BBC MANAGERS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT BEHAVIOUR OF JIMMY SAVILE

How could the managers at the BBC not have been aware of Jimmy Savile and his pattern of sexual abuse of children over 30 or 40 years?

The New York Times should rethink hiring the BBC's managing director, Mark Thompson, as new editor of the paper.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN AS DISCRIMINATORY FEDERAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

The U.S. government is divided into three branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

While majority rule determines the makeup of the first two branches, the electorate does not select the federal judiciary.  This means that the judicial branch is immune from majoritarian rule.  One of its main purposes is to protect minority rights in the face of majority rule.

Today, we have another example of the integrity of the federal judiciary.  The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the right of two homosexual adults to marry and secure the same legal rights as heterosexuals when they marry.

Timothy Williams reports in The New York Times online that the court held today that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars homosexual marriages, is unconstitutional.

Writes Timothy Williams:

"A federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled on Thursday that the federal statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unlawfully discriminates against same-sex married couples by denying them equal federal benefits."

REPUBLICANS CREATE FALSE CHARGE AGAINST PRES. BARACK OBAMA ON LIBYA

The Romney campaign, and Republicans in general, seem to think that there is a smoking gun to be found in the administration's handling of the Benghazi tragedy.  The story line appears to be that Obama is hiding his own incompetence in not immediately recognizing that the attack and killing of the American ambassador on September 11th was an act of terrorists that had nothing to do with the furor that erupted in the Islamic world over a perceived insult to the prophet Muhammad in a video made by an Egyptian-American in California.

But Scott Shane reports in The New York Times today that the administration at first did not have intelligence information that the attack was a jihadi attack, but rather one connected to protests over the anti-Muhammad film.  Furthermore, intelligence reported that some of the attackers claimed to bystanders that they were angry because of the film.

Reports Shane:

"According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place."

 

Given this information, it is no wonder that administration officials, like Susan Rice, announced that the attack was connected to the video film.

 

Republicans are seeking an indictment of Pres. Barack Obama, without any real evidence or basis.  This shows their desperation, in their quest to win the presidential election coming up in three weeks.

LIFE ACCORDING TO THE TALIBAN - SHOOT 14-YEAR-OLD WHO INSULTS YOUR BELIEFS ON TREATMENT OF WOMEN

Declan Walsh covers the story in The New York Times today of the school girl in Pakistan, shot in the head at close range by members of Pakistan's Taliban, because they objected to her campaign for universal education for girls.

Members of the Taliban give the impression of being from an age of unenlightenment, hundreds of years ago, where, if you don't like what someone else says or thinks, you kill him or her, in this case, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai.

U.S. WAGES ILLEGAL ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST IRAN

The New York Times reports today on  U.S. imposing additional sanctions against Iran and its oil industry.  Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers write:

"The new sets of measures, which target Iran’s oil and petrochemical sectors as well as its shipping trade, intensify existing sanctions intended to choke off the revenue that Iran reaps from its two largest export industries. While they do not represent a quantum leap in pressure, they address a potential weakness in the continuing effort: Iran’s increasingly adroit maneuvering to circumvent sanctions by selling its oil through foreign banks or for alternative means of payment, like gold."

This is warfare being waged by the U.S. against Iran, and it is just as illegal as military warfare or bombing Tehran.


The people who suffer as the targets of such American economic warfare are the common people, not Iran's leadership.  It is the guy who loses his job in the oil industry, the storekeeper whose sales fall off sharply because no one has money to spend, the single mother whose state payments suddenly stop.

I call upon Pres. Barack Obama, stop this illegal waging war against the people of Iran.

PAUL KRUGMAN WINNER OF 2008 NOBEL PRICE IN ECONOMICS

Congratulations to Paul Krugman for winning the 2008 Nobel Price in Economics. Krugman is an op-ed writer for The New York Times as well as a professor of economics at Princeton.

Catherine Rampell writes in The New York Times:

"The prize committee lauded Mr. Krugman for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.” "

Paul Krugman is a critic of the laissez-faire policies of the Bush gang, especially when it comes to banks and investment banks. Krugman believes, as I do, that this whole financial mess that has resulted in so many people losing their homes to foreclosure, came about because Bush's cronies failed to apply any meaningful regulation to the mortgage sales practices as well as to the securitization of home mortgages in these "collateralized mortgage obligations."

