Mumbai Held Hostage Amid Terrorist Carnage

The terrorist attacks that ripped through Mumbai on Wednesday Nov. 26 morphed into a slow-motion hostage drama on Thursday as disbelieving Mumbaikars watched their city of 12 million paralyzed for a full day — shops closed, streets emptied — by just two dozen attackers. How could this happen? The unwelcome truth is that this grand, cosmopolitan city, one that has survived two even deadlier terrorists bombings in 2003 and 2006, was caught completely unprepared.

The scale and sophistication of the attacks, which began at about 9:30 p.m. local time as gunmen stormed hotels with AK-47s and grenades, became clear today: central government authorities say there are 125 dead, including six foreigners, and 327 injured. The injured were brought to local hospitals from the sites of the attacks, which included two luxury hotels, the main railway terminus, a cafe and two hospitals. Among the police, 14 were killed, and 25 injured. The Maharashtra chief minister, Vilasrao Deshmukh, estimates that there were 20 to 25 terrorists involved, seven of them now dead. (See photos of the chaos in Mumbai)

Unlike most of the recent simultaneous bomb attacks in India, this one continued to do its damage after the initial shock wore off, gathering strength and changing form as the smoke and noise from the blasts themselves cleared. In this case, the attackers turned hostage takers at three of the sites: the two hotels and a residential building called Nariman House. By the end of the day Thursday, at least 20 to 30 hostages were still being held at the Oberoi-Trident hotel; five hostages at Nariman House had been killed and the rest released; and 470 people — including hostages and people who had been stranded in the hotel after the police moved in-have been evacuated from the Taj Palace. Police late on Thursday confirmed that the situation at the Oberoi is much more serious than initially thought. They are preparing for a siege through the night.

Those stranded in hotels might have had a shorter ordeal if the hotel management had put into place at least some kind of emergency plan in case of a terrorist attack. About 100 people, including one man with a gunshot wound, took refuge in a conference center at the Taj when they heard shooting but were left there all night, with no communication from anyone, let alone any instructions on how to exit the building safely.

Hotel managers at the Taj are given some crisis management training but nothing that would prepare them for a situation in which the attackers were running "free and loose" inside the hotel, says Anupam Amrohi, 23, an employee of Taj hotels in Bangalore. Amrohi was on the phone with his friends trapped inside the conference center all night. "They should have pulled the alarm," he says. Instead, hotel staff advised people already inside to stay where they were. People in their rooms were told to stay put even after the firing between the police and the suspects began. Hotel operators would call them periodically to remind them to keep the lights off and the volume on the TV down.

The lack of any prior local police intelligence about the attacks — a complaint voiced by many Mumbaikars today — is particularly alarming given the meticulous planning and unusual modus operandi of the attackers. For example, an Indian Navy spokesman confirmed that the terrorists entered Mumbai without detection by taking a sea route. Starting from a base in Gujarat to the north of Mumbai, they made their way to the Gateway of India at Mumbai's southern tip, and another landing point on the peninsula 14 nautical miles away; they killed one boatman in the process.

The attack on the Leopold Cafe and Restaurant also shows intimate local knowledge. Like the Oberoi and Taj, it is a favorite of foreigners, mostly backpackers and fans of the bestselling novel Shantaram, in which the Leopold is a key setting. Coming out from the Leopold, a hard RIGHT takes you into a narrow lane, which leads directly to the back entrance of the Taj Hotel. Several people in the Apna Bidi Shop around the corner from the Leopold reported that at about 9:30 p.m. last night, immediately after the blasts, they saw two of the attackers with AK-47s running from the Leopold into the narrow lane that leads to the Taj. Either the terrorists were natives to the city, or they had time to practice, prepare and carefully plot their targets and the path they would take between them.

As the three simultaneous hostage dramas began to unfold, onlookers gathered. "It's like watching 24 in slow motion," says Vineet Pandit, 22, who lives near the Oberoi. What they would see at each of these sites was a parade of hundreds of uniformed troops over the course of several hours: from the Mumbai police, the Indian army and paramilitary groups including the Rapid Action Force and the National Security Guard's elite "Black Cat" Commandos, distinctive in their all-black uniforms. It was not always clear who was in charge. At the Taj, police officers waited idly in their Jeeps as 100 army personnel tried to take control of the hotel. At the Oberoi, the police commissioner appeared to be taking the lead.

