Mood:  chatty

THE LEFT'S PARANOID STYLE

A generation ago, Richard Hofstadter wrote compellingly about The Paranoid Style in American Politics; and he was primarily concerned with the conspiratorial fantasies of the Right side of the political spectrum. Our present political climate however, offers much support for those who suspect that paranoid strain now infects the left side with virulent case of the same illness.

Psychologically, it is very difficult to abandon paranoia once it is taken on by a particular group, since it -- and the accompanying delusions that it generates -- serves the purpose of accounting for an unacceptable status quo. Without a scapegoat who is considered to be racially, sexually, physically, or intellectually inferior, onto which your own fears can be projected; it would be horrifying and untenable to look inside one's own heart and soul for the source of the fear.

This is the nature of projection and paranoia. The unacceptable thoughts or feelings are denied ("not owned") by the person experiencing them, and instead are projected onto another individual or -- as in this case -- a group. Thus, the person who originally had the offensive thought or feeling becomes the helpless victim of the evil "other" and they do not have to cope with the fact that the evil lies within themselves. This is the origin of almost all acts of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. It is the source of most prejudice in the world; and certain prejudices that become socially acceptable -- like the casual anti-semitism of the Middle East; or the causal anti-Republicanism adopted by the intellectual "elite" of this country.

Projection is never a good long-term psychological strategy -- nor is it healthy -- in an adult; and using such a defense mechanism represents a primitive attempt to shirk the responsibility for one's own feelings, thoughts, and actions. It causes and has caused much human misery, death, destruction and some of the most horrific acts that humans are capable of. When entire countries subscribe to a projected delusion (e.g., the "Jews" are to blame; the "Blacks" are the cause of all of our problems; "Republicans" are evil; Bush=Hitler) it can lead to genocide and other behaviors that are paranoid and psychotically delusional. Full-blown paranoia occurs when one's mind severs the connection with reality entirely.

In the most recent example of this sort of thinking on the left, the American public has been subjected to the wild ravings of pundits and politicians who compare Bush's actions to protect American citizens after 9/11 and during what many consider to be WWIV to the actions of a Hitler; calling him a fascist or hysterically moaning because the rights of terrorists -- who do not subscribe to the Geneva Convention in the first place -- may be violated. And, when the enemy speaks his usual propaganda, we can hear uttering almost word for word Democratic party talking points.

America has always had discussions about the balance of power within the three branches of government and always will. It is reasonable to have checks and balances; it is even reasonable and normal to expect that the balance will sometimes shift to the executive (in times of war, perhaps) or to the legislative (in times of peace) and even sometimes to the judiciary. This is a dynamic balance that is able to adjust to the historical circumstances and national requirements.

The hysteria and paranoia generated by the deeply hostile and inaccurate journalism of the NY Times and other media outlets -- in addition to the possible leaking of national security information that is helpful to the enemy in a time of war--is deeply troubling, because it represents a newer, more lethal expression of paranoia in American politics by the Democrats and the left.

Let us hope that the disease is not terminal -- either for them, or for the rest of us.

Dr Sanity.blogspot ~ Dr. Sanity **
The Left's Paranoid Style

I don't know which was more entertaining, the article or the comments.

One example of the great back-and-forths between sanity and libtardation in the comments page...

So we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because it would mobilize the jihadist activists. We shouldn't have free speech because things like the Mohammed cartoons mobilize the jihadist activists. We shouldn't stage operas because they might mobilize jihadist's activists. We shouldn't allow the Pope to make any comments that might mobilize jihadist activists. We shouldn't be infidels because it migh mobilize jihadist activists. We shouldn't embrace western values because it might mobilize jihadist activists. Women should be oppressed and humilited otherwise it might mobilize jihadist activits....and so on.

Your argument sucks, anonymous number 2. Why don't you just convert and be done with it?

Comments (41) <<< Some more great reading.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:25 AM EDT

Updated: Sunday, 1 October 2006 6:32 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

Harold Ford Behind in Tennessee

Republican Bob Corker now leads Democratic opponent Harold Ford Jr. by five percentage points in the race for a U.S. Senate seat from Tennessee, a new poll reveals.

In the poll by the Wall Street Journal, former Chattanooga Mayor Corker got 47.6 percent of the vote, while Ford -- a five-term Congressman from Memphis -- received 42.4 percent.

A poll earlier this month had Corker ahead by only one point.

The two are vying for the seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is not seeking a third term.

