set aside Clinton's earlier vote giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she seemed to have repeated that mistake.

For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.

Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.

Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.

— Jay Bookman and Cynthia Tucker for the editorial board

Bloomberg has harsh words for Washington

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD,
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who says he's not a candidate for president, chose electoral vote-rich California Saturday from which to deliver a scorching assessment of Washington for failing to keep up with the need for new airports, roads, water systems and bridges across America.

While China and other nations are investing heavily in ports and high-speed trains "Washington doesn't have a plan" to address crumbling U.S. infrastructure, Bloomberg said.

In remarks clearly aimed at a national audience, the mayor said politics trumps common sense in Congress, where pork-barrel spending takes priority. Inevitably, the economy will be strangled if goods and people can't move easily, he warned.

"In politics, winning elections and protecting a party majority is more important than solving problems. And so short-term pork invariably wins over long-term investments," the mayor said.

Washington "spends money to win votes and collect campaign cash no matter what the real needs are," Bloomberg added. "It's hurting our country."

The Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor appeared with Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, to announce a coalition that would push for more investment in ports, highways and other infrastructure. Both governors are known for reaching across party lines to achieve compromise.

"We have an independent here, we have a Democrat here, a Republican. I mean, how much better can you get?" Schwarzenegger said.

The coalition, Building America's Future, will be a not-for-profit organization that will be made up of elected and other officials. It will work with presidential candidates and the platform committees of the national political parties to bring attention to infrastructure needs, which Schwarzenegger said exceed $1 trillion.

Bloomberg appearance came on the second day of a trip that also took him to Texas, another key state on the presidential election map where he met privately Friday with an expert in third-party ballot access who served as campaign manager for H. Ross Perot.

In an era when the public views government with suspicion and loathing, the billionaire mayor is honing an image as an innovative problem-solver working outside the partisan scrum of Washington politics.

Aides say Bloomberg will delay a decision until after the major parties produce clear front-runners.

Bloomberg has been quietly polling and analyzing voting trends in every state as he contemplates launching a campaign. On Tuesday, his supporters launched a 50-state petition drive in an attempt to "draft" him into the race.

As an independent candidate in California, Bloomberg would have to collect nearly 160,000 voter signatures between April 25 and August 8 to qualify for the ballot.

The billionaire mayor could fund the most lavish — and expensive — campaign in history, but the record of third-party candidates like Perot is not impressive.

"They usually show promise early on, and then voters go back to their partisan loyalties," said Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who's worked on presidential campaigns for Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt and Ted Kennedy.

Bloomberg met privately Friday with Clay Mulford, who is well-versed in third-party ballot access and served as campaign manager for Perot. The Texas businessman sought the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

Schwarzenegger was asked if he was staying neutral in the presidential race to see if Bloomberg would jump in, and he answered, "I respect all of the candidates in the Republican lineup. ... I will not endorse anybody."

Rendell, a prodigious fundraiser and former general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is a political maverick who delivered most of his ambitious first-term agenda by building coalitions in a Legislature controlled by Republicans. He is in his second year of his second four-year term.

More Than 30 People Insist They Saw a UFO Flying Over Their Town

Constable Leroy Gateman describes what he saw in the sky.




UFO Sightings in Stephenville,Tx
Jan. 16, 2008 — ABC News Internet Ventures


Dozens of people in a small Texas town are talking about an unexpected visitor, but the question is, where did it come from?

The residents of Stephenville, Texas, claim to have seen a UFO, described as a mile-wide, silent object with bright lights, flying low and fast. So what was it?

These are not headlines from a supermarket tabloid. This is actual front-page news.

More than 30 residents insist they saw the unthinkable a gigantic UFO.

"It was very intense, bright lights," said local newspaper reporter Angela Joyner.

"The lights were like going like this," said Constable Leroy Gateman making hand gestures to describe what he saw when he spotted the UFO."It was so fast I couldn't track it with my binoculars," said Gateman.

Rick Sorrells says he saw it while he was hunting deer in the woods.

"You look at the trees, and it was right here," Sorrells told ABC News correspondent Mike Von Fremd as he showed him the location in the woods where he spotted the UFO.