In Colaba Market, a handful of terrorists stormed one of the apartment buildings at about 10 pm on Wednesday night, and then began randomly shooting and lobbing grenades into the street and at neighboring buildings, according to residents of the area. From the vantage point of three Black Cat snipers watching the building, I could see Nariman House's shattered windows. The couple who own the building are Jewish, giving rise to rumors throughout the day that "Israelis" were somehow involved in the attacks. The other people in the building, including an infant wearing a pink bonnet and green blanket, were held as hostages but released early Thursday. The last person to leave, a young woman, told authorities that the only remaining hostages were the couple, who had made no sound or movement since the night before. By 5 p.m., they were presumed to be dead, and the Black Cat commandos moved in a half hour later unleashing a volley of gunshots into the building. By 9:30 p.m. local time, the firing was still going on and it was not clear whether the four to five suspects inside had been killed or captured.

So who are the terrorists? That too is unclear. A group calling itself the "Deccan Mujahideen" sent an email to news organizations early Thursday morning claiming responsibility for the attacks. Two of the terrorists spoke to a local news channel, India TV, to air their grievances: "When so many of us were killed, who did anything for us?" a man called Shadullah asked, referring to anti-Muslim riots in northern India in 1992 and 1993. He said he was among seven people holding hostages at the Oberoi but didn't make any specific demands, other than for the release of other "mujahideen" jailed in India and for an end to the persecution of Muslims. He did not reveal where the group comes from, though the Deccan in its name presumably refers to the plateau that stretches across southern India.

Officals have hinted that there may have been a foreign power involved, rejecting the widespread belief among defense and political analysts that there is an able network of homegrown terrorists in India. (Major General R.K. Hooda, an army officer who was the commander for today's military operations, hinted that their accents might have been Pakistani.) So far there has been little more than hints and platitudes from the steady stream of high-profile visitors to south Mumbai: the local strongman Raj Thackeray, Maharashtra state chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, member of parliament Murli Deora. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi are said to be on their way to the city, as is opposition BJP leader L.K. Advani. The question is, will they do anything to better prepare this city, and the rest of India, for the next time?

Ugh. A rather jarring reminder that I do have a lot to be thankful for today. :( 

My thoughts are with the Indian people, and the families of the victims. It's just all so senseless...

Pay special attention to the last... and WORST person in the world

Germany Still Haunted By its Homegrown Terrorists

For all its terrorist bravado, the story of the Red Army Faction (a.k.a. the Baader-Meinhof gang) ended with a whimper. On November 16 1982, German policemen hiding in the soil and foliage of a cold, wet forest near Hamburg, spotted a skinny man in a tracksuit moving erratically toward them. "Don't shoot!" the man shouted as the policemen armed with machine guns jumped out of their hiding places to arrest the completely exhausted Christian Klar, the last member of the so-called "second generation" of the R.A.F. still on the loose. But if Klar's arrest and conviction was meant to close one of the most traumatic chapters of postwar German history, his imminent release has forced the country to revisit the R.A.F.'s legacy of leftist terror.

A German court ruled Monday that Klar, serving a life sentence for his involvement in the murder of nine people, among them former Dresdner Bank chief Juergen Ponto, attorney general Siegfried Buback and industrialist Hanns-Martin Schleyer, as well as in 11 attempted murders, will be released on parole at the beginning of next year after 26 years in prison.

The verdict brought a storm of protest e-mails and phone calls to the court. Politicians and relatives of the victims expressed outrage, and Juergen Vietor, co-pilot of a Lufthansa plane hijacked by the R.A.F. in 1977, sent a protest letter to president Horst Koehler and returned the Federal Cross of Merit he had been awarded by the state. "Why", Vietor's letter says, "do perpetrators receive more care and attention in our state, than victims?"

Critics of the court's decision note that Christian Klar has never apologized for his deeds, and to this day refuses to divulge the identity of the mysterious man on a motorbike who fired the shots that killed Siegfried Buback. Klar had also made public statements from prison expressing anti-capitalist beliefs, which some claim are proof of his continued ideological zeal.

The court defended its ruling in a statement citing expert testimony to the effect that Klar no longer represents any danger to society. Justice Minister Brigitte Zypris called the verdict "an act entirely in accordance with the rule of law."

In 2003, Klar had filed a clemency plea with then-president Johannes Rau, who declined to made a decision. His successor, Horst Koehler, after a heated public debate, finally rejected Klar's appeal in May last year. Klar's accomplice, Brigitte Mohnhaupt, had earlier been released on parole after serving a 24 year sentence.

