What Adam Curry is reading

U.S. suspends Afghan police recruit training
  Link to Article
  Source: The Daily Star >> Live News
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:00
  KABUL: U.S. special forces in Afghanistan have suspended training for about 1,000 Afghan police recruits to vet existing members, the military said Sunday, after a surge in insider attacks on NATO.
  There has been a sharp rise in so-called "green-on-blue" attacks in recent months, in which members of the Afghan security forces turn their weapons on their Western allies, sometimes their military trainers.
  In more than 30 such incidents this year, 45 coalition troops have been killed -- about 14 percent of the overall death toll in the war for 2012. Most have been American, though the latest to die were three Australian troops.
  "Current partnered operations have and will continue, even as we temporarily suspend training of about 1,000 new ALP (Afghan Local Police) recruits while re-vetting current members," a spokesman for the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Thomas Collins, said.
  Taliban insurgents claim responsibility for many of the attacks, saying their fighters have infiltrated the Afghan army and police, but NATO says the majority of the incidents are due to cultural differences and personal animosities.
  Last month was the worst for insider attacks in more than 10 years of war, with nearly one in three international coalition deaths caused by Afghan allies.
  The ALP -- which has around 16,000 members according to the Afghan interior ministry -- is a U.S.-sponsored police force recruited to fight Taliban insurgents in remote areas of the Afghan countryside, though it has been accused of corruption and violence towards civilians.
  "While we have full trust and confidence in our Afghan partners, we believe this is a necessary step to validate our vetting process and ensure the quality indicative of Afghan Local Police," the U.S. spokesman said.
  The Washington Post said the re-vetting process would affect more than 27,000 Afghan troops.
  The suspension was temporary, the colonel said but gave no timeframe.
  Training for the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army -- carried out by NATO rather than the U.S. -- will not be affected by the halt.
  Afghan interior ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said: "We want all the training programmes for our police forces to continue and we are in discussion with our NATO partners about it."
  There are about 130,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban insurgency and training the Afghan security forces since the Taliban were ousted from power in late 2001 in a U.S.-led invasion.
  The U.S.-led NATO troops will withdraw at the end of 2014, giving all security responsibilities to the Afghan forces in a U.S.-designed programme that began earlier this year.
  According to the Post, numerous military guidelines were not followed by either Afghans or Americans because of concerns that they might slow the growth of the Afghan army and police.
  The Taliban have stepped up their attacks in recent months as part of efforts by the insurgency to undermine the transition process.
@adamcurry More code words: Romney praising his wife was actually degrading women http://t.co/njzgPC2b #NoAgenda
  Link to Article
  Source: @adamcurry - Twitter Search
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:59
  Rochelle Riley Free Press columnist
  September 2, 2012
  Mitt Romney said wife Ann Romney " would have succeeded at anything."
  It was the moment in Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential nomination acceptance speech Thursday night that gave clarity to who he is.
  Not just Romney, but his party.
  The former Massachusetts governor had spoken openly and with great emotion about his family and his journey. He had spoken lovingly about his wife, the mother of his five boys.
  Then he said: "Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to do."
  It was the saddest statement of his campaign. He may as well have said, "She could have been a contender."
  And it explained, in 10 words, why there is a gender gap between the Republican and Democratic parties.
  Oh, don't get your knickers in a twist. Not all conservative husbands determine their roles or their wives' by history and tradition. Not all conservative wives need success outside the monumental jobs of raising a family and running a home. There is nothing wrong with that.
  And the stereotypes that dog the Democratic Party, which opens its convention this week, are as bad, if not worse. The Democratic Party must come face-to-face with its reputation as a victim-making factory that enables the destruction of the American family.
  Don't pretend you haven't heard that.
  The what-if moment
  But in that moment, with Romney's words, I couldn't help but sense that there were millions of men who, at that same moment, thought of their wives -- even as millions of women wondered: What if?
  I wasn't alone. A Facefriend explained it brilliantly when she posted:
  "I don't appreciate the patronizing pseudo-elevation of the role of stay-at-home moms," said Sondra Jenkins, executive director, organization development and human resources at the Detroit Institute of Arts. "Romney and other 'good old boy' executives will say things like, 'Her job is way harder and more important than mine' and/or 'She's smart enough to have done whatever she wanted.' But the reason glass ceilings exist in workplaces is because of beliefs that workplace work ... or leadership is too complex and too important to be handled by women. ...
  "It's a wonderful thing if a woman has the option of staying home with her children. And it's a wonderful thing when she and her husband have made that decision together," Jenkins wrote. "But talk about it using your 'grown-up voice.' "
  I know that voice. It's the one that isn't patronizing, that is genuine and based in a reality that is shared.
  There was something about that sentence in Romney's speech that gave me pause.
  ... Something that reminded me that those GOP fringers, the ones Romney denounces, still come to the party with him.
  ... Something that was apparent in GOP policy that would ban abortion but require nothing from the fathers of those children the GOP would have born across America.