Reports Rampell:

"Mr. Krugman, 55, is probably more widely known as a perpetual thorn in George Bush’s side from his perch as an Op-Ed page columnist for nearly a decade. His columns have won him both strong supporters and ardent critics. The Nobel, however, was awarded for academic — and less political — research that he conducted primarily before he began regularly writing for The Times."

The Nobel award to Krugman, however, can be seen as a rejection of this Bush free-for-all in the mortgage and securities markets. Bush thinks his legacy will be recognized in time, but the rest of the world has already made its judgment, and it is more a condemnation than a validation.

WHY NO INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT PHONY LETTER LINKING SADDAM & MOHAMED ATTA

The new book by Ron Suskind, The Way of the World, makes the sensational charge that the White House instructed the CIA to create a bogus letter from the former head of Saddam's Intelligence Agency that Saddam had ties with Mohamed Atta.

The White House has issued non-denial denials, calling the assertion "ridiculous" but not saying that it is false. So has George Tenet, formerly head of the CIA, that "to the best of [his] knowledge," he received no such instructions.

But where are the reports we should expect about this in the public media? Where are the stories in The New York Times or on CBS? Investigative reporters should be swarming all over this story, but so far, there has been relative silence.

GEORGE BUSH THREATENING IRAN OVER NUCLEAR POWER

George Bush is up to his old war-mongering tricks, this time warning Iran over nuclear development and promising sanctions. The question needs to be asked, has Bush and his enablers Cheney and Rice already decided on a War with Iran? Some say, no war is in the offing, but I remain sceptical and wary. The same pattern as we saw with Bush as to his sanctions against Iraq now seems to be repeating itself as to Iran.

The BBC reports today on Bush's threats:

"Mr Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran would be "incredibly dangerous" to peace.

""They can either face isolation or they can have a better relationship with all of us if they verifiably suspend their nuclear enrichment programme," he said.

""They've ignored the [International Atomic Energy Agency] in the past and therefore they can't be trusted with enrichment." "

Why can't Bush cease and desist ordering other nations around. Who is Bush to say that Iran cannot have nuclear power or nuclear weapons? The United States has nuclear weapons, so why not Iran? If you were president Ahmadinejad and you saw how the U.S. invaded Iraq and tore up Iraqi society, destroyed its infrastructure and threw its whole population into chaos, wouldn't you try to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent to any future U.S. attack?

Bush is just up to his old war-mongering ways. I would be surprised if Bush did not mount an attack on Teheran during his last days in office. As The New York Times said today in its lead editorial, it would be a disaster.

WHY ARE THE CLINTONS PLAYING RACIAL POLITICS?

Bob Herbert writes about the strategy of the Clinton's in his op-ed piece in today's The New York Times. I can sum up his argument, "What the hell are the Clintons doing," and "Why are they out to destroy Barack Obama by playing racial politics?"

Writes Herbert:

"The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

"Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd."

As Herbert comments, this argument that Barack can't cut it with blue-collar white Americans and that he only appeals to African American voters is a slur on the black people that Hillary and Bill always claimed that they respected and represented.

Herbert comments:

"The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years."

But it is also a put-down of those blue-collar white voters who Hillary says would never support a black man.

Writes Bob Herbert:

"But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

"I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites."

NY TIMES MISSES GOOD WORK OF HUGO CHAVEZ IN FREEING COLOMBIAN HOSTAGES

The New York Times today has an editorial on the recent intrusion of armed forces of Colombia into Ecuador. This clearly violated international law. One country cannot legally invade another, even if the intrusion was only a mile or two. However the NY Times seems to believe that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are meddlesome interlopers:

"Venezuela — whose territory wasn’t violated — jumped in. President Hugo Chávez, who thrives on such crises, expelled Colombia’s ambassador, ordered forces to his border and threatened to block trade. Colombia then accused both Venezuela and Ecuador of aiding and abetting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the guerrilla group known as FARC. . . .

"Mr. Chávez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier it is to believe that the charges against him are true."

In this case, the background is most important for a correct understanding of the role of Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. Venezuela borders Colombia on the north and Ecuador borders Colombia on the south. Hugo Chavez has been instrumental in freeing at least six hostages taken prisoner by the Colombian insurgence, the FARC. These hostages have been in captivity in Colombian jungles, many of them for over six years. Colombia and its U.S. backed president, Alvaro Uribe, seem more intent on killing members of the FARC than securing the release of the hostages. One of thee hostages not freed is Ingrid Betancourt, both a citizen of France and Colombia, and a candidate for Colombian presidency until she was kidnapped several years ago.