The discussion shows that Germany still struggles with the events that took place in the autumn of 1977, the "Deutscher Herbst" (German Autumn) when the second generation of the left-wing terrorist group R.A.F., composed mostly of young, well-educated, middle-class Germans, brought the country to the verge of a state of emergency. The main aim of the campaign of violence by the "second generation" was to free the imprisoned leaders of the group's founding generation — Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Ulrike Meinhof and others — who regarded themselves as part of a global fight against imperialism and capitalism. The R.A.F. was born out of the non-violent left-wing student movement of the 1960s, which became steadily radicalized in response the Vietnam war and repression of student protest. Having turned to violence, the smaller conspiratorial group carried out several bank robberies as well as bomb attacks on U.S. military facilities in Germany and on German security institutions, in the course of which four people were killed and 41 injured. Many young Germans at the time, among them former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, who in 2000 was even questioned as witness in a trial over a 1975 attack on the Opec conference in Vienna, had been initially sympathetic to the goals of R.A.F., but were later disillusioned by the group's excessive use of violence.

"People had the experience that the state was powerless; it was an feeling of complete helplessness," says Butz Peters, a lawyer and author of several books on the R.A.F. about its reign of terror. "For those who were around at the time, many things are now cropping up again," he says, of the emotional reactions to the Klar ruling.

The court decision on Klar's release stoked a debate that flares up periodically in Germany. Last year, the issue was the release of Klar's colleague, Mohnhaupt. Another R.A.F. member, Eva Haule, who studied photography in prison and even had her work there exhibited, was also released last year, and other members who had hidden in East Germany but were arrested after its collapse have also been released after serving relatively short sentences, and are living unobtrusively. But Germany's ongoing fascination with the R.A.F. episode of its history was underscored by the movie The Baader Meinhof Komplex, which was a box office success but was denounced by Ignes Ponto, widow of Juergen Ponto, as distorting history and glorifying violence.

After Klar's release there will be only one former R.A.F. member left in prison — Birgit Hogefeld, who is unlikely to be released before 2011. But Peters doesn't expect Germany to exorcise the ghosts of its homegrown terrorism anytime soon: "The German soul," he says, "definitely hasn't yet coped with the trauma of the R.A.F."

Ugh... What an effing travesty. How could this man and any of his accomplices ever be eligable for parole? Ever? Have they really "paid their debt to society"? How could they in only one lifetime? Much less only 26 years. 

Tragic. Just tragic. I feel horrible for everyone with personal or familial ties to those murdered. This must be unimaginably difficult for them, knowing that while a loved still lies in a grave, those responsible are walking out of prison completely unrepentant. It makes me sick. 

Man killed by Scientology guard

A security guard has shot and killed a man on the grounds of a Hollywood building owned by the Scientology church, Los Angeles police say.

Reports say the unidentified man arrived at the Scientology Celebrity Centre wielding swords.

Police are questioning the security guard to determine whether the shooting was justified.

The building, in the style of a French castle, serves as a meeting place for artists and performers.

The Church of Scientology was established in 1945 by science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard.

It claims 10 million members worldwide, including celebrity devotees Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

From BBC.co.uk/news

Ok, it's not funny when people die...usually. But I am torn. On the one hand, a man was killed. On the other, read the first two lines! Seriously. Could you make this shit up? A sword-wielding man was killed by the guard at the Scientology castle. Ahahahah....ahahahaha....Mirth. It could have only been more bizarre and absurd if he had been killed by Tom Cruise.

US global dominance 'set to wane'

US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.

It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.

However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.

It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.

The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant Global Trends 2025

"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.

Washington will retain its considerable military advantages, but scientific and technological advances; the use of "irregular warfare tactics"; the proliferation of long-range precision weapons; and the growing use of cyber warfare "increasingly will constrict US freedom of action", it adds.

Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."

Nuclear weapons use

The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.

But the latest Global Trends report says that rising economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multi-polar international system.

NIC REPORT Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

The EU is meanwhile predicted to become a "hobbled giant", unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle.

A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.

Global warming, along with rising populations and economic growth will put additional strains on natural resources, it warns, fuelling conflict around the globe as countries compete for them.

"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th Century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report says.

"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while - such as over resources - could re-emerge."

Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.

And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them.