  A new underclass
  Has the Romney-Ryan team budgeted for the creation of a new underclass of women forced to have children they cannot afford and who will need help the GOP doesn't want to give?
  I watched a room filled with women cheer a team that would limit their freedoms.
  And I didn't hear one wonder whether the team would work to make sure women get the same pay for doing the same job as men.
  How Mitt Romney feels about women and how the GOP will treat women can be found in that sentence in Romney's speech, which was part saber rattling, part nostalgic na¯vet(C), but where he, while praising his wife, spoke about what she might have accomplished.
  In that instant, the rosy picture of times gone by, times the GOP wants to reclaim, didn't look so rosy -- at least not for women.
  Contact ROCHELLE RILEY: 313-223-4473 or rriley99@freepress.com
Could a state for Greater Kurdistan be on the horizon? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
  Link to Article
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:54
  Millions of Kurds, observing the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran last week, must have thought: "What about us? What about our non-aligned nation to be? We should be there. Maybe next time..."
  It may be just possible that Kurds - which themselves admit their notoriety for internal squabble - are finally getting their act together; after all, history may be dictating, roughly a century after World War I and its aftermath, which dealt a big blow to Kurds. This is the last chance for the emergence of a Greater Kurdistan.
  After the two Syrian Kurdish parties made a deal - sealed by Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani - to jointly run northeast Syria, Kurdish parties in Iran are also coming together.
  Meanwhile, Ankara behaves like a bunch of headless chickens.
  Kurds are carefully paying attention to how Ankara decided to boycott NAM - even though Turkish President Abdullah Gul was personally invited by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi proposed a Syria contact group - Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran - to try to solve the Syrian tragedy.
  This means that Egypt - under a Muslim Brotherhood president - privileges mediation for a civil war inside a fellow Arab country, while Turkey sticks to a colour-blind regime change strategy, which would only be possible with a NATO no-fly zone (it won't happen).
  So the pressing question for the Kurds becomes how to profit from Ankara's each and every move.
  And the winner is... Israel
  Not even Turkish public opinion knows what exactly are the contours of Ankara's policy for Syria - apart from regime change. President Gul claims that Damascus weaponises PKK guerrillas (there's absolutely no evidence), and that would be a casus belli.
  Damascus for its part does not want a war with Turkey.
  Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu - he of the defunct "zero problems with our neighbours" doctrine - is still toeing the line that the country could not accept more than 100,000 Syrian refugees (there are already 70,000 and counting); in this case, some fuzzy "safe haven" would have to be installed in Syrian territory. This Thursday, Ankara will press the complexities of the refugee crisis at a ministerial-level meeting at the UN.
  Ankara has insistently accused both Damascus and Tehran of supporting PKK guerrillas active in Anatolia and the porous border areas. Yet at the same time, Ankara has developed a quite secretive narrative; Turkey, once again, is aligned with Israel's strategy (the Mavi Marmara incident is now water under the bridge).
  Talk to Al Jazeera -Massoud Barzani: Flying the Kurdish flagTel Aviv avidly bets on Ankara becoming the hegemonic regional power in the - still hazy - event of a post-Assad Syria. As Israel has been deeply infiltrated in Iraqi Kurdistan for years, with very good connections - the Mossad uses it as an operational base against Syria and Iran - this will be manipulated as a bargaining chip to seduce Ankara.
  Meanwhile, in Syria, the red, green and yellow Kurdish flag is now flying in places like Girke Lege - only 35 kilometres from the Iraqi border and only 15 kilometres from the Turkish border. Over 3 million Syrian Kurds now see an ideal opening to revert the official Ba'ath Party Arabisation policy.
  The Kurdish PYD (Democratic Union Party) President Salah Muslim vehemently denies that there was a tacit agreement with the Bashar al-Assad government. But in fact there was; as long as Syrian Kurds don't attack Damascus forces, they can do whatever they want in Western/Syrian Kurdistan, which by now is assuming the contours of a an autonomous region.
  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by the way, has already delivered the message to Ankara; even in a post-Assad Syria, this should be seen as a fact on the ground. And it happens to dovetail with Israel's charm offensive among Kurds - emphasising what would be their common agenda.
  So what can Ankara do? Invade? Kurdish blowback is bound to be devastating.
  Despite official rumblings, Turkish options for invading Western/Syrian Kurdistan are not exactly stellar. The Turkish army's morale is low - after the purge of several ranking Kemalists. Over 60 generals are in jail, accused of plotting a coup - and lower-ranking officials may even try it again. Alevis and Kurdish conscripts will refuse to fight an AKP-incited war. And the Turkish economy - not to mention tourism - will inevitably go down the drain.
  Is there a leader in the house?
  One can imagine whether Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Barzani's political scheming will be enough for him to embrace the Angel of History, and rise to the occasion.