"This poll just confirms what our internal polling has shows -- that once Tennesseans learn about Congressman Ford’s record, the more they agree that he does not share our Tennessee values,” said Corker Campaign manager Ben Mitchell in remarks reported by chattanoogan.com.

Mitchell said Ford -- who was national campaign co-chairman for John Kerry’s presidential run in 2004 -- is "in the mold of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.”

News Max.com ** Harold Ford Behind in Tennessee

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:17 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

Analysis: Senate terror vote boosts Bush

The U.S. Senate handed President George W. Bush not one but three victories when it overwhelmingly approved his new terror bill Thursday.

First, the president not only won congressional approval for his tough policies on interrogating terror suspects, he won big. The vote in the Senate was 65 to 34. It came the day after the House of Representatives voted Wednesday in favor of the bill a comparably decisive margin of 253 to 168.

Second, the victory looks likely to give the Republicans another boost in the hard-fought fall midterm congressional election campaign. The congressional victories came after the president had suffered a long losing streak on his ambitious legislative initiatives in his second term. Also, presidents are supposed to be passive and ineffectual lame ducks as they head into the last two stretches of their second terms. But instead, Bush is successfully reversing the conventional precedents and dynamics of administration power cycles.

Third, the vote revealed the degree to which the opposition Democrats remained divided and unsure in how to oppose Bush's relentless emphasis on national security issues. Several Democratic senators facing tough reelection battles broke ranks to back the president in the vote.

Their defections confirmed that the president's tough policies on interrogating terror suspects remain broadly popular with the American people, especially in the heartland.

The victories also came at the perfect time for the White House to use them to deflect the media spotlight and public interest from the declassified sections of a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the war on Iraq was seriously hindering rather than helping the U.S. war on terror.

Over the past six years, the president has repeatedly proven masterful at winning widespread popular support for his party at the Democrats' expense by expressing tough, unrelenting stands on national security issues. But Thursday, empowered by his congressional victories, he tied his national security policies to partisan campaigning far more openly and powerfully than he never has before.

"Five years after Sept. 11, the worst attack on the American people in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second guessing," the president told an audience of several thousand people in Birmingham, Alabama, Thursday to enthusiastic applause.

That kind of rhetoric is without question divisive rather than unifying in a time of war. It was also vintage Bush in responding to criticisms not defensively, but by counter-attacking as fast and as fiercely as possible. And recent polling trends, as well as the precedents of the 2002 congressional elections and the 2004 presidential campaign, suggest that it is almost always highly effective.

In factual terms, the published extracts from the NIE are a devastating indictment of the president's policies in Iraq and their negative impact upon the war on terror over the past three-and-a-half years. And it remains to be seen whether the tough new terror law will have any significant impact on preventing terror attacks within the United States and around the world.

In fact, the relative paucity of such attacks anywhere over the past five years compared with what the terrorists appeared capable of after Sept. 11, 2001 suggests that the tough interrogation and detention policies have indeed been effective in blunting the might of al-Qaida and related groups except, ironically, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have thrived on ill-judged U.S. and allied military and occupation policies.

The United States looks likely to pay the price of decreased popularity around the world, especially in allied nations, now that Congress has backed the president's policies in these areas. But that appears unlikely to have any adverse effect on the Republican Party's popularity in the run up to the November elections.

Bush, like former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, is a conviction politician who rules by retaining a dedicated, loyal core of supporters. His emphasis on security issues and the congressional passing of the new terror legislation looks likely to re-consolidate that base after it has been wavering on Iraq, immigration policy, border security and other issues. It will not convince many, if any, Democrats to vote for the GOP in November, but it is not intended to.

Even if political independents and undecided voters stay on the fence, that will be an acceptable outcome for White House master strategist Karl Rove. Bush and Rove won three election campaigns in a row by mobilizing their own political base while working to depress or discourage turn out among their opponents, and confused or anemic Democratic responses to the president's current attacks will continue to play into his hands.

The GOP still faces the possibility of losing control of the House of Representatives; the president's aggressive policies and public rhetoric on terror issues and national security, coupled with the 10 percent drop in oil prices over the past few months and the still booming stock market, appears to have blunted the widespread sense of frustration at the Congress.

The American public usually only votes out large numbers of incumbent Congress members once every couple of decades. The last such upheaval was 12 years ago in 1994, and the previous one was in 1974, after the Watergate crisis, 20 years earlier.

The possibility of another such upheaval this November can still not be discounted. But the president's congressional victories this week and his determined, aggressive speeches targeting his political foes make it less likely.