But al-Qaeda could decay "sooner than people think", it adds, citing the group's growing unpopularity in the Muslim world.

"The prospect that al-Qaeda will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," it says.

The NIC does, however, give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent the emergence of new conflicts.

"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.

And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm

So it goes. I am sure British intelligence must have written a report like this sometime in early part of the 20th century. I wonder how they reacted.

I am not going to blame Pres. Bush for this, the decline of a nation is a long term process that is the culmination of years if not decades of bad policies coupled with international changes that are beyond any one policy leader's control. That said, Bush has hastened the speed of the decline. The billions of dollars thrown into Iraq, deregulation of business that contributed to massive economic downturn, trashing US soft power by invading other countries and bucking international law....hmmm. Yeah, we're fucked unless something major changes and fast.

My advice: learn thee some Mandrin!

Big Three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money

By Josh Levs
CNN

(CNN) -- Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asked the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up. Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."

The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general. 

When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.

Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.

"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.

Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.

But those statements did little to mollify the critics.

"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."

"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.

The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.

Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.

Analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said that $20,000 is a legitimate ballpark figure for a round trip corporate jet flight between Detroit, Michigan, and Washington.

When asked whether they plan to change their travel policies as part of the restructuring needed to shore up their finances, none of the companies answered directly. But they said they have cut back on travel in general as revenues have fallen.

No No No No No No No No NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. My God. 

No.

Listen, while it doesn't sit well with me, I at least understand the reasoning behind saving our financial institutions (which looks as if it's turning into  a huge clusterfuck anyway) , seeing as how their failure would have serious global repurcussions. But the automakers? I'm sorry, no fuggin way. Absolutely not.

Declare bankruptcy and restructure, like every other business that has been run into the ground by poor business decisions and/or hard times. The bottom line here, in my mind, is that you should reap what you sow. The Big Three have leaned on "the American brand" too long, and now they simply cannot compete with foreign competition. Compete, motherfucker, compete! Strive to excel, or find another fucking line of work! 

And the UAW is equally culpable, bleeding the stone dry by demanding ridiculously high salaries and unsustainable benefit packages for its members. By god, as difficult as it is to find affordable benefits for my *own* family, I'll be damned if a single tax dollar of mine is going into the retirement fund of a union worker who is already making $80/hr for plugging in tail lights, or into the gas tank of some CEO's private jet as he flies to Washington to beg for a bailout. Fuck that! 

And do you know what's even worse? The Democratic leadership in congress are going to bat for them! What the fuck is WRONG with people?!?! 

I don't often post in serious outrage, but I can feal my blood boiling as I type. I'd better quick before I throw my mouse out the window. 

Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits

By RODRIQUE NGOWI
Associated Press Writer

The music industry's courtroom campaign against people who share songs online is coming under counterattack.

A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defense of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group — the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA — carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court.

Nesson, the founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal is to "turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency."

Nesson is best known for defending the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and for consulting on the case against chemical companies that was depicted in the film "A Civil Action." His challenge against the music labels, made in U.S. District Court in Boston, is one of the most determined attempts to derail the industry's flurry of litigation.

The initiative has generated more than 30,000 complaints against people accused of sharing songs online. Only one case has gone to trial; nearly everyone else settled out of court to avoid damages and limit the attorney fees and legal costs that escalate over time.

Nesson intervened after a federal judge in Boston asked his office to represent Joel Tenenbaum, who was among dozens of people who appeared in court in RIAA cases without legal help.

The 24-year-old Tenenbaum is a graduate student accused by the RIAA of downloading at least seven songs and making 816 music files available for distribution on the Kazaa file-sharing network in 2004. He offered to settle the case for $500, but music companies rejected that, demanding $12,000.

The Digital Theft Deterrence Act, the law at issue in the case, sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. That means Tenenbaum could be forced to pay $1 million if it is determined that his alleged actions were willful.

The music industry group isn't conceding any ground to Nesson and Tenenbaum. The RIAA has said in court documents that its efforts to enforce the copyright law is protected under the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress of grievances. Tenenbaum also failed, the music group noted, to notify the U.S. Attorney General that that he wanted to contest the law's constitutional status.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said her group's pursuit of people suspected of music piracy is a fair response to the industry's multibillion-dollar losses since peer-to-peer networks began making it easy for people to share massive numbers of songs online.

"What should be clear is that illegally downloading and distributing music comes with many risks and is not an anonymous activity," Duckworth said.

