Mood:  surprised

Times employee arrested in sting

Metropolitan Police today charged the director of human resources at The Washington Times with one count of attempting to entice a minor on the Internet.

Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested at 9:45 p.m. yesterday in the 1300 block of Brentwood Road NE, where police said he had arranged to meet who he thought was a 13-year-old girl. He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl.

"When he went there, he was met by police," police spokesman Sgt. Joe Gentile said.

As set out in an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court today, Mr. Casseday, whose home address was listed in the unit block of Manner House Drive in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., initiated a conversation with the undercover officer in an online chat room.

The officer identified himself as a 13-year-old girl in the District, and Mr. Casseday identified himself as a 53-year-old man who usually lives in New York but was spending time in the District, the affidavit states.

The conversation included discussion of an explicit sexual nature.

In the course of the conversation, Mr. Casseday sent via e-mail several graphic photographs of himself, and the police officer sent him a photograph described in the complaint as of "a young child in a bathing suit." The two agreed to meet at 9:30 p.m.

Brian Bauman, a spokesman for The Washington Times, said that Mr. Casseday had been suspended without pay pending the results of the investigation.

"The Washington Times strictly prohibits any illegal activities on our property," Mr. Bauman said. "This is a law-enforcement matter and we are cooperating with officials to the best of our abilities and it would be inappropriate to comment any further since it is in the process of investigation."

It is not clear from the affidavit whether the online conversation took place on company property or on a company-owned computer.

Lt. Patricia Williams, head of the police department's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, declined to discuss the specifics of the case because it is still under investigation.

Lt. Williams said the four-officer task force has been conducting active undercover investigations since May. Police have made nine arrests of persons going online and arranging to meet minors for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations.

She said that in all cases the persons charged with the offenses have initiated the conversations and requested the meetings. "We will not encourage, we will not start or initiate a sex conversation," Lt. Williams said.

Federal law prohibits using the Internet to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison without parole and a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison without parole.

The Washington Times ** Times employee arrested in sting  -- Also at:
ABC Radio - WMAL 640 ~ Assoc. Press ** Washington Times Employee Busted in Internet Sting

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:23 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 28 September 2006 3:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  mischievious

Teens' T-Shirts Make Educators Squirm

Suggestive Messages Challenge Dress Codes

Ashli Walker rifled through a rack of designer T-shirts one recent afternoon, pondering which one she should buy and wear the next day to Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Prince George's County. The big black one that read, "TRUST ME..I'M SINGLE"? Or the snug white T-shirt emblazoned with, "I KNOW WHAT BOYS WANT"?

They're blatantly sexual, occasionally clever and often loaded with double meanings, forcing school administrators and other students to read provocations stripped across the chest, such as "yes, but not with u!," "Your Boyfriend Is a Good Kisser" and "two boys for every girl." Such T-shirts also are emblematic of the kind of sleazy-chic culture some teenagers now inhabit, in which status can be defined by images of sexual promiscuity that previous generations might have considered unhip.

The T-shirts, which school officials say are racier than ever, are posing dress-code dilemmas on Washington area campuses. School systems typically ban clothing that expresses vulgarity, obscenity or lewdness or that promotes cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or weapons. For instance, T-shirts advertising Budweiser or the movie "Scarface," with Al Pacino holding a tommy gun, are taboo.

But sexually suggestive T-shirts often fall into a gray area that requires officials to evaluate one shirt at a time. Some messages are considered harmless -- "Single and Ready to Mingle" or "My Boyfriend Is a Good Kisser." Others are not.

"We try not to make a huge deal out of it, but we also want to be protecting the school environment," said Rick Mondloch, an associate principal at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax County, who recently ordered a "Pimps" shirt turned inside out. "These shirts are more risque than they were even five years ago and probably a little more blunt, so you have to be attuned to it."

Robynne Prince, an assistant principal at Eleanor Roosevelt, said: "If there are shirts with obvious sexual connotations, then we know exactly what we're going to do, but there are some students who push the envelope."

For teenagers who chafe at clothing rules for midriffs and cleavage, "attitude" shirts offer a chance to show some skin, without showing skin.