Steve Allen, a 50-year-old pilot, was at a campfire with friends and says the object was a mile long and half a mile wide. "I don't know if it was a biblical experience or somebody from a different universe or whatever but it was definitely not from around these parts," Allen said.

Allen drew a sketch of the object, which he said traveled at amazing speed without making a sound. While drawing, Allen told Von Fremd that he saw "an arch shape converted in a vertical shape, and then it split and made two of them, and then these turned into just fire and it was gone."

A spokesman for the 301st Fighter Wing in Fort Worth says no aircraft from his base was in the area, and says the objects may have been an illusion caused by two commercial airplanes. But those who saw the lights don't buy that explanation.

"It's an unidentified flying object," insisted a former Air Force technician.

Some in Stephenville are a bit embarrassed about all the attention. "It's crazy," said one teenage girl in town.

"A lot of folks aren't used to this kind of thing. They are not UFO nuts or anything like that around here," said City Councilman Mark Murphy.

Like it or not, all eyes are now trained on the sky over Stephenville to see whether any mysterious flying objects make a return.

Court allows MSNBC to bar Kucinich

By KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writer
LAS VEGAS - The Nevada Supreme Court said Tuesday MSNBC can exclude Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich from a candidate debate.

Lawyers for NBC Universal Inc., had asked the high court to overturn a lower court order that the cable TV news network include the Ohio congressman or pull the plug on broadcasting the debate Tuesday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

The state Supreme Court's unanimous order said that blocking the debate unless Kucinich got to participate would be "an unconstitutional prior restraint" on the news network's First Amendment rights. The justices also said the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Kucinich's participation even though he first requested and was denied relief from the Federal Communications Commission.

"It's a matter of being on stage and answering questions. That's the issue," lawyer Bill McGaha argued for Kucinich during a hearing before four justices in Las Vegas. Three other justices participated by closed-circuit video conference from Carson City.

Donald Campbell, a Las Vegas lawyer representing NBC Universal, accused Kucinich of trying to make a jurisdictional "end run" around the FCC and federal courts by suing in Nevada state court to be added to the debate.

FCC broadcast rules do not apply to cable TV networks, Campbell said, adding that forcing MSNBC to add Kucinich or not broadcast the debate amounted to prior restraint and would be a "clear and unequivocal" violation of First Amendment press freedom.

"Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Campbell said in his appeal.

Kucinich emerged from the hearing saying he would make no comment until the justices ruled. He headed for a rally in front of the Las Vegas meeting hall where the debate was scheduled.

Jeremy Gaines, a spokesman for MSNBC, said the cable network also was awaiting a decision from the court. He declined further comment.

Campbell said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Kucinich drew less than 2 percent of the Democratic vote in the New Hampshire primary, after attracting little support in the Iowa caucuses.

Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel

By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Thursday 10 January 2008

Washington - Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea", new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships.

The Iranian commander is heard to say, "Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian navy patrol boat." He then requests the "side numbers" of the U.S. warships. A voice with a U.S. accent replies, "This is coalition warship 73. I am operating in international waters."

The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S. warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge of firing at them when they broke off.

Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC's Jonathan Karl quoting a Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats "were a heartbeat from being blown up".

Bush administration officials seized on the incident to advance the portrayal of Iran as a threat and to strike a more threatening stance toward Iran. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley declared Wednesday that the incident "almost involved an exchange of fire between our forces and Iranian forces". President George W. Bush declared during his Mideast trip Wednesday that there would be "serious consequences" if Iran attacked U.S. ships and repeated his assertion that Iran is "a threat to world peace".

Central to the depiction of the incident as involving a threat to U.S. warships is a mysterious pair of messages that the sailor who heard them onboard immediately interpreted as saying, "I am coming at you...", and "You will explode after a few minutes." But the voice in the audio clearly said "I am coming to you," and the second message was much less clear.

Furthermore, as the New York Times noted Thursday, the recording carries no ambient noise, such as the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind, which should have been audible if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small Iranian boats.