Still, wider questions persist on whether the underlying copyright law is constitutional, said Ray Beckerman, a Forest Hills, N.Y.-based attorney who has represented other downloading defendants and runs a blog tracking the most prominent cases.

One federal judge has held that the constitutional question is "a serious argument," Beckerman said. "There are two law review articles that have said that it is unconstitutional, and there are three cases that said that it might be unconstitutional."

In September, a federal judge granted a new trial to a Minnesota woman who had been ordered to pay $220,000 for pirating 24 songs. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis called on Congress to change copyright laws to prevent excessive awards in similar cases. He wrote that he didn't discount the industry's claim that illegal downloading has hurt the recording business, but called the award "wholly disproportionate" to the industry's losses.

In the Boston case, Nesson is due to meet attorneys for the music industry for a pretrial conference on Tuesday, ahead of a trial set for Dec. 1.

Entertainment attorney Jay Cooper, who specializes in music and copyright issues at Los Angeles-based Greenberg Traurig, is convinced that Nesson will not persuade the federal court to strike down the copyright law. He said the statutory damages it awards enable recording companies to get compensation in cases where it is difficult to prove actual damages.

The record companies have echoed that line of defense. In court filings in Tenenbaum's case, they contend that the damages allowed by the law are "intended not only to compensate the copyright owner, but also to punish the infringer (and) deter other potential infringers."

But are these lawsuits the only way the record industry could deter piracy? Nesson believes the industry could develop new ways to prevent copyright material from being shared illegally. One idea would be to bundle music with ads and post it for free online, he says.

"There are alternative ways," he said, "of packaging entertainment to return revenue to artists."

Yay! I chatted recently with a friend in the department here who worked for a law firm that represented the music industry in their anti-file sharing efforts prio to grad school. Sleezy stuff. That is one of the reasons he left. He got tired of harrassing parents for thousands of dollars based on their 12 year old kid having two illegal Brittany Spear's songs on the family computer. They basically do just resort to threats and intimidation in order to force an out of court settlement.

Treasury Bailout Revamp Subject Of Contentious Hearing

11/14/2008 12:1 PM ET
The Treasury Department's use of the $700 billion financial rescue package was the subject of a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill Friday.

Led by Chairman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), members of the House Oversight Committee's subcommittee on domestic policy grilled the Treasury Department's Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari on the restructuring of the bailout plan.

Kashkari attempted to deflect criticism, telling the committee, "Our system is stronger and more stable than just a few weeks ago."

However, a panel of angry representatives accused him of playing "ring around the rosie" with their questions.

Ranking member Darrell Issa (R-CA) was particularly harsh, telling Kashkari, "You're here because Congress feels you played a bait-and-switch game," adding that representatives would remain skeptical to the Treasury's motives.

The Treasury Department came under scrutiny earlier this week following the revelation that it no longer plans to buy troubled mortgage-related assets from banks with the $700 billion financial relief package created last month.

The move explicitly abandons the original intention of the rescue bill, with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson changing the focus of the relief program to other areas.

In a press conference, Paulson revealed that the government would now focus on building capital in financial institutions, finding ways to support consumer access to credit and looking at ways to ease mortgage foreclosures.

The program might also be expanded to include lightly regulated non-bank financial institutions, the Treasury secretary said, though he noted that this would bring up challenges in protecting taxpayer money.

In his opening remarks, Kucinich berated the decision to completely alter the focus of the bailout.

"Secretary Paulson's policy reversal breaks with Congressional intent, contradicts public assurances previously made by Treasury, and leaves the federal government without an adequate mechanism to stem a tide of home foreclosures," he said.

"Thus, the only significant use by Treasury of the funds Congress authorized to address the mortgage crisis underlying the financial crisis includes, among other things, propping up a Beverly Hills banker to the stars; subsidizing the evisceration of National City Bank and the laying-off of thousands of Clevelanders who worked there; and indirectly funding the payment of bonuses, compensation, and dividends by financial firms that could not have afforded to make them without the TARP capital infusion," Kucinich continued.

He added that Congress would have not passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act if it had known that the Treasury would so drastically restructure the package. Both Kucinich and Issa voted against the first and second versions of the EESA.

Bailout plan bait-and-switch

It is such a burden to be right all the time. I said that the bailout was a terrible idea, that we did not look at the problem close enough, that we rushed to fork over cash to the banks. Denny K and the House Republicans (and I) were right. OMFG, I am feeling sick. Dividends, executive bonuses, switching strategies... ugh.