Washington Times ~ United Press International -
Martin Sieff ** Analysis: Senate terror vote boosts Bush

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:57 AM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 30 September 2006 3:23 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Intelligence on Bush's side

Report is far from damning of President's insistence on maintaining the course in Iraq

Truth, like beauty, is apparently to be in the eye of the beholder. That's the only conclusion you can draw from the reaction to the US National Intelligence Estimate entitled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the US, with a declassified summary of its conclusions released by President George W. Bush after parts were leaked to The New York Times.

The media coverage and most political reaction suggests the summary is damning of Bush's position on Iraq. I have two things to say about that. One is that people must be reading a different document from the one I am. The other is that the summary seems to me to ignore some significant considerations.

Bush says that if the US were to pull its forces out of Iraq it would lead to increased terrorism and, conversely, that victory in Iraq would be a blow to terrorism.

Here's what the NIE says: "Perceived jihad success (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere." And "should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight". That's supportive, not undermining, of Bush's opposition to withdrawal.

Bush constantly emphasises that the spread of democratic processes, pluralism and support for moderate forces will eventually work against the terrorists. So does the NIE, not just once but in several places.

It says democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations during the next five years will drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. There is a risk that such reforms could be destabilising in the transition period, but that's the case whenever countries move towards democracy.

So the NIE supports two key Bush propositions. As to the impression created by the reportage and commentary that the NIE judges it is Iraq that is creating these problems, in fact the NIE identifies four underlying factors that are fuelling the spread of the jihad movement.

One is Iraq and another is anti-US sentiment among Muslims. The other two are made up of local factors such as corruption, injustice and the slow pace of economic and political reform in many Muslim majority nations. I find this list logically incomplete. The jihadists undertook many attacks well before the 2003 attack on Iraq.

The biggest encouragement to the terrorists was that nothing serious was done to respond to these attacks during 20 years, culminating in the spectacular success of the 9/11 attack.

For those who say the war in Iraq has spread terrorism, surely the October 2001 invasion of the terrorists' home base, Afghanistan, had already done that. The 2002 bombings in Bali happened before Iraq, as did the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and many other terrorist incidents.

I know these facts are quoted by Bush and John Howard, yet they are still facts and the logic that flows from them remains logical. Jihadism took off way before Iraq and there is no reason to think it needed Iraq to explode.

There is another, deeper, problem here. The NIE states: "We assess that the Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists." Well, let's assume that's correct. My question is: And? What follows from that assessment? Israel is also a cause celebre for jihadists. Does that mean we should abandon it? If the answer is: "No, that's a ridiculous proposition", then it is logically equally ridiculous in the case of Iraq.

Indeed, there is a more general question. If we think certain actions we take may inspire sustained hatred and motivate terrorists, should we always do nothing? Supporting the Afghan jihadists against the Soviets contributed to Islamic terrorism. Most likely so did the first invasion of Iraq in 1991 to protect Kuwait, as did the subsequent maintenance in the region of US troops to try to contain Iraq, a policy that failed after 12 years, a failure that in turn led to the second attack on Iraq. So should we still have done those things?

Supporting Israel turns Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and many others against us. Should we still support Israel? If the answer is yes, the same logic applies to Iraq.

Another NIE assessment is that during the next five years the likelihood is that the threat of terror will get stronger, not weaker. Bush regularly warns about the high danger of terror and the need to be constantly alert, and for this he is condemned as playing politics in the lead-up to a congressional election. He may well be playing politics but, according to the NIE, he has pretty strong grounds for saying it.

But, still, doesn't this NIE assessment contradict Bush when he says US policy and actions have made the world safer from terrorism? Not necessarily. The US homeland has not been attacked despite obvious efforts by al-Qa'ida to do so.

Furthermore, you have to consider the consequences if no such action had been taken, if there had been no cause celebre such as the attack on Afghanistan and the attack on Iraq. Non-action has its own consequences. There is a strong case to be made, and certainly one I support, that non-action is exactly what caused the original growth and strength of jihadism in the lead-up to 9/11. Would the world have been safer if we had continued to avoid retaliatory action? I don't think so.

The present spike in violence in Iraq is motivated largely by the desire of the jihadists and Iran to see Bush's Republicans lose in the congressional elections. There is a prospect also that in the lead-up to those elections the jihadists will seek to carry out another terror spectacular in the US. They and Iran know that it is in US ballot boxes that the struggle will be won or lost. If the Republicans are trounced, the battle of wills is over and we have lost not only in Iraq but most probably in Afghanistan and globally as well.