A veteran U.S. naval officer who had served as a surface warfare officer aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Gulf sent a message to the New York Times on-line column "The Lede" Wednesday pointing out that in the Persian Gulf, the "bridge-to-bridge" radio channel used to communicate between ships "is like a bad CB radio" with many people using it for "hurling racial slurs" and "threats". The former officer wrote that his "first thought" was that the message "might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft".

Pentagon officials admitted to the Times that they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from another source

The five Iran boats involved were hardly in a position to harm the three U.S. warships. Although Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed," he failed to note that these are tiny boats carrying only a two- or three-man crew and that they are normally armed only with machine guns that could do only surface damage to a U.S. ship.

The only boat that was close enough to be visible to the U.S. ships was unarmed, as an enlarged photo of the boat from the navy video clearly shows.

The U.S. warships were not concerned about the possibility that the Iranian boats were armed with heavier weapons capable of doing serious damage. Asked by a reporter whether any of the vessels had anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, answered that none of them had either of those two weapons.

"I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said Cosgriff.

The edited Navy video shows a crewman issuing an initial warning to approaching boats, but the footage of the boats maneuvering provides no visual evidence of Iranian boats "making a run on U.S. ships" as claimed by CBS news Wednesday in its report based on the new video.

Vice Adm. Cosgriff also failed to claim any run toward the U.S. ships following the initial warning. Cosgriff suggested that the Iranian boat's manoeuvres were "unduly provocative" only because of the "aggregate of their manoeuvres, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water".

He described the objects dropped by the Iranian boat as being "white, box-like objects that floated". That description indicates that the objects were clearly not mines, which would have been dark and would have sunk immediately. Cosgriff indicated that the ships merely "passed by them safely" without bothering to investigate whether they were explosives of some kind.

The apparent absence of concern on the part of the U.S. ships' commanding officers about the floating objects suggests that they recognised that the Iranians were engaging in a symbolic gesture having to do with laying mines.

Cosgriff's answers to reporters' questions indicated that the story promoted earlier by Pentagon officials that one of the U.S . ships came very close to firing at the Iranian boats seriously distorted what actually happened. When Cosgriff was asked whether the crew ever gave warning to the Iranian boats that they "could come under fire", he said the commanding officers "did not believe they needed to fire warning shots".

As for the report circulated by at least one Pentagon official to the media that one of the commanders was "close to firing", Cosgriff explained that "close to" meant that the commander was "working through a series of procedures". He added, "[I]n his mind, he might have been closing in on that point."

Despite Cosgriff's account, which contradicted earlier Pentagon portrayals of the incident as a confrontation, not a single news outlet modified its earlier characterisation of the incident. After the Cosgriff briefing, Associated Press carried a story that said, " U.S. forces were taking steps toward firing on the Iranians to defend themselves, said the U.S. naval commander in the region. But the boats - believed to be from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy - turned and moved away, officials said."

That was quite different from what Cosgriff actually said.

In its story covering the Cosgriff briefing, Reuters cited "other Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity" as saying that "a U.S. captain was in the process of ordering sailors to open fire when the Iranian boats moved away" - a story that Cosgriff had specifically denied.

---------

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

NBC to appeal ? Who's Afraid Of Big Bad Dennis?

If the candidate is excluded, judge threatens injunction stopping debate

The Associated Press Jan. 15, 2008

LAS VEGAS - NBC News said Monday it will appeal a judge's ruling rather than include Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich in a candidates' debate in Nevada.

"We disagree with the judge's decision and are filing an appeal," said a statement provided by Jeremy Gaines, a vice president for MSNBC, sponsor of Tuesday night's debate. Gaines said the parent network would seek an immediate hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court.

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

Hours earlier, Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson ruled that Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, must be allowed to participate. If he is excluded, Thompson said he would issue an injunction to stop the televised debate.

Kucinich's lawyer had argued that MSNBC at first invited him to participate, then last week reversed course and told him he could not.