"We have so many dress codes or whatever, so the T-shirts are like us rebelling against the teachers and principals because we can't wear what we want," said Ashli, 17, a junior at Eleanor Roosevelt, in Greenbelt, who said she does not want to have sex until she is married. "I think most girls and boys get the T-shirts because they're funny and they draw attention to you. I don't really care what guys say."

Her mother, Yakini Ajanaku, does not mind her daughter's T-shirts because she said Ashli wears them to be ironic. "I know she's a sweet girl, and I know that she's very conservative and is not sexually active," Ajanaku said. "Other people would probably get the wrong message, but I am pretty much like, 'Who cares what they think?' "

In a culture that bombards teenagers with sexual imagery -- think of rapper 50 Cent's song "Candy Shop," about the pleasures of consuming lollipops -- the T-shirts are just another way to revel in raunchy entertainment, without necessarily getting physical, according to students interviewed for this story.

"It gives me a little edge, but it's just to get a rise out of people, because people know me," said Allison Wynn, 17, a senior at Osbourn Park High School in Prince William County. "They're just like in every ad you see in magazines, people wearing these clothes or they're always making out. It's how you want to be. My boyfriend thinks it's funny." She said she is fond of wearing a shirt that says, "Don't Call Me a Cowgirl Until You See Me Ride."

Joanne Wynn said her daughter's shirts are humorous. "If it's not in good taste, I don't let [her] wear it," she said.

The T-shirts highlight a paradox about this generation: Even as more teenagers absorb ubiquitous sexual messages, federal data show that they report having less sex than their predecessors.

Although a recent National Center for Health Statistics survey found that more than half of all teenagers engage in oral sex, teen pregnancy rates have plummeted since the early 1990s. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high school students who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 54 percent in 1991 to 47 percent in 2005.

"It's a puzzling picture," said Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in the District. "When someone sees a girl or boy in provocative clothing, they make a lot of assumptions about what's going on, which may or may not be true -- which really is the point, isn't it?"

Suggestive T-shirts have been around for years. A decade ago, some teenagers sported shirts that featured Coed Naked sporting events or Mr. Zog's Sex Wax. But school officials now are dealing with shirts that are much more blunt. It's up to them to determine what's innocuous, what's mildly suggestive and what, frankly, is truly awful.

At Potomac Senior High School in Prince William, a girl recently wore a black T-shirt parodying the "Got Milk?" ad, with sexual slang replacing the word "milk." Steve Bryson, the school's administrative assistant, brought the girl into his office. "I asked her, 'Why would you wear something like that?' And she said: 'I don't know. My dad knows that I have it,'" he recalled. "So I called the dad, and, of course, he had no idea. He said, 'Throw it away.' "

One popular merchant of suggestive shirts is Hollister Co., a chain owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. Its shirts say such things as "two boys for every girl" and "FLIRTING MY WAY TO THE TOP."

Larissa Olson, 20, a Hollister employee at Potomac Mills Mall in Woodbridge, said she wonders why girls buy them. "I'm like, 'She has no respect for herself.' "

Asked about the messages his company markets to teenagers, Thomas D. Lennox, Abercrombie & Fitch's vice president of corporate communications, said, "Our T-shirts are sometimes controversial, which we're fine with." He declined to elaborate.

When students are caught with shirts that cross the line, they are usually given a school T-shirt or asked to turn theirs inside out. Administrators said evaluating the shirts can be awkward because the words are usually printed right over a student's chest. Sometimes students stride quickly past or take other evasive maneuvers to conceal a questionable T-shirt.

"It's almost like a live-action Pac-Man game. You see them coming through the hall, and they're trying to avoid you," said Myca Gray, an assistant principal at Gar-Field Senior High School in Prince William.

At Eleanor Roosevelt, students caught with over-the-line shirts sometimes must wear school shirts that mark them as "dress code violators." One day, Assistant Principal LaTanya Catron saw sophomore Paula Akanni wearing a tight black T-shirt that said, "I AM TOO HOT TO HANDLE." The word "Hot" had gold studs on the letters.

"Are you too hot to handle?" Catron asked with a smile. "Is that for the boys?

"It's for nobody," Akanni replied, walking away.