Given the almost inconceivable incompetence, misjudgment and delusional pigheadedness of Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, largely unconstrained by Bush, the Republicans deserve a drubbing, and at the moment are more likely than not to get it.

But their defeat should not be because of this NIE which, far from undermining Bush's positions, largely supports them.

The Australian ~ Michael Costello ** Intelligence on Bush's side

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:38 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

Democrat Wants More Abortion for Ohio

The Democratic congressman running against Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in the Ohio governor’s race said the state’s job-loss problem is not caused by high taxes or regulation, but by not having abortion on demand. He made the statement on Wednesday.

The Democratic congressman who made this statment? Liberal candidate Ted Strickland, who is trying to paint Blackwell as an extremist for being pro-life. But his comments raise the question: Who is the extremist here?

When Strickland was asked what he would do in his first 100 days to help create jobs, his reply was essentially to replace Ohio values with Hollywood values. Ohio overwhelmingly supported the marriage amendment and helped re-elect President Bush in 2004.

Cleveland Plain Dealer President and Publisher Terrance C.Z. Egger asked Strickland: "I hear taxes are an impediment to jobs in Ohio relative to other states. What are the two or three things today in the short term ... you think is an impediment to jobs, more job creation, and population growth in Ohio?

"I’m anxious about 100 days in year one ... There are a lot of things you can pay attention to and try to do. I’m really curious about those specifics ... so [regarding] the impediments to jobs, what would you do in the first hundred days of the first year?

Here is Strickland’s reply: "Ohio’s got a big problem with its image and with its attitude.

"Part of the image and part of the attitude I think that is holding back Ohio making it much less attractive to those who would invest or choose to come here is the social climate that is being promoted by my opponent. I mean it’s almost anti-science in my judgment. I believe in Northeast Ohio, stem cell research is a big deal.

"I talked to the head of the Ireland Cancer Center the other day and I toured that facility. He said he was [looking] forward to the day when he felt like the constraints would no longer be there so we can do what we must do in terms of medical research. This is not a little issue. It’s a huge issue in my judgment.

"Attitudes about a woman’s right to choose and embracing an attitude that a woman should not be able to choose an abortion even to save her life is so far out of the mainstream. All of these things paint a picture of Ohio, I think nationally and perhaps even internationally, as a backward state.

"So we need to change our image and I think that can happen almost immediately with new leadership.”

News Max.com ** Democrat Wants More Abortion for Ohio

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 11:56 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

ANTI-W. $OROS: I QUIT POLITICS

Billionaire liberal financier George Soros, who spent millions of his fortune trying to oust President Bush in 2004, yesterday said he hopes to stay out of politics from now on.

"In the future, I'd very much like to get disengaged from politics," Soros said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting on the Upper East Side. "I'm interested in policy and not in politics."

NY Post ~ Maggie Haberman ** Anti-W. Soros: I Quit Politics!

Right now, if you listen hard enough towards the DNC headquarters, you can hear a collective
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

But I'm not getting overly excited over this.
He's a libtard; when has a libtard ever kept his or her word (other than when they promise to oppose conservatives)? It's as simple as that.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 8:30 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 29 September 2006 8:37 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

All Iraqi Ethnic Groups Overwhelmingly Reject al Qaeda

But Groups Vary on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah

Full Report
Questionnaire/Methodology

A new poll of Iraqis shows that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis.

Shias have mildly positive views of Iran and its President, while Kurds and Sunnis have strongly negative views. Shias and Kurds have mostly negative views of Syria, while Sunnis are mildly positive. Shias have overwhelmingly positive views of Hezbollah, while Kurds and Sunnis have negative views.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Ltd. / D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted September 1-4 with a nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults.

It may be easy to assume that as the Iraqi people become more supportive of attacks on US-led forces (see LINK TO WPO ARTICLE 1), they may grow warmer toward al Qaeda—the probable source of a significant number of attacks on US forces. However, this does not appear to be the case. Al Qaeda is exceedingly unpopular among the Iraqi people.

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very).

Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very).