The hostage crisis forms the backdrop to the Colombian raid on a FARC camp inside of Ecuador. The Colombians killed 18 FARC members with a late night raid, including FARC # 2 officer, Raul Reyes. Given Colombia's propensity to refuse to negotiate with FARC, and in light of the recent freeing of six hostages through the personal intervention of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, what does the raid say about the FARC hostages still not released?

Colombia has in effect said that it does not care about the hostages still in captivity. It is going to kill all members of the FARC that it can, to hell with the hostages or their families or their release. Furthermore, this is a way that Alvaro Uribe can oppose Hugo Chavez after being shown up by Chavez for not making the release of the hostages a priority of the Colombian government.

Instead of calling Chavez an outside busybody, the NY Times should commend the efforts of President Hugo Chavez for securing the release of FARC hostages up till now. Hugo Chavez was well on his way to secure the freedom of many more, including Ingrid Betancourt. Now in light of the foolish Colombian raid, it is doubtful that the FARC will release any more. No wonder Hugo Chavez felt compelled to condemn Uribe and Colombia. In criticizing Chavez, the NY Times missed the whole import of the altruistic Chavez involvement.

DAVID SANGER AND ISRAELI AIR RAID AGAINST SYRIAN PLANT

We have just returned from hearing David Sanger of The New York Times give a lunch-hour talk at Salt Lake Community College.

I specifically asked Sanger if he were satisfied with his sources for his story in the NY Times on October 13, 2007, about the Israeli air raid on what some people say was a Syrian nascent nuclear weapons plant. Steve Clemons in his The Washington Note expressed some doubt on whether the "nuclear" development plant was more accurately a plant to weaponize Syria's missiles with non-nuclear warheads. Sanger did not quite answer directly yes or no to my question on his sources. He pointed to photos in today's NY Times of the supposed nuclear plant. I personally found the photos not convincing and not corroborating.

WHAT HAS BEFALLEN THE NEW YORK TIMES?

I realize that most of this blog's readers probably get their New York Times before I do. Today, I purchased my copy of the NYT at about 3 PM MDT from a Starbucks in Utah. So what I am going to say maybe old but . . .

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO MY NEW YORK TIMES???!!!

This can't be the same newspaper that I read since when I was in high school some 50 years ago. Is nothing sacred? Must the owners and managers of the NY Times butcher the grande dame of newspapers for the mundane purpose of saving money? How could they do this?

I hate the new look. I despise the cut-down version. Raise the price to $2.00 a copy, do anything you will, but one thing I forbid thee, oh tamper not with the look of The New York Times.

ARE ALL INSURGENTS IN IRAQ TIED TO AL QAEDA?

Even the renowned and admired John Burns of The New York Times refers today to the surge campaign of U.S. forces in and around Baghdad as being against "Al Qaeda." Wait! There must be over 50 different insurgent groups in Iraq fighting the U.S. occupation and the present Al Maliki government. Yet Burns accepts the spin of the U.S. military that they are going after "Qaeda." Here's John Burns in his opening lead:

"The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began earlier this week. He compared their flight with the escape of Qaeda leaders from Falluja ahead of an American offensive that recaptured that city in 2004."

Contrast the sloppy approach of John Burns and The New York Times with Thomas Ricks in The Washington Post today. Instead of describing the target of U.S. operations as "Qaeda," Ricks is careful to say "insurgents." Writes Ricks:

""The major U.S. offensive launched last weekend against insurgents in and around Baghdad has significantly expanded the military's battleground in Iraq -- "a surge of operations," and no longer just of troops, as the second-ranking U.S. commander there said yesterday -- but it has renewed concerns about whether even the bigger U.S. troop presence there is large enough.""

Why is this difference between The NY Times and Washington Post important? Because Burns implicitly backs up the web of lies spun by Bush and Cheney that the War in Iraq is merely an extension of the "War on Terror" against the people who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center. If Al Qaeda staged and executed 9/11, and if it is Qaeda whom the U.S. is fighting in Iraq, then the War in Iraq not only makes sense but is morally justifiable and even required.

However, we all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11, no matter how much Bush and Cheney say the opposite. Burns eats up the spin of the military briefers, Ricks avoids regurgitating the propaganda.

Therefore, for John Burns to describe all insurgency in Iraq as Qaeda or Qaeda-inspired is to wrongly conflate all insurgent groups down to one. Bush and Cheney may want to do so, but the result would be to give readers the wrong information about the War in Iraq.