Most parents interviewed said that they would rather not see their kids wear the racy shirts but that they sometimes give in. Rosa Pulley tried to order her daughter Keana, 17, a Gar-Field senior, to return a T-shirt that says, "yes, but not with u!" But Keana insisted. "I have to pick my battles," the mother said. "Okay, I don't like it. She's wearing it, but it could be something worse."

Keana said her shirt's message was ambiguous. "It could mean, 'Yes, I want to go to the movies, but not with you,' " she said. "If I wanted to be sexy, like on MTV, I would just buy low-cut tight shirts."

The T-shirt trend appears to have no racial or ethnic boundaries. Girls appear to wear them more often. Guys say there is nothing confusing about the messages. "When I see a T-shirt that says, '100% single,' then you're compelled to go up and talk to them," said Paul Barrett, 17, a senior at Osbourn Park. "But if they're not single, it'd kind of [tick] me off, like they're a tease. I wouldn't let my girlfriend wear that."

At the boutique in Prince George's, Ashli decided what she would wear to school. Back to the rack went "TRUST ME..I'M SINGLE." She took "I KNOW WHAT BOYS WANT" and headed the register.

"I like this one," she said, "because I have shoes to go with it."

Washington Post ~ Ian Shapira ** Teens' T-Shirts Make Educators Squirm

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:10 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

Gallup Finds Kooks on Gas Price Conspiracy

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's a story in USA Today that is actually an AP story. (Laughing) It's just laughable. Folks, it's not worth getting all upset about. "Many Americans look for political manipulation as gasoline prices plunge - There is no mystery or manipulation behind the recent fall in gasoline prices, analysts say. Try telling that to many motorists. Almost half of Americans believe the plunge at the pump has more to do with politics and the November elections, than economics. Retired farmer Jim Mohr of Lexington, Ill., rattled off a tankful of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including the end of the summer travel season and the fact that no major hurricanes have disrupted Gulf of Mexico output. 'But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected,' Mohr, 66, said while filling up for $2.17 a gallon. 'They think getting the prices down is going to help get some more incumbents re-elected.' According to a new Gallup poll, 42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration 'deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.' Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe the conspiracy theory; 5% said they had no opinion. Not surprising, almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day are registered Democrats, according to Gallup."

They're totally nuts, and I think the nuts have now infected the Drive-By Media. Where do they find these people? How do they do it? How does Gallup go out and find the world's dumbest people to talk to? I'll tell you. Maybe they did steal my kook test and they gave all these poll respondents my kook test to see if they qualify. For crying out loud, how many months ago were these same people were whining and moaning and complaining about the price going up?

I didn't see any stories back then about Democrats, Gallup polls surveying Democrats who say, yeah, I think the price going up, that's a trick. The Bush administration is -- I mean -- well, wait a minute. I take it back. There were stories that thought Bush was colluding with the oil companies, with Cheney and Halliburton and all. Now the price is going down. By the way, the world oil price is still below $60. I'll tell you what, if you kooks out there want a conspiracy theory, let me give you a believable one. (Laughing) Oh they make my day every day. Here's a believable conspiracy. The Saudis are flooding the market because they know that if Democrats are elected, United States is going to pull out of the Middle East, and they're going to be overthrown by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. That's a legitimate fear they've got. So the Saudis are flooding the market to make sure -- No, they could flood the market. The Saudis are nowhere near their top production. OPEC as a unit may be. And of course how does this square with Hugo Chavez?

I mean, Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy, too, and Hugo Chavez is the newest honorary Democrat. But for all these prices to be coming down, Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy to lower prices for the November election. You people on the left, I'll tell you, we in talk radio, we hosts, there always have been kooks who call. They usually believe in psychics or Area 51 or UFOs, that sort of stuff, fake moon landings. But you people take the cake. I mean, I've been in this business since 1967, and I have never encountered the daily march to utter madness and insanity than I am seeing on the American left. And I've never seen this kind of desperation. This National Intelligence Estimate, wait 'til you see how this thing boomerangs on these people. It is going to be like a slingshot between their buttocks, folks. I am telling you -- (laughing) -- they're going to be walking around leaking like they need some Depends or something. They are so full of it, they're going to have the whole little thing popped. I'm still amazed that they actually try to do a story about people being mad that gas prices are falling.