  He certainly sees a Greater Kurdistan independent from Arabs, Persians and Turks. But for that to happen in a grand scale he would have to conduct himself as a unifier - not only sharing power inside Iraqi Kurdistan but also managing conflicting Kurdish aspirations in Syria, Iran and Turkey. This implies a visionary streak plus tremendous diplomatic skills.
  What's certain is that Washington and Tel Aviv are on board; this implies that Brussels sooner or later will follow. BRICS members Russia and China are not exactly against it. There are two possibilities here. A Greater Kurdistan forged as a model for the Middle East - in terms of a secular, dynamic, progressive entity respectful of religious minorities. Or yet another Western stooge.
  A major geopolitical volcano is erupting. Ankara certainly has not analysed the blowback of weaponising Syrian Sunnis just for the weapons to find their way back into Turkey to be used by the PKK against Ankara itself.
  This anti-imperialist analysis may be very useful to understand the Kurdish dynamic. But there's still much more to it.
  Jeremy Salt, professor of History and Politics of the Middle East at Bilkent University, Ankara, and author of The Unmaking of the Middle East, in a conversation with La Stampa's world news editor Claudio Gallo, neatly summarised it:
  "In 1918 the imperial powers divided the Middle East in a certain way that suited their interests at the time. They are now remapping it again - and again to suit their interests. It is not coincidental that this programme dovetails with Israel's own long-term strategic planning. Russia and China are fully aware of what is going on, which is why the present situation can be seen as a 21st century extension of the 'Eastern question' or of the 'Great Game' between Russia and Britain."
  Make no mistake; each day makes it more likely that an unintended - or rather intended - consequence of this Great Game remix will be the emergence of Greater Kurdistan.
  Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His latest book is named Obama Does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).
  1197
  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
@adamcurry @THErealDVORAK "Nothing to see here." http://t.co/TyXp6K4u Did you guys discuss this in March? I don't remember.
  Link to Article
  Source: @adamcurry - Twitter Search
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:35
  Obama was overheard on a microphone delivering a secret message to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev regarding the US missile defense. What is Obama up to, and what does his secret message mean for allies like Israel? Is Obama about to hang Europe out to dry? Is this message treasonous? Find out.
  See more at http://www.pjtv.com
Why the On LIne Music Industry is a Mess
  Link to Article
  Source: LIVE@LEEDS
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:45
  On Line Media is a Mess
  Like this:Be the first to like this.
  This entry was posted on September 2, 2012 at 11:50 am and is filed under Technology.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
AUDIO: Lost BBC archive of Armstrong found
  Link to Article
  Source: BBC News - Home
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:44
  This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RT @yoagenda: Yo Agenda Lunar Lunatic: http://t.co/4ZrJdBKO MP3: http://t.co/H3x9WUNK Feed: http://t.co/QNNXFijz @adamcurry @therealdvo ...
  Link to Article
  Source: @adamcurry - Twitter Search
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:40
  Yo Agenda Lunar Lunatic
  Yo Agenda is a podcast about No Agenda, and is hosted by Comic Strip Blogger and The Candyman.
  No Agenda is hosted by Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak.
  In this episode we discuss Adam's guest appearance on This Week In Tech (TWIT) and the lunar / moon landing issue. TWIT is hosted by Leo Laporte. We also discuss Adam's attempt to quit smoking and which appearantly leads to blindness. Happy Birthday, Adam!
  Yo Agenda on Twitter and Feedburner.
Why Miguel de Icaza is Wrong About Desktop Linux : LinuxActionShow
  Link to Article
  Source: Dave Winer's linkblog feed
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:38
  Someone of note proclaiming Linux on the desktop is dead is nothing new. The last really big stir up I recall was in early November of 2011, and it hurt. The numbers were ran, the math was in, and there was just no avoiding it, Android had killed Linux!
  That first Sunday of November we decided to tackle the elephant in the room on the Linux Action Show. If I do say so my self, we did such a fine job settling the whole matter I assumed the world would move on.
  But this most recent round of "Linux is dead" stings a bit more, not only is it from one of our own, Miguel de Icaza, but he makes some damn good points.
  I think backwards compatibility is hugely important, and it's one of the issues thats driven me to use OS X on my video production systems, along with the media tools.
  I also use a FreeBSD file server, that doesn't mean Linux on the server is dead. I recognize I am using these Mac's and my file server as a production tool, not applicable to average computer users.
  I think from the big picture perspective, much like his continued efforts with Mono, Miguel misses the mark. While I think one could argue he's right about desktop Linux as most us enthusiast think of it, the market has decided that's no longer the debate.
  It's now: Can Ubuntu be successful?
  First dimension: Compatibility.This is where I think Miguel's got the most traction, it's a historically weak area for Linux. But it's quickly becoming less of a problem.
  "Cloud" apps remove the issue of client compatibly breakage, Google's very successful internal use of Goobuntu proves this, and is an indicator of future business application.