'Love handles' raise death risk

Carrying extra fat around your middle dramatically increases your risk of early death, even if your overall weight is normal, say researchers.

A study of almost 360,000 people from nine European countries found waist size a "powerful indicator" of risk.

Each extra 2ins (5cm) raised the chance of early death by between 13% and 17%.

The New England Journal of Medicine study stressed GPs should regularly measure patients' waists as a cheap and easy way to assess health.

It costs virtually nothing to measure your hip and waist size Professor Elio Riboli Imperial College London

The link between waist fat and health problems has been established for some time, but the sheer size of the study gives scientists a far more accurate picture.

The researchers, including some from Imperial College London, followed the volunteers, who were an average of 51 years old at the start of the study, for the next 10 years, during which time 14,723 of them died.

The standard measure of obesity, body mass index (BMI) remained a reasonable predictor of health problems, with those with a high reading more likely to die from cardiovascular disease or cancer.

However, the 'hip/waist ratio', a number produced by dividing the waist size by the hip measurement, and just the waist measurement on its own, were both good ways of sorting out those at highest risk.

A thickening girth can be a sign of type 2 diabetes

Some people who had a completely normal BMI score, but a larger than average waist, were at significantly higher risk of early death.

At the extremes, men with waists exceeding 47ins (119cm) had a doubled rate of death compared with those with waists under 31.5ins (80cm), and a similar statistic was found when women with waists over 39ins (99cm) were compared to those under 25.5ins (64.7cm).

An increase in risk of death could be plotted every time the belt was let out by another two inches - for two people with the same BMI, every additional 2ins (5cm) on their waistband added up to a 17% increase in risk for men, and 13% for women.

Professor Elio Riboli, from Imperial College London, said: "We were surprised to see the waist size having such a powerful effect on people's health and premature death.

"There aren't many simple individual characteristics that can increase a person's risk of premature death to this extent, independently from smoking and drinking."

He added: "The good news is that you don't need to take an expensive test and wait ages for the result to assess this aspect of your health - it costs virtually nothing to measure your hip and waist size."

Fat message

The reason for the link is not entirely clear, but another researcher, Dr Tobias Pischon, from the German Institute of Human Nutrition at Potsdam-Rehbrucke, said that abdominal fat was not like other fat reserves, but could directly influence the development of chronic disease by releasing "messenger substances".

BODY MASS INDEX Calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres squared Normal: 18.5 - 24.9 Overweight: 25 - 29.9 Obese: Above 30

A British Heart Foundation spokesman welcomed the findings, saying they supported previous research which found the risk of heart disease to be higher when fat was concentrated around the waist area.

"It is important a variety of measurements are used to assess body weight and shape. - as well as BMI (Body Mass Index), waist circumference and waist-hip ratio can help to provide a better assessment of health risk.

"If you tend to gather weight around your middle, increasing the amount of activity you do and watching what you eat will help to reduce your risk of heart disease and of dying early."

Ok, first the headline is pricelss. What mirth! But seriously, this was a little surprising. Ok not really, I mean we all know that being overwieght is dangerous to your health. What I found surprising was that each 2 additional inches on the waist (over 31.5 apparently) adds a 17% risk of death. So, if you are a size 42 waist (as a man) you have doubled your risk of early death...That statistic is a bit shocking. and really, really bad for most Americans. So think about the next time you opt for the super sized Baconator, which alone probably increases you risk of death by a notable rate.

From BBC.com

The biggest tax cheats: Rich folks

Confirming what you might've always suspected, a new study shows that those with high incomes are more likely to underreport what they make.

By Forbes.com

A new study based on unpublished Internal Revenue Service data shows the rich are different when it comes to paying taxes: They hide more of their income.

The previously unreported study estimates that taxpayers whose true income was between $500,000 and $1 million a year understated their adjusted gross incomes by 21% overall in 2001, compared with an 8% underreporting rate for Americans earning $50,000 to $100,000 and even lower rates for those earning less.

(The "net misreporting rate," as the IRS calls it, includes both underreported income and inflated deductions.)

In all, because of their higher noncompliance rates, those with true incomes of $200,000 or more received 25% of all income but accounted for 40% of net underreported income and 42% of underreported tax in 2001, according to the new analysis.

As if we needed more evidence about greed and the moral deficencies of the rich.