END TRANSCRIPT
 
Read the Background Material...
(USAToday: Many Americans look for political manipulation as gasoline prices plunge)
 
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Gallup Finds Kooks on Gas Price Conspiracy

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 1:13 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries

NEW YORK -- Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.

Doctors agree that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount, but a spokesman for the restaurant industry said he was stunned the city would seek to ban a legal ingredient found in millions of American kitchens.

"Labeling is one thing, but when they totally ban a product, it goes well beyond what we think is prudent and acceptable," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the city's chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association.

He said the proposal could create havoc: Cooks would be forced to discard old recipes and scrutinize every ingredient in their pantry. A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on its shelves.

The proposal also would create a huge problem for national chains. Among the fast foods that would need to get an overhaul or face a ban: McDonald's french fries, Kentucky Fried Chicken and several varieties of Dunkin' Donuts.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy.

"It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient," Frieden said. "No one will miss it when it's gone."

A similar ban on trans fats in restaurant food has been proposed in Chicago and is still under consideration, although it has been ridiculed by some as unnecessary government meddling.

The latest version of the Chicago plan would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million, a provision aimed exclusively at fast-food giants.

A few companies have moved to eliminate trans fats on their own.

Wendy's announced in August that it had switched to a new cooking oil that contains no trans fatty acids. Crisco now sells a shortening that contains zero trans fats. Frito-Lay removed trans fats from its Doritos and Cheetos. Kraft's took trans fats out of Oreos.

McDonald's began using a trans fat-free cooking oil in Denmark after that country banned artificial trans fats in processed food, but it has yet to do so in the United States.

Walt Riker, vice president of corporate communications at McDonald's, said in a statement Tuesday that the company would review New York's proposal.

"McDonald's knows this is an important issue, which is why we continue to test in earnest to find ways to further reduce (trans fatty acid) levels," he said.

New York's health department had asked restaurants to impose a voluntary ban last year but found use of trans fats unchanged in recent surveys.

Under the New York proposal, restaurants would need to get artificial trans fats out of cooking oils, margarine and shortening by July 1, 2007, and all other foodstuffs by July 1, 2008. It would not affect grocery stores. It also would not apply to naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy.

The Board of Health has yet to approve the proposal and will not do so until at least December, Frieden said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring food labels to list trans fats in January.

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health, praised New York health officials for considering a ban, which he said could save lives.

"Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year," he said. "The federal government should have done this long ago."

Access North Ga. ~ Assoc. Press - David B. Caruso ** NYC Mulls Ban on Trans Fats in Eateries

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:31 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 12:48 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq

By Bob Cusack

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.

“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.

But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”

Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues -- especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.

Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

Democrats in the House and Senate are united in their effort to conduct more oversight of the Bush administration’s management of the Iraq war, but are not on the same page on how to fund it.

While the Senate could switch hands, political analysts say the House is more likely to flip.

Having lost the last two elections in part because of national security issues, Democratic leaders have been reluctant to spell out their exact Iraq war funding strategy.

“I don’t think the Democratic leadership should put that out at the moment,” Woolsey said.

But Democratic leaders will be under tremendous pressure from campaign donors and activists to take bold steps on Iraq should they be setting the legislative agenda in the 110th Congress.

“If we have the majority, it’ll be because of Iraq,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats have called for a reduction in troops to begin no later than the end of 2006, but as Speaker, she could have significant power over troop levels in 2007.

“[Pelosi] has consistently stated that Congress must ensure that our troops have the resources they need,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hamill.

Some Democratic congressional candidates have not embraced their leadership’s position of a troop withdrawal timetable in Iraq and conservative Democratic members in the House and Senate could also prove problematic in close budget and appropriations votes.

The Out of Iraq Caucus represents less than 40 percent of Democrats in the House. However, the group consists of many senior lawmakers, including a one Democratic leader, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), eight who are in line to chair panels, the next head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), and eight appropriators.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and the most outspoken Democrat on withdrawing from Iraq, has said he will mount a bid for majority leader should Democrats win the House in November. His bill to redeploy forces from Iraq has 105 cosponsors.