  Native client apps can be distributed through Ubuntu's Software Center, and they can target LTS releases of Ubuntu for guaranteed compatibility. It's happening today, and at a faster pace then I've ever seen. This is as much as can be expected on Mac OS X. And with Microsoft's transition to Metro, it's hard to say how developers should plan for that platform.
  Switchers.Miguel, citing him self as an example, suggests Linux is suffering from a brain drain.
  Many hackers moved to OSX. It was a good looking Unix, with working audio, PDF viewers, working video drivers, codecs for watching movies and at the end of the day, a very pleasant system to use. Many exchanged absolute configurability of their system for a stable system.
  As for myself, I had fallen in love with the iPhone, so using a Mac on a day-to-day basis was a must.
  He fails to notice that innovation in OS X has begun to slow, and age. It's HFS+ file system is disastrously out of date, and OS X remains tied to hardware that's priced beyond what a large market will pay. The introductions of technologies like artificially constructed overly restrictive application sandboxing show an intent to dumb down the desktop.
  Apple's continued focus on iOS does not paint a great long term picture. OS X has had a roadmap since day one, and it's nearing the end:
  Steve Jobs launched the initial 10.0 version of Mac OS X in March 2001, describing it as a platform Apple would use over the next fifteen years, or roughly the same period of time the "classic Mac OS" had been used to power the Macintosh at the time. When he said that, Jobs also likely had in mind that NeXT, which built the operating system that Mac OS X was built on, was itself 15 years old in 2001 (having existed since his departure from Apple in 1986). SOURCE
  These same elite theoretical hackers will jump ship once again, just as they have many times before.
  The future of Linux on the desktop, in the context of something that's targeted by commercial parties and has years of stability expected, already has become Ubuntu LTS.
  For Miguel to miss this obvious fact, show's that he's been using the Mac for too long, and his lack of insight betrays he is probably not qualified to make such grand statements anymore.
  The traditional vendor desktops are transitioning. Apple keeps telling us it's dead and Microsoft is trying to kill it with Windows 8. Last time I checked, Linux has one of the more viable long-term outlooks for users who want a traditional, yet modernized and feature rich desktop UI.
  The community of enthusiasts new and old talk about the Linux desktop market as we see it, a completive landscape with interesting approaches and solutions to problems we have. And that's true, for us. But it certainly would be a nightmare for a slow moving corporation who wants the biggest return on onetime investments.
  But that's a problem that's been obvious for years, and one that Mark Shuttleworth aims to solve.
  The industry has already identified Ubuntu as a clear leader. Using just this week's news docket as a reference, it's obvious Ubuntu support comes first, and Canonical is making every effort to encourage that. Every big Kickstarter, new games, video editors, and more all ship with Ubuntu support first.
  Ubuntu Linux sits in the sweet zone for the ecosystem Miguel says Linux squandered.
  Easy to useWell supportedCommercially backed (companies like Valve like this)Significant and growing market share.Proven LTS release cycle.Commercially dedicated focus on the desktop product (i.e., failure of Fedora or openSUSE does not put anyone out of business).I wanted to write my thoughts down, this is just one of the topics we're covering on this week's episode of The Linux Action Show. Be sure to catch episode 5 of season 23!
  Catch it LIVE if you can, and share YOUR thoughts with us in our IRC chat room:
  Sunday 10am PDT / 1pm EDT / 5pm UTC
  Video: http://jblive.tvAudio: http://jblive.info
Scripting News: Tabbed River 3
  Link to Article
  Source: Dave Winer's linkblog feed
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:37
  What's new: The World news tab.
  I started with the international feeds from major news outlets such as the ABC from Australia, Ria Novosti from Russia, Al Jazeera, Ha'aretz, The Hindu, NYT international feed, etc.
  Then I asked people who read the site for other feeds. English-language. Covers news for their geography, as well as world news, but not be too focused on the United States. We already have lots of American news in other tabs. It was a community project which was wonderful, that's why we have such a rich set of feeds, and such an interesting tab.
  The NOLA tab was fascinating as Hurricane Isaac swept through Louisiana. And in this version, the Berkman tab moves off the front page.
  Lots of other stuff in the pipe, as well as a tab for the US election, as it heats up.
  Keep the cards and letters coming and keep spreading the word. Especially people who work at news organizations and bloggers. I want them all to do rivers for their communities. They don't have to be as fancy as this one. And we can help. It's important to have these streams running all over the web, not just on Twitter and Facebook.
  Onward!
Apple Repeatedly Blocks U.S. Drone Strike Tracking Application for Different Reasons Every Time :
  Link to Article
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:25
  By Madison Rupperttheintelhub.comSeptember 1, 2012
  Despite the completely inoffensive nature of the application, Apple has repeatedly refused to allow an app tracking U.S. drone strikes by claiming that the content is ''objectionable and crude.''
  In reality, it is not the app that is ''objectionable and crude,'' instead it is the program itself which is both objectionable and crude.
  It makes it even worse that the United States government refuses to justify while continuing to pour money into the field, signaling a lengthy future for the technology.