A lawyer for the network said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

Thompson called it a matter of fairness and said Nevada voters will benefit if they hear from more than just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

The cable network and the Democratic Party have promoted the debate as a chance for the candidates to be questioned about issues from Nevada's minority communities. Tim Russert and Brian Williams are the scheduled moderators.

Kucinich learned of the judge's decision when he was handed a note during an interview with Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto.

"Holy smokes! I just found out. I have to get off the phone now. I have to make plans to go to Nevada," Kucinich said.

MSNBC and the Democratic Party are calling the 9 p.m. EST debate a chance to hear issues from Nevada's minority communities. NBC's Brian Williams and Tim Russert are moderating.

Hand Count In New Hampshire !

(01-11) 13:57 PST Concord, N.H. (AP)

New Hampshire officials said Friday they will conduct a hand recount of the state's Democratic and Republican presidential primaries at the request of two minor candidates.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who received less than 1.4 percent of the vote, and Republican Albert Howard of Michigan, who received about 44 votes statewide, are expected to pay a $2,000 fee to start the process, state officials said.

"Mr. Howard has satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican primary," Secretary of State William Gardner said in a statement. Officials said they expected a check from Kucinich to arrive late Friday, satisfying his requirements for the request.

Gardner is preparing an estimate of the recount's cost, which the requesting candidates must pay before it will begin. He said he expects to start the recount Wednesday, and will announce further details once the payments have been received.

Under state law, if a candidate finished more than 3 percentage points behind the winner, the candidate must pay the cost of a recount. The cost is refunded if the recount finds the requester won or finished within 1 percentage point of the winner.

The last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the presidential primary was in 1980.

Kucinich sent a letter to Gardner Thursday requesting the recount, citing "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of the primary results.

The top vote-getters in Tuesday's primary were Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, with 39 percent and Republican Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, with 37 percent.

Mikki & Yo Track Ancestral Origin

Official Press Release from the PBS Pressroom:

In honor of Black History Month and in conjunction with the PBS series African American Lives 2, Sacramento Kings center Mikki Moore and Sacramento Monarchs forward / center Yolanda Griffith participated in maternal DNA testing today at the Kings/ Monarchs Practice Facility. Tune into KVIE (PBS) beginning February 6 for
African American Lives 2. Also be on the lookout for the feature story running in the Sacramento Bee in February.

The Genetic Genealogy test is done to help people trace their ancestral origins. The test sample was collected by each player scraping the inside of their mouth to collect buccal (cheek) cells.

Because DNA studies have shown people share a common ancestor with those who lived in Africa 50,000 to 200,000 years ago, both players thought it would be a great opportunity to learn more about their ancestral past.

-------------------------

AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES 2
Wednesdays, February 6-13, 2008
9:00-11:00 p.m. ET
– Four-Part Series Explores Roots, Race and Identity Through Ancestry of Remarkable Individuals, Including Maya Angelou, Bliss Broyard, Don Cheadle, Morgan Freeman, Peter Gomes, Kathleen Henderson, Linda Johnson Rice, Tom Joyner, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Chris Rock and Tina Turner –

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“These stories of adversity, sacrifice, achievement and
empowerment transcend the realm of color with a universal resonance.”
– Henry Louis Gates Jr., series host and participant
Building on the widespread acclaim of AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES (2006) and OPRAH’S ROOTS (2007), AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES 2 will again journey deep into the African-American experience to reveal the triumphs and tragedies within the family histories of an all-new group of remarkable participants. Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. returns as series host, guiding genealogical investigations down through the 20th century, Reconstruction, slavery and early U.S. history, and presenting cutting-edge genetic analysis that locates participants’ ancestors in Africa, Europe and America. AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES 2 airs Wednesdays, February 6-13, 2008, 9:00-11:00 p.m. ET on PBS.

“These discoveries about our ancestors are fascinating stories that everyone, regardless of race, can identify with and draw inspiration from,” said Gates, Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. “They’re stories that together offer a new understanding of not only the African-American experience, but also of race in America.”

Joining Professor Gates in the new broadcast are poet Maya Angelou, author Bliss Broyard, actor Don Cheadle, actor Morgan Freeman, theologian Peter Gomes, publisher Linda Johnson Rice, athlete Jackie Joyner-Kersee, radio personality Tom Joyner, comedian Chris Rock, rock ’n’ roll legend Tina Turner and college administrator Kathleen Henderson, who was selected from more than 2,000 applicants to have her family history researched and DNA tested alongside the series’ well-known guests.

“Through even greater depth of research and more powerful storytelling, all of the stories in AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES 2 share a common thread — they show the value of knowing who you are and where you come from,” added Gates. “And now, the inclusion of Kathleen’s story shows that viewers everywhere can take this same journey.”

Episode one, “The Road Home” (2/6, 9:00 p.m. ET), focuses on participants’ ancestors in the early 20th century. Stories include the tragic account of Tom Joyner’s great-uncles who, in 1915, were convicted by an all-white jury and executed in the electric chair for a crime that new evidence suggests they did not commit, and Bliss Broyard, who lived her life unaware that her father, renowned New York Times critic Anatole Broyard, was a light-skinned black man who chose to “pass” as white. She learned of her African-American roots upon her father’s death in 1990.

Episode two, “A Way Out of No Way” (2/6, 10:00 p.m. ET), continues tracing the guests’ lineages back through the late 1800s to the Civil War, featuring such stories as Chris Rock’s maternal great-great-grandfather, Julius Caesar Tingman, a black Civil War veteran who was twice elected to the South Carolina State Legislature; and Don Cheadle’s ancestors, who had been enslaved by Chickasaw Indians and brought to Oklahoma on the tail end of the “Trail of Tears,” the forced relocation of Native Americans during the 1830s.

Episode three, “We Come From People” (2/13, 9:00 p.m. ET), reveals stories of participants’ ancestors during the early years of the United States, such as a riveting account of life in slavery by Morgan Freeman’s great-grandmother, discovered within the records of the Depression-era Works Progress Administration, and Peter Gomes’ ancestors, who were freed and supported by Quaker families in Virginia in the late 1700s.

DNA analysis leads to fascinating discoveries about participants’ lineages in episode four, “The Past Is Another Country” (2/13, 10:00 p.m. ET). A groundbreaking study links Professor Gates to a powerful ancient Irish warlord, while evidence suggests Peter Gomes’ direct paternal line traces back to a Portuguese Jew who fled the country in the early 1500s to escape the Inquisition.

A book by Professor Gates, In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, will be published by Crown, a division of Random House, in spring 2008. Incorporating the family histories of all the participants from AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES, OPRAH’S ROOTS and AFRICAN AMERICAN LIVES 2, the book presents further discoveries not included in the broadcasts while weaving the narratives into an unprecedented tapestry of the African-American experience. In cooperation with seven public television stations across the country, a far-reaching educational outreach effort will guide K-through-12 teachers in the use of the broadcast program, Web site and educational print materials in standards-based classroom instruction.

Subject: Breaking News: MSNBC debate must include Kucinich

Breaking News: Judge says MSNBC debate
must include Kucinich

-from the Los Angeles Times:

A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.

Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking to be included just this morning.

The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness and Nevada voters would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that invitation was rescinded last week ... So set up a fourth podium.

Andrew Malcolm, correspondent - The Los Angeles Times

Dear Kucinich Supporters,

FINALLY, the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of corporate media control has prevailed. And without your support, your phone calls and emails and letters, this issue might never have attracted the national attention it has.

BUT, while Dennis is preparing to go to Nevada - court order in hand - to represent your interests, expect that MSNBC, NBC, its parent company GE, and dozens of other alphabet-soup corporations in the nation will start filing appeals on top of appeals to keep Dennis out of the debate and try to deplete our limited financial resources. Multi-billion corporations don't want Dennis on that stage Tuesday night. And they will do everything; spend anything they need to make sure that his voice - your voice - is not heard. The law is on our side, but the dollars are on theirs.

NOW, more than ever, we need your continued financial support to stop megalomania-media from robbing you of your Constitutional rights, taking control of the American electoral process, and hand-picking the candidates they want you to choose from.

Defend your rights today. Make a contribution today to the only candidate who is willing to challenge the powerful interests that want to control you.

They will try to outspend us, but, with your help, they won't be able to out-fight us. Please, contribute whatever you can to defend your rights, and ask everyone you know to do the same.

We won today, but tomorrow is another battle.

Strength through Peace
Kucinich Campaign

Faraway Planets Collided, Study Suggests

Jeanna Bryner
Staff Writer SPACE.com
Texas — An extrasolar planet about one-fourth the heft of Jupiter might have formed from the collision and merger of two planets, astronomers announced today.

Known as 2M1207B, the object orbits a brown-dwarf star called 2M1207A located 170 light-years from Earth and seen in the direction of the constellation Centaurus.

Astronomers have long puzzled over the mysterious object, which seems to fall outside the spectrum of physical possibility. Its temperature, age and brightness don't match up with what astrophysical theory would predict.

"This is a strange enough object that it needs a strange explanation," said Eric Mamajek of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mamajek presented the research here at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Researchers have debated since 2004 what exactly the object is, however — whether it's a planet or perhaps a brown dwarf, which is a failed star and not a planet. Past estimates put the object's mass at about five times that of Jupiter. However, the new study, if accurate, suggests the object weighs less than Jupiter. If the new model is correct, it would mean 2M1207B formed in a similar fashion to a planet. It would also means that a 2004 picture of the object would go down in history as the first photo of a planet outside our solar system.

Feverish

This titanic-collision theory would explain why 2M1207B is at a feverish 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit (1,315 degrees Celsius) even though it's had possibly 8 million years or so since formation to cool off. It should have cooled to 1,300 degrees F (704 degrees C) by now.

A smashup between a Saturn-sized gas giant and a planet about three times the size of Earth could explain the extra heat.

From nudges to colossal crashes, such encounters are common.

"Most, if not all, planets in our solar system were hit early in their history," Mamajek said. Perhaps most notably, a collision created Earth's moon. And another knocked Uranus on its side. "It's quite likely that major collisions happen in other young planetary systems, too."

Dusty veil

In addition, 2M1207B is 10 times fainter than expected for its temperature. In 2006, astronomers suggested a dusty, edge-on disk curtained some of its light from view. Now, Mamajek and his colleague Michael Meyer of the University of Arizona propose 2M1207B is small, only about the size of Saturn, and so has less surface area radiating energy.

They estimate the object has a radius of 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) with a mass of about 80 times that of Earth. And the only way for such a small object to remain so hot so long after its birth is if it suffered a recent, titanic collision that heated it, they say.

Mamajek added, however, a planet collision may not be the correct explanation for the odd traits of 2M1207B. Still, he expects astronomers will find such examples of colliding planets by the next generation of ground-based telescopes.


"Hot, post-collision planets might be a whole new class of objects we will see with the Giant Magellan Telescope," he said.

US to send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press
The Pentagon is preparing to send at least 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan in April to bolster efforts to hold off another expected Taliban offensive in the spring, military officials said Wednesday.

The move represents a shift in Pentagon thinking that has been slowly developing after months of repeated insistence that the U.S. was not inclined to fill the need for as many as 7,500 more troops that commanders have asked for there. Instead, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressed NATO allies to contribute the extra forces.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that a proposal will go before Gates on Friday that would send a ground and air Marine contingent as well as a Marine battalion — together totaling more than 3,000 forces — to southern Afghanistan for a "one-time, seven-month deployment."

Gates, he said, will want to review the request, and is not likely to make a final decision on Friday.

"He will take it and consider it thoroughly before approving it," said Morrell. "I just want to get people away from the idea that this is going to be imminently approved by the secretary."

He said Gates "has some more thinking to do on this matter because it's a serious allocation of forces."

Morrell added that Gates' thinking on the issue has "progressed a bit" over time as it became clear that it was politically untenable for many of the NATO nations to contribute more combat troops to the fight.

"The commanders need more forces there. Our allies are not in the position to provide them. So we are now looking at perhaps carrying a bit of that additional load," the spokesman said.

Morrell said the move was aimed at beating back "another Taliban offensive," that is expected this spring — as has occurred in previous years.

When Gates was in Afghanistan last month, commanders made it clear they needed the additional forces.

Last year was the most violent since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The number of attacks has surged, including roadside bombings and suicide assaults.

Currently there are about 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, including 14,000 with the NATO-led coalition. The other 13,000 U.S. troops are training the Afghan forces and hunting al-Qaida terrorists.

Third Teacher This Year in Single Texas School District Accused of Student Sex Abuse

Third Time No Charm for School District

By DAVID SCHOETZ

For the third time this year, a Texas school district is assuring parents that their children are safe after a teacher was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a student.

In the latest incident, Shannon Hrozek, 42, of Houston, was charged with sexual abuse of a child after police say a co-worker caught her performing oral sex on a 16-year-old boy inside a dark, locked classroom at Westfield High School. Hrozek will be in court today.

Hrozek's arrest comes less than a month after Carlos Hector Valencia, another Westfield teacher, was accused by an 18-year-old girl of inappropriate touching inside a campus barn where the school houses livestock. The alleged incident took place in November. Valencia, a Spanish teacher, will be arraigned later this month.

In October, 33-year-old Alison Mosbeck, a teacher at Dueitt Middle School, was arrested and charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a child and having an improper teacher relationship with a student. Mosbeck allegedly began a relationship with a boy after initially asking him where she could buy some marijuana, according to a court affidavit. She brought him to a festival, where a sexual relationship began.

Both schools are part of the Spring Independent School District, which serves about 32,000 students in Harris County, a suburb of Houston. The school district, described as among the fastest growing in Texas, has about 5,000 employees, the majority of them teachers.

But the size of the district hardly justifies the spate of incidents, school officials said, even if they are isolated.

"It happening one time isn't acceptable," Regina Curry, a spokeswoman for the school district, told ABC News. "Certainly happening three times is not acceptable."

None of the three teachers have been convicted of the charges they face and each is out of the school system pending the outcome of their respective cases.

Curry pointed out that reporting measures in place in the school district helped expose at least one of the the suspected teachers. In Valencia's case, the student involved reported the inappropriate touching allegations Nov. 26 through an anonymous online system.

Valencia, according to the affidavit, allegedly began telling an 18-year-old honors student who regularly did chores for him in his classroom that she was "sexy" and "hot." On Nov. 1, he accompanied the student to the campus barn, where she helps raise livestock for a school group. There, the girl told investigators, he pulled her pants down and shirt up and assaulted her.

Valencia acknowledged to authorities that he had engaged in sexual conduct with the girl inside the barn twice, according to the affidavit.

A letter sent to parents of Westfield High School students celebrated the student's courage in coming forward and announced that the teacher had first been suspended and later fired.

In Mosbeck's case, a mother of one of the victim's friends reportedly contacted authorities after she saw text messages on the student's cell phone from Mosbeck, a mother of two. The teacher was looking for drugs, an affidavit alleged. It also stated that Mosbeck entered into a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old that prosecutors said lasted from fall 2006 to at least March 2007.

Mosbeck was initially put on paid leave, but has since resigned, according to Curry, who pointed to Mosbeck's case as an example of an alert parent taking action.

Hrozek's charge may be considered the most brazen alleged abuse by a Spring school district educator. The probable cause affidavit stated that a school janitor notified an assistant principal Jan. 3 about a teacher inside a classroom with a student and the lights off after the school day had ended.

The administrator used a master key to open the door and discovered Hrozek performing oral sex on a 16-year-old student from one of her English classes. Hrozek, for now, is on paid leave from her teaching position.

In Hrozek's case, Curry said, other school staff members took swift action to confront the teacher involved.

Despite reporting methods in these cases that the district may consider positive, Curry acknowledged that the school district shares in the responsibility for the incidents  even if that means exposing teachers who are involved.

"When parents send their children to us, it's our job to protect their students," Curry said. "If a person needs to be exposed, the person needs to be exposed, so they can't just go down the road to their next employment." None of the three teachers had previous criminal records that would have made them a threat to students.

Curry emphasized the importance of students and staff members reporting abuse and said that the problems in the Spring school district are happening in Texas and across the country.

The Associated Press tallied reports of sex offenses by teachers in the fall and found that there were more than 2,500 cases nationwide over four years that had resulted in some form of punishment. Of course, there are nearly 3 million public school teachers nationwide, a statistic that enforces the adage "one bad apple doesn't spoil a bunch."

Experts reacted to the AP's finding, claiming that most abuse is never even reported in the first place.

Curry agreed.

"While it's very painful for us to deal with any one of these situations, we've got to confront it," Curry said. "We've got to deal with it so other people will come forward."

Settlement in Central Park Protest Case

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press
The city settled a lawsuit brought by anti-war groups who were barred from staging a big rally in Central Park during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Lawyers for the National Council of Arab Americans and the Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coalition said the settlement, announced Tuesday, raised the possibility that the park's Great Lawn could again be used for large public demonstrations.

While the city denied any wrongdoing, saying it was only trying to preserve the lawn when it barred the demonstration, the deal also requires it to pay $25,000 in damages to each of the groups and the costs of bringing the lawsuit.

"It's a hands-down total and complete victory," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that brought the lawsuit.

"The lawsuit is not merely about the use of the Great Lawn of Central Park," she said. "It serves as an historic challenge to the privatization of public space."

The city had begun limiting access for large groups after spending $18.2 million in the mid-1990s to restore the Great Lawn.

The groups had accused the city of discrimination in its decisions about what organizations were entitled to use the lawn. The city has approved permits for events such as annual free performances by the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic, as well as other concerts.

The city's law office said it wanted to avoid a long legal battle and believes "that the parks department properly denied a permit to the two plaintiff organizations in 2004."

The deal calls for the city to pay for an independent study to decide if the current 50,000-person limit can be modified so that larger events can be held on the lawn without damaging it.

The deal came after a federal judge last year said city regulations governing large park rallies addressed legitimate concerns, but there was evidence supporting the groups' claim that the city rejected requests for some permits but accepted others.

Noriega loses bid to block extradition

By: Agence France Presse

A US federal judge rejected Wednesday a petition by Panamanian ex-strongman Manuel Noriega, and said his extradition to France to face money laundering charges can go forward.

Judge Paul Huck ruled there was no new evidence to suggest Noriega would be denied the benefits he has in the United States as a prisoner of war.

"There is a present commitment by France to give him not the level of POW but the benefits of a POW, and one of them is repatriation," Huck wrote.

Noriega, 73, in September completed a 17-year US prison term on drug charges. He was to be released and flown to France, but has remained in custody while appeals against his extradition were heard.

A French court sentenced Noriega to 10 years in prison in 1999 after his conviction in absentia on various charges, but authorities say he would be given a new trial on allegations that he deposited 3.15 million dollars in cocaine trafficking profits in French bank accounts in the 1980s.

Jon May, Noriega's attorney, insisted that: "France will not give Noriega treatment of prisoner of war and the general will not be given the benefits of the Geneva Conventions."

"One of these benefits is immediate repatriation," said another Noriega lawyer, Frank Rubino, arguing that the one-time strongman should be sent back to Panama City as he served his US prison sentence.

Also in September, another judge, William Hoeveler, ruled there was no reason to oppose Noriega's extradition to France but did not rule out the possibility the defense might file suit separately over what guarantees France may provide him.

Noriega, an army general, held sway in Panama from 1984 until he surrendered on January 3, 1990 to US troops who had invaded the country three weeks earlier.

A US Cold War ally and a one-time CIA informant whose involvement with drug trafficking eventually became an embarrassment for Washington, Noriega was flown on a military plane to Miami, where he was tried on charges of drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering.

He was sentenced to 40 years but the sentence was later reduced.

Noriega's lawyers have sought to have him extradited not to France but instead to Panama, where he faces prosecution over the disappearances and murders of opposition members.

Panama has called for Noriega's repatriation, but did not take legal action to block the French extradition request.