Still, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), who has a bill seeking to prohibit funds to deploy armed forces to Iraq, says Democrats “have various positions on the war” and is skeptical that leadership will adopt an approach similar to his legislation.

He noted that his bill does not have many cosponsors (it has 18), and said despite the influential members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, “we all have one vote.”

Republicans are quick to portray talk of withdrawal as a “cut-and-run” strategy as they seek to mock Democrats on homeland security weeks before Nov. 7.

The Bush administration has previously indicated that it presumes that Democrats may attempt to cut off funding for the war if they win control of Congress next year. But the political battle over the war may be fiercer than some White House officials anticipate.

According to a report in The Washington Post last month, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked, “How would they force the president to withdraw troops? Yell?”

Battling the White House on the war would be challenging, Democrats say, but they would be emboldened by the election results and Bush’s standing as a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.

Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is “easy to say and another thing to do,” according to Abercrombie.

What’s more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.

“We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

A House Democratic leadership aide said, “The bottom line is that should Democrats regain the House, Democrats will leave no soldier left behind in Iraq. As long as there’s soldiers in the battlefield, funding will continue.”

If Democrats control Congress, that funding likely would have strings attached. Most Senate Democrats backed a nonbinding measure earlier this year crafted by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that called for troops to begin to withdraw from Iraq, but the amendment did not set a withdrawal deadline. Another amendment offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) set a redeployment of troops to be substantially completed by July 1, 2007 was soundly defeated, attracting only 13 votes. The Levin amendment fell short as well, garnering 39 votes.

Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), a Democratic leader in line to become the House Budget Committee chairman if Democrats win control of the House, said last month that he does not favor an immediate withdrawal: “I think we should tell the Iraqis that we’re not going to pull out immediately. We’re seeking still some positive outcome. We won’t leave them in a lurch, but at the same time, we’re not going to be there indefinitely or forever…” Spratt is in a challenging race to keep his seat this fall.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, declined to comment for this article.

The Hill ~ Bob Cusack ** Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:49 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

Senior militant 'killed in Iraq'

British forces have killed a senior al-Qaeda fugitive in a raid on a house in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, security sources say.

Officials named the dead man as Omar al-Farouq, a top lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden in south-east Asia.

Farouq was captured in Indonesia in 2002 but escaped from a US military prison in Afghanistan last year.

Security sources say although he was hiding in Basra, al-Qaeda was not known to be actively operating in the area.

British military spokesman Maj Charlie Burbridge said Farouq, whom he called a "very, very significant man" had been tracked across Iraq to Basra.

He said about 200 troops surrounded the house, from where they came under fire.

A gun battle erupted and Farouq was killed in the exchange.

Maj Burbridge said there was apparently nobody else in the building and there were no further casualties.

Prison escape
Born in Kuwait of Iraqi parents, Farouq is believed to have joined al-Qaeda in the early 1990s and trained in Afghanistan.

He became a top lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden in south-east Asia and he is believed to have been planning a series of bomb attacks on US embassies there when he was arrested in Indonesia in 2002.

In what the BBC's Jim Muir describes as a considerable embarrassment for the US, Farouq and three others escaped from the US military prison at Bagram airbase in Kabul last year.

He even appeared in a video on an Arab TV station to boast about it.
"They will not be able to stop the march of jihad" - Omar al-Farouq, February 2006

On the Net: Profile: Omar al-Farouq --- BBC News ** Senior militant 'killed in Iraq'
Related: Gen. Michael V. Hayden: 5,000 Terrorists Killed or Captured
News Max.com ~ Ronald Kessler ** 5,000 Terrorists Rolled Up: Hayden

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 1:09 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 1:18 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

IAEA commissioner falls into water tank at Czech nuclear plant

Jihlava, South Moravia -- A US commissioner from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) emerged unharmed after falling into a water tank at the Dukovany nuclear power plant on Friday.

The daily Mlada fronta Dnes reported Friday that commissioners training at the facility were moving around the plant in a group. One of them, however, left the group and fell into the tank. The water in the tank was not radioactive.