US 'in secret overseas strikes'

The US has carried out nearly a dozen anti-terror attacks in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere in the past four years, the New York Times has reported.

The previously unreported attacks were authorised in 2004 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Times quoted senior officials as saying.

The order gave US forces permission to attack terror targets anywhere in the world without prior specific approval.

The Times said the defence department declined to comment on its claims.

The White House also made no comment.

'Called off'

The paper said it had spoken to more than six officials, "including current and former military and intelligence officials" as well as senior policy makers in the Bush administration.

They said that the order, signed by Mr Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W Bush, was intended to make it easier for the US military to act outside officially declared war zones at short notice.

In total, 15 to 20 countries were covered by the mandate and attacks had been carried out in Pakistan, Syria and "several other countries," the paper reported.

Some were conducted in coordination with the CIA and one was broadcast live to CIA headquarters in Virginia, via cameras mounted on aircraft.

The paper's sources also claimed that "as many as a dozen" attacks had been called off - "often to the dismay of military commanders" - due to lack of evidence or because they were considered too dangerous or "diplomatically explosive".

The US has carried out many attacks along Pakistan's border areas recently and was blamed for an attack in eastern Syria last month.

From the BBC.

I guess this isn't surprising, but I am not sure about the wisdom of it. There are probably times when this sort of thing is necessary--a "gott'em in your sights situation." But still, much like the ticking bomb torture justification, I am not sure how often that situation ever arises and what it is likely to gain. What is most likely to happen, I would think, is that innocent people are killed in "collateral damage" and the event tarnishes the image of the US. It would be nice to know how often the attack kills its target versus the number of civilians killed.

It is not like Bush is the only one to do this sort of thing either. Clinton did the same when he attacked a training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In the former, the attack seemed to accomplish little. In the latter I think a couple of people were killed in what turned out to be a an Asprin factory.

Irish O'Bama

Ahahaha....haha

The Republican Question

Video just for a jumping off point in the discussion.



My question, is the Republican party going to have a major schism soon? I mean, it does seem to be tearing itself apart, blaming and generally looking bad. Any insight on this? Is it fiscal conservatives versus religious fundamentalists? Is it far right versus center right? Rich versus working class? Free marketeers versus value voters? McCain did seem like a last best hope for a united Republican front, but in my estimation, he has even pandered to the fundies, big time - Hagee/Palin. Question on the floor: What is going to become of the Republican party?

Los Angeles stops issuing marriage licenses to gay couples

(CNN) -- The Los Angeles County Registrar's Office stopped issuing same-sex marriage licenses after the apparent passage of a ballot measure to eliminate the right of gay couples to marry, the agency said Wednesday.

Voters in California, Arizona and Florida weighed in on constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

As of 11:30 p.m. ET, 52 percent of voters had approved California's Proposition 8, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

"This is a great day for marriage," Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."

The amendment to the state constitution overrides a state Supreme Court ruling in May that legalized same-sex marriage.

The decision to suspend the marriage licenses was based on the Secretary of State's semi-official canvass results from Election Night and a California State Constitutional provision that says a proposed amendment "shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election," Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan said in a news release.

The agency said it would act accordingly if it is directed to reverse course or take further action in the future.

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Los Angeles Wednesday to vent their disappointment at the apparent passage of a ballot initiative to ban gay and lesbian marriages.

The demonstrators peacefully rallied in West Hollywood, holding placards and waving gay pride flags. Elsewhere, hundreds of protesters staged a half-hour sit-in outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau on Sunset Boulevard. The demonstrators chanted slogans and banged on the building's glass doors but then dispersed without incident.

By Emanuella Grinberg
Excerpted from CNN.com.

I find the decision on prop 8 terribly sad. I am sure that very soon California will pass some law guaranteeing civil unions for gay couples, but that seems like a cold conciliation, a cheap ass second prize. For some time I had thought that civil unions would be sufficient. After all, it might be the only way to reach any type of compromise on this issue. But the more I have thought about it and the more I have talked to gay and lesbian friends, it's not enough. It's not fair. It's not just. How is it that one group's interpretation of the definition of marriage gets to trump the ability of a group of people to enjoy the same legally recognized expression of their devotion to one another.