Regional Actors: Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah
Some observers fear that with the ascension of Shias to a dominant role in Iraq, there is potential for the formation of an alliance between Iraq and Shia-dominated Iran. In this poll, though, Shias show only mildly positive attitudes toward Iran, while Kurds and Sunnis are quite negative. Asked whether Iran is having a mostly positive or negative influence on the situation in Iraq, just 45 percent of Shias say it is having a positive influence (negative 28%, neutral 27%), while Iran’s influence is viewed a mostly negative by large majorities of Kurds (71%) and Sunnis (94%).

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does a bit better among Shias, with 64 percent having a very (28%) or somewhat (36%) favorable view. But Kurds have a largely unfavorable view (very 43%, somewhat 34%) and the Sunnis an exceedingly unfavorable view (very 80%, somewhat 17%).

While some have expressed fears of Syria being a link in an emerging Shia crescent (though very few Syrians are Shia), public opinion in Iraq would hardly be the cement. Most Shias (68%) think Syria is having a negative influence on Iraq’s situation, as do most Kurds (63%). Sunnis are only mildly positive, with 41 percent having a favorable view (17% negative, 43% neutral).

Hezbollah elicits highly polarized views. An overwhelming 91 percent of Shias have a very (50%) or somewhat favorable (41%) view of Hezbollah, while an equally large 93 percent of Kurds have a very (64%) or somewhat (29%) unfavorable view. Sunnis are also fairly negative, with 59 percent having a very (10%) or somewhat (49%) unfavorable view.

World Public Opinion ~ Global Public Opinion on International Affairs **
All Iraqi Ethnic Groups Overwhelmingly Reject al Qaeda

Related: Intercepted Al-Qaeda Letter Says They're Weak, Losing...
NY Sun ~ Eli Lake ** As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails
History News Network ~ Judith Apter Klinghoffer ** Poll: Al Qaeda lost hearts and minds in Iraq

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 1:11 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 29 September 2006 1:15 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  lyrical

Cut And Run

(Sung to the Tune of "Let It Snow")

Oh the Weathermen all were Marxists
Their successors now are heartsick
So they beat their anti-Bush-war drum
Cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.

They're showing no signs of stopping
And their leadership's flip-flopping
Surrender-monkeys everyone
Cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.

When we finally win this war
I'll enjoy saying ''I told you so''
To the people who think Al Gore
Really won back in O-Ohhhh...

The peaceniks just keep on bitching
As their moles go right on snitching
John Murtha's their favorite son
Cut and run, cut and run, cut and run.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 7:37 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:12 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  party time!

Report: U.S. Health Care Quality Improves

WASHINGTON -- The quality of the health care provided to millions of Americans improved last year across several dozen categories, including increased immunization rates among insured children.

The improvements are seen through the reporting of data that the White House and Congress want more of from health-care providers. They're contained in a report being issued Wednesday by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, which accredits and certifies insurers.

The association tracks dozens of care measurements, submitted by many of the nation's insurance plans. The long-term tracking of the measurements helps improve the quality of care, according to the report.

For patients in private insurance plans, there was improvement in 35 of 42 measurements, including such categories as cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening and the controlling of high blood pressure in hypertension patients.

Categories that showed a decrease in the quality of care included breast cancer screenings. The percentage of women in commercial insurance plans, ages 50-69, who got a breast cancer screening in the past two years dropped to 72 percent from 73.4 percent. Similar drops were seen in insurance plans covering Medicare and Medicaid patients.

The gains also include increased numbers of children with private health insurance getting all their recommended immunizations, with the rate reaching 77.7 percent, up from 72.5 percent. Also, more smokers enrolled in Medicare received advice about kicking the habit.

From year to year, many of the changes are small - often just a percentage point or two. But the differences come into clearer focus over a 10-year period, officials said.

For example, the committee said that more than 96 percent of patients who suffered heart attacks last year were given drugs to lower their blood pressure and slow the heart rate, which helps prevent a second attack. A decade ago, about 62 percent of patients suffering heart attacks were given such medicines.

One in four Americans are enrolled in health plans that collect and report data on the quality of care. However, more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in plans that report no objective quality data, the report said.

"This past decade has demonstrated the benefits of measurement, reporting and accountability, but three out of four people don't enjoy those benefits today," said Margaret E. O'Kane, the president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance. "It's time to ask, 'Why not?'"

The committee noted that one important exception to a pattern of improvement was the quality of care for Americans with mental health problems. Patients in insurance plans who are hospitalized for mental illness are only marginally more likely to get appropriate follow-up care than they were when the insurers began collecting quality data in 1998.

News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Report: U.S. Health Care Quality Improves

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:55 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 28 September 2006 7:01 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

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