A spokesman for the plant told MfD that the commissioner admitted he had made a mistake. "The rules say that no one is allowed to leave the group," the spokesman said.

The water tank is used in the process of loading and unloading nuclear fuel. Although the water was not in contact with any nuclear fuel during the training, the commissioner was examined to make sure he was not contaminated with radioactivity.

The Prague Daily Monitor ~ CTK News Service - Czech News Agency
** IAEA commissioner falls into water tank at Czech nuclear plant

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 11:21 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 11:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

I'M REVVING MAD

Cops claim driver's engine noise was a racist threat

A driver spent two nights in jail after being accused of "revving his car in a racist manner".

Mechanic Ronnie Hutton, 49, yesterday described his court ordeal which finally ended when prosecutors dropped the allegation of racism.

But he was still convicted of a breach of the peace for revving the engine of his £25,000 Lotus. Witnesses claimed he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement.

Ronnie, of Stirling, claims he was only revving the powerful V8 engine to avoid another £15,000 repair bill.

But off-duty Chief Inspector Eoin Jenkins thought he was targeting Muslim Isam Maigel and his wife Hana Saad. And when Jenkins, now retired, confronted Ronnie he was told to "fuck off".

On Thursday, at Stirling Sheriff court, the Crown ditched the racist part of the charge but Sheriff Andrew Cubie convicted Ronnie of breach of the peace and fined him £150.

Last night, he said: "To be convicted for revving my car in a busy street is hard to take. Does this mean anyone driving a noisy car in Scotland is now a criminal?"

Following the row last September, police officers arrived at Ronnie's home and asked him to come with them to talk about the incident. He ended up being kept in a cell for two nights before being taken to court where he was released without charge.

He complained to the fiscal and the new charges surfaced months later. He said: "The police kept me in custody over the weekend because I made the mistake of swearing at a senior officer."

In court, Mr Maigel, 28, then a student at Stirling Uni, said: "The driver came alongside and was trying to annoy us by revving his engine very, very loudly."

Using an interpreter, Hana Saad, 23, said he had degraded them "maybe because we are Muslim".

Ronnie claims he was only trying to prevent the repeat of a engine problem had had suffered earlier with the Esprit.

He said: "I've had problems with the Lotus since I bought it. I paid £15,000 for a new engine in 2003.

"As soon as I started the car the oil pressure light wouldn't go out. I accept I revved the engine - it's a V8 twin turbo and is noisy and frightening.

"I would openly apologise to this couple. I am not a racist."

He is now considering an appeal against his conviction - and also plans to sell the Lotus. He said: "It has been nothing but trouble."

He tried to annoy us by revving his engine very loudly, claimed Isam Maigel

Email The UK Sunday Mail: r.findlay@sundaymail.co.uk.
UK Sunday Mail ~ Russell Findlay ** Cops claim driver's engine noise was a racist threat

GREAT! now we have to worry about "Hate revving"
Good thing he wasn't riding a Harley.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:40 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 4:54 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals

Limousine liberals, move over. You've been out-glammed by Lear Jet liberals who burn beaucoup fossil fuels in the sky as they soar around the planet fighting global warming.

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York City. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meeting that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Bill Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global-warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95-0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Forget that Kyoto has the depth of a cowboy movie set. The storefronts look like a general store and saloon, but when actors walk through the door, there's nothing there. The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations that signed on to Kyoto amid much fanfare haven't cut their greenhouse gases. In June, the United Nations reported that only two Western European signatories -- Britain and Sweden -- are on target to meet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets, which call for a worldwide reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels in 2012.

Spain is spewing more than 40 percent above its 1990 levels. Canada is 30 percent over. By comparison, Dubya's America looks good -- emitting 16 percent more greenhouse gases than in 1990.

No wonder Lear Jet liberals love Kyoto: it allows them to look like they really, really care about the environment -- and have their contrails, too.

The big news of the CGI was an announcement by Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic Airways, that he would donate $3 billion over 10 years -- his personal profits from his airline and train businesses -- to global-warming research. That's more money than I'll ever see, or spend on R&D, so bully for Branson. Still, it should be noted that Branson said some of the money will go back to his own corporations' research. That's not quite charity.