I am not (necessarily) a proponent of marriage generally, and in all honesty I don't think the state should issue marriage licenses at all--everyone should be granted civil unions from the state, and only religious groups should conduct marriages. But that is separate discussion. The issue is that when the state chooses to recognize legally (and socially) the rights of one couple's union and not another it is unquestionably a discriminatory practice. We could not at this point imagine the state not recognizing interracial marriages, or it disallowing persons of a specific ethnic or religious group from marrying. So why disallow gays?

In listening to the answers given by people as to why they reject legal marriages for gays, it seems to me that one line of reasoning underlies the belief as to why such discrimination is justified. Of course lots of people are just homophobic; lots of people cite religious reasons and argue that God himself defined marriage as heterosexual union. Fine, they can believe whatever they like. But that is still not a basis for legal discrimination. I may not want Evangelical Christians to be able to vote, but I don't think my belief justifies their discrimination. What really seems to be the logic underlying the ban on gay marriage is the persistent belief that sexual orientation is a choice. I have noticed that many people seem to validate their pro-discrimination stance by arguing that unlike race, people choose their sexual "preferences." So, to them where race is immutable and therefore should not be the basis of discrimination, gay is a choice, and by making that choice those people suffer discriminatory consequences. I guess gay is kind of like smoking. Sure, we can't make people not smoke, but we can make them stand outside to do it or charge them more for insurance because they made the choice. I guess we can discriminate against gays because they made a choice a start being gay...and now they are addicted. They should just quit and then they wouldn't face discrimination. Maybe there is a patch for it...or anti-gay gum. I am sure Evangelical scientists are working round the clock on the cure.

The Die is Cast

Well, the election is, for all intents and purposes, over, and Barrack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States of America. This is going to be hard, so bear with me...

As I walked into my polling station this afternoon, my stomach was tied in knots. Even as I made my way to my booth with a ballot in hand, I still wasn't entirely sure how I would cast my vote. Still suffering from an ideological crisis of conscience, I just couldn't bring myself to commit one way or the other before I had that pen in my hand, and had to choose one way or the other.

I love John McCain. I admire him very much. I admire his service and the sacrifices he made for our country, both as a naval aviator, and a public servant. He is a man of conscience and honor, who was never afraid to work with Democrats across the isle, or commit to a course of action when he believed it to be right, regardless of whether it adhered to the party line. I appreciate that kind of courage and candor. I wanted very much to vote for McCain, but I could not bear the thought of my vote being misconstrued as support for the Republican party.

I did my part to give the GOP eight years in the White House, and the return on my investment was a poor one indeed. What we have today is a country deeply divided at home, and openly reviled abroad in nations that are, on paper, our allies. I am not sorry for giving Bush the opportunity to lead, nor the opportunity to correct his administration's mistakes. But today, my begrudging patience has worn thin.

This time around, for the first time in my life, I've voted for a Democratic presidential nominee. Make no mistake, I generally despise the Democratic party and the people who lead it. But Obama stands above the crowd of slime balls and ridiculous asshattery as a charismatic, honorable man who is intelligent, thoughtful, and genuine in his intent; and I find his running mate equally conscionable. I do find Obama to be an inspiring figure, and I don't recall ever once wincing in embarrassment at anything he's ever said in public. (yeah, that last bit sets the bar pretty low... But the last eight years have really lowered my expectations)

I just finished watching McCain's concession speech a little while ago. It was very gracious, and very classy. (I wish his campaign, his followers, and the Republican party in general had been equally so over the past few weeks. Personally, I found his best moments he spent correcting idiots that were attending his rallies)

I was already having a hard time keeping it together, but when he spoke the words "the failure is mine, not yours," I choked up, and my heart literally hurt. I wanted to say, "No, John, it really wasn't. It *was* ours. We deserved to lose this time, and that isn't your fault."

Today, I voted against some of my most fundamental core values, the values of my parents, my grandparents, and those that have been shaped by my life experiences since childhood, to uphold others that I felt needed saving. And to do it, I had to vote against a man that I admire and respect very much. It felt like a betrayal, and it tears me up inside.

I honestly feel that as a Republican administration, there is little McCain could really do to mend our relations with the international community, restore our image abroad, or repair the bitter divisions present here in our own country. There's just too much baggage that comes with that (R) beside his name right now. Obama, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to change the nature of the game from the ground up, and I've cast a ballot of faith in his name hoping he'll do just that.

So in the end, it comes down to this: I wanted John McCain, the man, not the Republican, to be my president. But at this point in our history, my gut told me that, right now, my country needs Obama, and I voted accordingly.

Election Day