  It is even more concerning that Apple would be blocking an app providing information on drone strikes abroad while drones are already being used in the United States with massive expansion looming on the horizon.
  The New York-based developer of the app, Josh Begley, told Danger Room that Apple has turned down his app dubbed ''Drones+'' a whopping three times in a single month.
  One of the most ludicrous aspects of Apple's refusal to allow this application to reach consumers' devices is that they continuously shift their reasoning, thus showing it to be essentially arbitrary.
  At first they claimed that the application was ''not useful'' since it is a relatively simple concept which just aggregates news about U.S. drone strikes in the undeclared wars in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.
  ''The features and/or content of your app were not useful or entertaining enough, or your app did not appeal to a broad enough audience.'' Apple said in an email to Begley.
  The second time around they claimed that there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo and now they have resorted to the ''objectionable and crude'' excuse.
  This is nothing short of laughable since the app doesn't even show users the horrific images of corpses left lying in the dirt, often with limbs missing and organs exposed, which one can all too easily find online.
  All the app does is use a public database of the location of U.S. drone strikes created and compiled and maintained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism based at City University in London, England.
  While Apple provides developers with a set of guidelines for their submissions to the Apple Store, the actual approval process is somewhat mysterious since Apple tends to avoid commenting on it.
  One must admit that with a relatively small team of people actually reviewing the apps '' which can number as much as 10,000 apps per week '' one must expect that they will play it safe when reviewing apps which might be questionable.
  However, when the objections change every time around, one can safely assume that it isn't really a problem with the technical or design aspects of the app but instead with the subject matter it is dealing with.
  ''If the content is found to be objectionable, and it's literally just an aggregation of news, I don't know how to change that,'' said Begley.
  The app really doesn't do all that much since it simply catalogs when and where a drone strike occurs based on information from the Bureau of Investigative Reporting along with some very basic information from the media about who they believe may have been targeted.
  Where the app really shines is with the notification system. ''I wanted to play with this idea of push notifications and push button technology '-- essentially asking a question about what we choose to get notified about in real time,'' says Begley.
  ''I thought reaching into the pockets of U.S. smartphone users and annoying them into drone-consciousness could be an interesting way to surface the conversation a bit more,'' he said.
  Indeed, increasing awareness of the drone campaign is of vital importance in every sector of society. I believe that the effort to encourage the people actually developing military robots to refuse to work on military technology altogether is a great idea but increasing awareness amongst the general public is incredibly critical as well.
  Since the smartphone application market is massive and continuing to grow, an app like Drones+ could be a great tool in making people aware of the frequency of these strikes.
  Unfortunately on August 27, Apple told Begley in an email, ''We found that your app contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.''
  Interestingly, this is the first time that Apple has objected to the actual content of Begley's app when the content hasn't changed significantly since he first submitted it in July.
  I think Danger Room makes a good point in bringing up the fact that Begley's app essentially does the same thing as other news aggregators in simply collecting media reports into one place for convenient consumption. ''And of course, the App Store houses innumerable applications for news publications and aggregators that deliver much of the same content provided by Begley's app,'' they note.
  Unsurprisingly, Apple would not comment on the multiple refusals to approve the application when contacted by Wired.
  ''I'm kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I'm supposed to do,'' said Begley. In an attempt to get around all of the frustration, Begley said he is considering just going through the Android Market.
  Personally, I see no legitimate reason why Apple should refuse to approve this application. If they want to block potentially ''objectionable and crude'' content, they should go ahead and restrict websites which can be visited and perhaps the countless flatulence-related applications in the App Store.
  Note from End the Lie: Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.
  This article originally appeared on End the Lie
  Follow Us on Twitter
Nation & World | Yosemite lawsuit may limit access to national parks | Seattle Times Newspaper
  Link to Article
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 05:20
  Originally published January 29, 2007 at 12:00 AM | Page modified January 29, 2007 at 12:35 AM
  YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. -- The plunging waterfalls and soaring crags chiseled by the Merced River draw millions of visitors each year, but the crowds are precisely what threatens the waterway and the park.
  Efforts to safeguard the Merced have spawned a court battle over the future of development in Yosemite National Park's most popular stretch. The case may come down to the challenge facing all of America's parks: Should they remain open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?
  In November, a federal judge barred crews from finishing $60 million in construction projects in Yosemite Valley, siding with a small group of environmentalists who sued the federal government, saying further commercial development would bring greater numbers of visitors, thus threatening the Merced's fragile ecosystem.
  "The park's plans for commercialization could damage Yosemite for future generations," said Bridget Kerr, a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley, one of two environmental groups that filed the suit.
  The government is appealing, fearing the ruling could force the National Park Service to limit the number of people allowed into Yosemite each day -- a precedent it doesn't want to see echoed in other parks.
  "I don't think we've ever had a ruling with these kind of implications," said Kerri Cahill, a Denver-based planner for the park service. "It's going to have a direct influence on the public who care about these places."
  The case has Yosemite's most loyal advocates sharply divided over how to balance preservation with access to public lands. Even environmentalists can't agree on how to minimize the human footprint: Some believe cars should be kept out entirely; others say visitors should have to make reservations in advance.
  Yosemite was the first land in the country set aside for its scenic beauty, declared a public trust in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln. Its 1,200 square miles of granite peaks and towering waterfalls became a national park in 1890, and with few exceptions its gates have been open to all ever since, though backcountry permits are limited to minimize the human impact on wilderness areas.
  The Merced itself is protected under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
  The current fight began when the Merced flooded in 1997, wiping out campgrounds and parking lots and damaging rooms at the popular Yosemite Lodge. The park service drew up a $442 million remodeling plan that included moving campgrounds, rerouting a key access road, rebuilding employee housing and upgrading hotel rooms on the valley floor.
  Kerr's group and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government sued, claiming aspects of the park's plans -- including blasting part of the river canyon -- threatened the Merced.
  The groups also fear the costs of park upgrades would be passed on to visitors in the form of price increases for hotel rooms and campsites, turning Yosemite into a playground for the rich.
  Park officials say no such rate increases are planned. Accommodations now range from about $20 per night for a campsite to nearly $1,000 for a suite in the deluxe Ahwahnee Hotel.
  Park spokesman Scott Gediman called the plaintiffs a "fringe group" pushing a radical agenda.
  "They want us to set a quota for the number of visitors coming into the park, which is something we just don't want to do," he said.
  Well-known conservation groups such as the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy aren't directly involved in the fight, though the Sierra Club was among more than 60 organizations that signed a legal brief supporting an earlier version of the suit.
  Gediman said the number of visitors is falling and crowding isn't a problem except at the height of summer, when there's bumper-to-bumper traffic near popular sites such as El Capitan, the 3,000-foot granite monolith rising from the valley floor.
  In 1996, when the park had a record 4 million visitors, rangers shut gates when all parking spaces were filled. But last year, the nation's third-most-popular park hit a 16-year low with 3.36 million visitors.
  "This is the United States' version of the crown jewels, so why wouldn't we protect it as best we can?" said Peter Newman, a natural-resources-management professor at Colorado State University who filed a legal brief supporting the park service. "I've just never heard of any other plan that has been so contested."
  ';}}document.getElementById("second_ad_unit").innerHTML += second_ad_unit;return;}google_ad_client = "pub-4532355179464318";google_ad_channel = '766684735';google_ad_output = 'js';google_max_num_ads = '3';google_feedback = "on";google_ad_type = "text";google_skip = 0;google_image_size = "300x250"; // -->
Suzanne Barr, ICE Chief of Staff, Resigns After Firestorm Started by Schlussel Story '' Buh-Bye!
  Link to Article
  Source: Debbie Schlussel
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 05:08
  By Debbie Schlussel
  About three weeks ago, I broke the story about a lawsuit filed by New York's top Homeland Security official against Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, alleging employment discrimination and sexual harassment by Suzanne Barr, Napolitano's her hand-picked chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Now, as a result of the firestorm I started with that story, Ms. Barr has resigned, deliberately doing so late yesterday''on a Saturday of one of the biggest holiday weekends of the year so the news would go unnoticed. I predicted to friends of mine in ICE that Barr would be forced to resign''which should have happened long ago, and today she did. I've been reporting on the facts alleged in the lawsuit and some affidavits in connection with the suit, for several years on this site, as agents have long complained to me about Barr's sexual harassment of male agents. But her resignation is not enough. ICE chief John Moron Morton and Napolitano should go with her.
  Suzy Barr: Obama Homeland Security Official, Who Treated Male ICE Agents Like The ''Magic Mike'' Casting Couch, Resigns
  Partners in Harassment/Discrimination: DHS Chief Janet Napolitano & Flamboyant ICE Chief John (Moron) Morton
  Even if Obama is re-elected in November, they may be gone in January. Morton was well aware of Suzy Barr's behavior. He was in on a lot of it and looked the other way. One affidavit I exclusively posted on this site alleges that Morton was involved in a sexting situation involving one of his Special Agents in Charge, Ray Parmer, and Barr. And Morton and Napolitano's discrimination in favor of gay and lesbian agents at ICE, even creating wasteful special positions (job positions, not sexual ones) for them to be near their sexual partners, etc. cannot be tolerated. Sadly, in the Obama administration it is. And I'm not so sure that will change under Mitt Romney, since Daniel Ragsdale, a gay agent who discriminates against male straight agents, will immediately be acting Director of ICE, if Obama loses. He is already Deputy Director of the organization at this point.
  While her behavior was immature, illegal, and unacceptable, and Suzy Barr was rightfully shown the door''but only because of the bad PR that finally befell the agency because of her, a fish rots from the head down. And today, the rotten head of the Homeland Security fish is Janet Napolitano. The rotting head of ICE is John Morton.
  Time is well past for them to go. Buh-Bye, Suzy ''Stripper Pole'' Barr. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. Now, time for the other shoes to drop with Napolitano and Morton's resignations. Those cannot come soon enough. The damage they caused is irreparable.
  ''We're From the Govt & We're Here to . . . Sexually Harass You''Artwork by David Lunde/Lundesigns
National Security Policy: Marine Medal of Honor Shrouded in Controversy
  Link to Article
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 04:30
  News is coming to light that the Medal of Honor awarded to Marine Dakota Meyer might not be as much of an open and shut case as was thought. As many news agencies are reporting, it seems as though the account of Meyer's actions as given by the Marine Corps are, at the very least, exaggerated. Why would this be the case?There are two main reasons. The first reason is that Congress has tried to award more medals, and particularly higher profile medals, in the waning days of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been only ten Medals of Honor awarded during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and only three of those have gone to living soldiers. The rush to award Medals of Honor was therefore present on the civilian side, and the second reason is that the rush was also on the military side. The Marine Corps also wanted to have one of their own awarded the Medal of Honor, feeling that they deserved more recognition due to their role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the nine previous Medals of Honor awarded since 2001, 1 went to a Marine, 2 went to members of the Navy, and the remaining six all went to members of the Army. For a proud organization that has, in many ways, stepped outside its intention in the last decade, some more recognition would obviously be expected.Meyer's fellow Marines that were with him during the battle for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor say that he did indeed deserve it. While the official count given by the Marine Corps may prove to be inaccurate, the Washington Post reports that at least seven others present at the battle backed the decision to nominate Meyer for the Medal of Honor. This would seem to indicate that even if the story on the Marine Corps website is somewhat embellished, it doesn't mean that this Medal of Honor is tainted.Another, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of this story is the timing. As I believe has been mentioned on this blog, Meyer has filed suit against BAE Systems, a contracting company and his former employer. According to Meyer, he was shown the door after protesting an arms deal BAE was in the process of making. Not only was he shown the door at BAE, but he claims he was also blacklisted from other potential employers. At the time of the suit in late November, BAE made statements suggesting that, although they would be fighting the lawsuit, they wouldn't go into personal attacks against Meyer. These two facts-the controversy over Meyer's Medal of Honor and his lawsuit against BAE Systems-raise some questions. Is this simply bad timing for Meyer, or could BAE Systems have leaked the news regarding the possible misrepresentation of Meyer's actions in an attempt to discredit him? While that could be too big of a conspiracy theory stretch, it will be interesting to see how Meyer's legal actions play out with BAE Systems.
@adamcurry Exclusive: Inside Karl Rove's Billionaire Fundraiser - Businessweek via @BW http://t.co/P8XVOAJB
  Link to Article
  Source: @adamcurry - Twitter Search
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 04:01
  On the final morning of the Republican National Convention, Karl Rove took the stage at the Tampa Club to provide an exclusive breakfast briefing to about 70 of the Republican Party's highest-earning and most powerful donors. During the more than hour-long session, Rove explained to an audience dotted with hedge fund billionaires and investors'--including John Paulson and Wilbur Ross'--how his super PAC, American Crossroads, will persuade undecided voters in crucial swing states to vote against Barack Obama. He also detailed plans for Senate and House races, and joked, ''We should sink Todd Akin. If he's found mysteriously murdered, don't look for my whereabouts!''
  Then Rove pleaded with his audience for more money'--much more.
  This rare look at the mechanics of super-PAC fundraising and electoral strategy was likely not intended for reporters. I was invited as the guest of a financier who is a significant Republican donor. The financier knew that I was a journalist. At no point was I presented with, nor did I agree to, restrictions regarding the information I heard. Upon my arrival at the breakfast, I was not asked if I was a journalist. I gave my name, identified the person who had invited me, was handed a wristband, and ushered into the dining room. American Crossroads disputes this version of events, but a spokesman did not immediately return calls to elaborate.
  The morning began with an address about the urgency of defeating Obama by Florida's Republican Senator Marco Rubio. Crossroads Chief Executive Officer Steven Law followed and introduced some of the super PAC's staff, referring to general counsel Tom Josefiak as ''the guy who keeps us from ever having to wear orange jumpsuits.''
  Then came the main event: Rove, joined by former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, laid out his strategy for winning the White House. ''The people we've got to win in this election, by and large, voted for Barack Obama,'' Rove said, in a soothing, professorial tone, explaining why the campaign hadn't launched more pointed attacks on the president's character.
  Rove explained that Crossroads had conducted extensive focus groups and shared polling and focus group data with ''all the major groups that are playing'' in the election. ''As many of you know, one of the most important things about Crossroads is: We don't try and do this alone. We have partners,'' he said. ''The Kochs'--you name it.''
  What had emerged from that data is an ''acute understanding of the nature of those undecided, persuadable'' voters. ''If you say he's a socialist, they'll go to defend him. If you call him a 'far out left-winger,' they'll say, 'no, no, he's not.''' The proper strategy, Rove declared, was criticizing Obama without really criticizing him'--by reminding voters of what the president said that he was going to do and comparing it to what he's actually done. ''If you keep it focused on the facts and adopt a respectful tone, then they're gonna agree with you.''
  In Rove's estimation, things are going well. ''Barack Obama unleashed hell on our candidate on May 15,'' he said. ''Between May 15 and July 31st, he spent $111 million on ads out of his campaign war chest, and there was about another $17, $18 million spent by outside groups. The day that this started, the Gallup poll was 45-45. On the 31st of July, it was 46-46.''
  ''We spent'--outside groups spent $110 million and Romney spent $42 million,'' Rove continued. ''So the bad guys [Democrats] spent $130 million and the good guys [Republicans] spent $152 million, and our money didn't go as far as theirs because we couldn't buy at the lowest unit rate. Really, it was sort of roughly equivalent, and we fought it to a draw.'' And that, Rove pointed out, was after a brutal Republican primary. ''We have to keep in mind whose vote we're trying to get'--it ain't the delegate from Alaska. It's not the alternate from Alabama. It's some undecided voter in the battleground state who likes the president.''
  Rove spoke almost exclusively about defeating Barack Obama and retaking control of the White House. There was sparse praise for Mitt Romney'--either as a candidate or as a future leader and policy maker.
  One of the few Romney mentions was by Haley Barbour, who jumped in to explain how Democrats hoped to define the nominee: ''You know, 'Romney is a vulture capitalist who doesn't care about the likes of you. He doesn't even know people like you'--he'll lay you off, cancel your insurance, shit jobs. He's a plutocrat. Married to a known equestrian!'''
  The room erupted in laughter.
  Barbour predicted that the Democrats were going to ''get nastier, more negative, more vicious, more personal. We're going to have to put on our big-boy britches and respond with what the American people want to hear: What are we going to do to solve the problems in this country.''
  Rove's analysis of the Senate races was technical and masterly. The Republicans need four seats to gain a majority, and Rove said he feels ''really good'' about Nebraska and is optimistic about North Dakota, even though Democrats have a strong candidate in former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp. ''We're deeply engaged'' there, Rove said. In Wisconsin, former Governor Tommy Thompson ''has an excellent shot to win'--he has a quirky, cross-party appeal.'' Virginia is going to be tight and will likely mirror the way the state votes in the presidential race. Of those, Rove declared, ''we can win three.''
  In Connecticut, Rove noted that Linda McMahon, the former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, whom he had once written off, was running a ''really smart campaign.'' And the state, he noted, had moved more to the right. ''Those affluent, socially liberal, economically conservative people in Fairfield County and the New York suburbs have finally figured out that their pocketbooks matter more than abortion.''
  There are six Republican incumbents Rove identified as in jeopardy, but the biggest risk to Republican hopes of retaking the Senate is Todd Akin in Missouri, following his comments about ''legitimate rape.'' Rove urged every attendee to apply pressure on Akin to convince him to leave the race. ''We have five people who are interested'' in replacing Akin, Rove said. ''We don't care who the nominee is, other than get Akin out.''
  Just to get the ''juices flowing'' of the billionaires in the room, Rove shared a little anecdote. Someone he described as a ''benefactor'' had recently contacted him, offering to donate $10 million to be deployed in Florida'--$5 million for Republican Congressman Connie Mack's Senate race against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson and $5 million for the presidential race. But the donor placed two conditions on the money. One, his donation had to be matched by other donors. And two, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush had to start making phone calls on their behalf. Rove paused for effect and announced: ''Jeb's making phone calls for us!'' The crowd erupted.
  American Crossroads's total budget, Rove said, was $300 million, with $200 million of it for the presidential race, $70 million for the Senate, and $32 million for the House.
  After screening a collection of television ads aimed at such Senate battleground states as Massachusetts, the fundraising began in earnest. CEO Law said that because of the ''tremendous generosity'' of many of the people in the room, American Crossroads is two-thirds of the way toward reaching its $300 million goal. But it still needs much more. With advertising rates going up and the necessity of ''dealing with the gender-gap issue,'' they could easily spend more than $300 million.
  Barbour made the final pitch. ''You all give so unbelievably generously. But you know what, I don't have any compunction about looking you in the eye and asking for more,'' he said. He compared the importance of a donation to American Crossroads in this cycle to donations made to ''the charity hospital'' or a ''big not-for-profit cancer research program that you give to.''
  ''This is a high-stakes election,'' he continued. ''The consequences are greater than any election, and I know everybody in here wants their children and grandchildren to inherit the same country we did. I honestly believe those are the stakes.''
VIDEO: 'Bloody stalemate' in Syria crisis
  Link to Article
  Source: BBC News - Middle East
  Sun, 02 Sep 2012 03:39
  This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.