Besides, Branson hails from a country where some enviros believe flying is worse than a mega-SUV. The Bishop of London recently referred to flying abroad on holiday as "a symptom of sin."

Europeans are acutely aware of the effect flying has on one's carbon footprint. Flying is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases in the U.K. As the Guardian reported, greenhouse-gas emissions from flying more than doubled from 1990 to 2004 to 5.5 percent of the U.K.'s emissions. It would not surprise me if some day Britain legislates a limit on short flights -- say, London to Edinburgh or Paris, trips you can make in a car or train about as fast as flying. That would be bad news for Virgin Express.

In California, Branson has a soul mate in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Critics hit the governator for signing global-warming bills while owning four Hummers, but his biggest green sin is dibs on a private plane.

Flying is my biggest item in my carbon footprint calculation and I don't own a jet. Flying is probably the biggest personal polluter for people who fly roundtrip more than 10 times a year. So, all those Hollywood stars who preen about their Priuses can see themselves as eco-virtuous only by ignoring their plane travel.

They are in a pickle. How can they be beautiful people if they don't jet to an island for a week or two of eco-tourism?

E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.
San Francisco Chronicle ~ Debra J. Saunders ** Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals
Related: Front Page Mag.com ~ Anne Henderson **
Profiles in Left-Wing Hypocrisy, Gore travels to promote his film in a private jet

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:51 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

THE HATE TRAP

DEMS SHOULD RECALL THE PRICE '90S GOP PAID

The leftist and liberal throng who cheered Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez at a Harlem church Thursday, a day after he called President Bush "the devil," are just the latest sign of a real problem for the Democratic Party and the nation: Bush-hate is now the opiate of the party's base.

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It's also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans' mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.

Fox's question was revealing: "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" Democrats said "not," 51 percent to 40 percent - where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one.

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people - suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies - detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it's hard to see why independents - hardly right-wing zealots - hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that "strong disapproval" of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn't during a war, either.)

Of course, Bush and the Republicans have helped stoke the anger with their own hardball partisanship under Clinton and during this presidency. And there is plenty in Bush's record that a loyal opposition can legitimately criticize.

Yet if Bush does fail - for instance, if Iraq spirals into civil war or the economy slides into recession - then America is in trouble. Making progress on these key issues, like others facing the country, will require bipartisan solutions, not political finger-pointing.

But even from a strictly electoral perspective, Democrats can't afford to gloat as disaster strikes. They need to be seen as a credible alternative. They are not one now. Democrats lead in generic House polls because the Republicans' popularity has slumped, but their own ratings remain almost equally dismal, making their lead a fragile one.

Hate is a fatal response in American politics. It leads to irrational, sectarian, and self-defeating behavior. Republicans, their base consumed by hatred for then-President Bill Clinton, showed this in 1998. Their impeachment drive pushed Clinton's polls into the stratosphere, yielding unprecedented mid-term gains for the Democrats.

In today's polarized environment, Democratic candidates feel pressure to respond to their angry voters to avoid the fate of centrist Senator Joseph Lieberman. He lost his Connecticut primary to a blog-powered anti-war newcomer, Ned Lamont. But the positions such candidates take may leave them out of the mainstream and unelectable. Lamont is discovering this in his general election rematch with Lieberman, who is running as an independent.

Some say a little anger is needed to fire up the Democratic base. Reality check: the Democratic base is just two-fifths of the electorate and liberals number just one voter in five. Yet the independent and moderate voters the Democrats must win over to regain a majority are repelled by candidates who pander to rageful supporters with tunnel vision. . Of course, Bush and the Republicans may have dug themselves a deep enough hole to let Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress anyway. Discontent over Iraq, the deficit, gas and health care costs, and other issues, is very real and very deep.

Yet a vengeful, subpoena-wielding, overreaching Democratic congressional majority could be just the thing to keep the White House in the hands of the other party in 2008. Ask the Republicans. It's another lesson they learned the hard way, in 1996.

Craig Charney, president of Charney Research, a New York polling firm, was senior analyst on President Clinton's 1996 re-election polling team.
NY Post ~ Craig Charney ** The Hate Trap

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:24 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 3:28 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink