Westboro Baptist Church to Protest Elizabeth Edwards Funeral
Protesters from Rev. Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church demonstrate during funeral services for Dr. George Tiller Saturday, June 6, 2009, at College Hill United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kan.
Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based church with a history of holding controversial and politically inflammatory protests, announced on Thursday that its members plan to protest Elizabeth Edwards' funeral in Raleigh, N.C. this weekend.
The anti-gay fundamentalist group, which is led by Rev. Fred Phelps, is most known for its protests at the funerals of military servicemen - though it has also picketed such events as theater productions and high school graduations.
In a statement released on the church's website -- the URL of which, www.godhatesfags.com, gives a pretty good sense of the group -- Westboro accused Edwards of "spewing blasphemy" and mounting a "smash-mouthed assault on His deity."
"Elizabeth Edwards & her faithless husband, John, lightly esteemed what they had. They coveted things that were not theirs - and presumptuously thought they could control God," the statement reads in part.
Edwards, an advocate of gay rights and same-sex marriage, died on Tuesday after a six-year battle with cancer.
According to the Washington Post, the Edenton Street United Methodist Church - which is hosting the services - said it was aware of the church's plan to protest but had not yet decided how to respond.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Obama Weighs Tax Overhaul in Bid to Address Debt NY TIMES JACKIE CALMES
WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering whether to push early next year for an overhaul of the income tax code to lower rates and raise revenues in what would be his first major effort to begin addressing the long-term growth of the national debt.
While administration officials cautioned on Thursday that no decisions have been made and that any debate in Congress could take years, Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.
The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020.
Doing so would offer not only an opportunity to begin confronting the growth in the national debt but also a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.
Mr. Obama signaled his inclination in off-the-cuff remarks on Wednesday as he was defending the tax cuts deal negotiated with Congressional Republicans this week. “We’ve got to have tax reform,” he said.
Economic and political advisers say the process is in its early stages, and Mr. Obama ultimately could decide against such action, given the pitfalls, both political and substantive. In the past, any effort to alter the tax code has provoked powerful opposition among interest groups, and the picking of winners and losers.
Yet proponents within the administration and among some outside advisers say that Mr. Obama, by putting tax reform atop the national agenda, could seize an opportunity to take the offensive in dealing with the newly empowered Republicans in Congress, repair his strained relations with business and embrace a potentially powerful theme heading into his re-election campaign.
Democrats have long struggled to define battles over taxes on their terms. The revolt by many members of the president’s party in Congress over his deal with Republicans, which would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the rest of his term and create his own tax cuts for lower-income people and for businesses, has underscored anew the deep ideological divisions in Washington on the subject. Should that deal be enacted, it could add to pressure for simplifying the tax system because its mix of breaks for taxpayers of all incomes would further complicate the tax code, at least for the next year or two.
Administration officials and lawmakers in both parties also took note last week of the bipartisan show of support within the fiscal commission for changes of the type being considered by Mr. Obama. That suggested a potential break in the long-solid Republican wall of opposition to anything that smacked of a tax increase.
Rather than increase individual and corporate tax rates to raise more revenues, a majority of the panel proposed eliminating or reducing many of the popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals that cost $1 trillion annually and using the additional revenues to lower rates and reduce deficits. The majority included five Republicans, among them two of the Senate’s most conservative members, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Michael D. Crapo of Idaho.
According to commission officials, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, expressed interest in the panel’s approach. With tax breaks ended or restricted in return for lower rates, businesses and individual taxpayers would know that for each credit or deduction they wanted put back into the code, their marginal tax rates would go up by an amount sufficient to make up the revenues that would be lost.
Some Democrats argue that the White House should take the lead, before Republicans do. Even as administration officials deliberate over their course, a growing number of conservative economists and strategists are urging Congressional Republicans to quit fighting the decade-old fight over the Bush tax rates and take up the reform mantle.
“Declare Bush tax cuts, like the Bush administration itself, over,” Kevin A. Hassett, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization, wrote recently in a Bloomberg News column.
“The fact is,” he added, “if we extend the Bush tax cuts, it locks in the status quo. Earth to Washington: The status quo stinks. With the economy still limping forward, much more significant fiscal-policy medicine is in order.”
Mr. Obama, in his brief remarks on Wednesday during a meeting with the president of Poland, suggested that Republicans would still be defending the Bush tax rates for the next two years while he is looking forward to a new, better code.
“We’re going to have a big debate about taxes and we’re going to have a big debate about the budget and we’re going to have a big debate about deficits,” he said. “And Republicans are going to have to explain to the American people over the next two years how making those tax cuts for the high end permanent squares with their stated desire to start reducing deficits and debt.”
“I’ll have the opportunity,” he added, “to make the case that we’ve got to have tax reform, that we’ve got to simplify the system, that we do have to cut spending where it makes sense. But we’re also going to have to make sure that we’ve got a tax code that is fair and that looks after the interest of middle-class Americans and continues to grow the economy.”
Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the previous overhaul of the income tax code that lowered rates and wiped away many tax breaks in return. As administration officials point out — by way of lowering expectations for action soon — the process leading to the 1986 act was begun nearly three years earlier, when President Ronald Reagan called for a fairer, simpler code in his 1984 State of the Union address. And the legislation several times seemed dead.
The earlier effort also involved a president of one party facing a Congress partly controlled by the opposition party.
While the overhaul of a quarter-century ago raised taxes for many corporations, the legislation was designed to be “deficit neutral” — it neither increased nor reduced the government’s tax collection over all. But people in both parties agree that the next tax-overhaul effort would almost certainly have to raise revenues to address the nation’s growing fiscal problems.
“I think it is important to understand that that is not a process that will happen overnight,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Thursday. “That will take — as it did I think in the last major tax code revision in the mid ‘80s — that will take some time.” But, he added, Mr. Obama and his economic team “certainly believe that it’s good to start that long process.”
While administration officials cautioned on Thursday that no decisions have been made and that any debate in Congress could take years, Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.
The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020.
Doing so would offer not only an opportunity to begin confronting the growth in the national debt but also a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.
Mr. Obama signaled his inclination in off-the-cuff remarks on Wednesday as he was defending the tax cuts deal negotiated with Congressional Republicans this week. “We’ve got to have tax reform,” he said.
Economic and political advisers say the process is in its early stages, and Mr. Obama ultimately could decide against such action, given the pitfalls, both political and substantive. In the past, any effort to alter the tax code has provoked powerful opposition among interest groups, and the picking of winners and losers.
Yet proponents within the administration and among some outside advisers say that Mr. Obama, by putting tax reform atop the national agenda, could seize an opportunity to take the offensive in dealing with the newly empowered Republicans in Congress, repair his strained relations with business and embrace a potentially powerful theme heading into his re-election campaign.
Democrats have long struggled to define battles over taxes on their terms. The revolt by many members of the president’s party in Congress over his deal with Republicans, which would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the rest of his term and create his own tax cuts for lower-income people and for businesses, has underscored anew the deep ideological divisions in Washington on the subject. Should that deal be enacted, it could add to pressure for simplifying the tax system because its mix of breaks for taxpayers of all incomes would further complicate the tax code, at least for the next year or two.
Administration officials and lawmakers in both parties also took note last week of the bipartisan show of support within the fiscal commission for changes of the type being considered by Mr. Obama. That suggested a potential break in the long-solid Republican wall of opposition to anything that smacked of a tax increase.
Rather than increase individual and corporate tax rates to raise more revenues, a majority of the panel proposed eliminating or reducing many of the popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals that cost $1 trillion annually and using the additional revenues to lower rates and reduce deficits. The majority included five Republicans, among them two of the Senate’s most conservative members, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Michael D. Crapo of Idaho.
According to commission officials, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, expressed interest in the panel’s approach. With tax breaks ended or restricted in return for lower rates, businesses and individual taxpayers would know that for each credit or deduction they wanted put back into the code, their marginal tax rates would go up by an amount sufficient to make up the revenues that would be lost.
Some Democrats argue that the White House should take the lead, before Republicans do. Even as administration officials deliberate over their course, a growing number of conservative economists and strategists are urging Congressional Republicans to quit fighting the decade-old fight over the Bush tax rates and take up the reform mantle.
“Declare Bush tax cuts, like the Bush administration itself, over,” Kevin A. Hassett, the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization, wrote recently in a Bloomberg News column.
“The fact is,” he added, “if we extend the Bush tax cuts, it locks in the status quo. Earth to Washington: The status quo stinks. With the economy still limping forward, much more significant fiscal-policy medicine is in order.”
Mr. Obama, in his brief remarks on Wednesday during a meeting with the president of Poland, suggested that Republicans would still be defending the Bush tax rates for the next two years while he is looking forward to a new, better code.
“We’re going to have a big debate about taxes and we’re going to have a big debate about the budget and we’re going to have a big debate about deficits,” he said. “And Republicans are going to have to explain to the American people over the next two years how making those tax cuts for the high end permanent squares with their stated desire to start reducing deficits and debt.”
“I’ll have the opportunity,” he added, “to make the case that we’ve got to have tax reform, that we’ve got to simplify the system, that we do have to cut spending where it makes sense. But we’re also going to have to make sure that we’ve got a tax code that is fair and that looks after the interest of middle-class Americans and continues to grow the economy.”
Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the previous overhaul of the income tax code that lowered rates and wiped away many tax breaks in return. As administration officials point out — by way of lowering expectations for action soon — the process leading to the 1986 act was begun nearly three years earlier, when President Ronald Reagan called for a fairer, simpler code in his 1984 State of the Union address. And the legislation several times seemed dead.
The earlier effort also involved a president of one party facing a Congress partly controlled by the opposition party.
While the overhaul of a quarter-century ago raised taxes for many corporations, the legislation was designed to be “deficit neutral” — it neither increased nor reduced the government’s tax collection over all. But people in both parties agree that the next tax-overhaul effort would almost certainly have to raise revenues to address the nation’s growing fiscal problems.
“I think it is important to understand that that is not a process that will happen overnight,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Thursday. “That will take — as it did I think in the last major tax code revision in the mid ‘80s — that will take some time.” But, he added, Mr. Obama and his economic team “certainly believe that it’s good to start that long process.”
DON'T KNOW THIS TYPE OF MURDER DOESN'T WORK UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE CAUGHT! Just image how dumb these people(?) really are!!
BREAKING NEWS: Arrest Reports Detail Murder of Nellis Airman
LAS VEGAS -- The arrest reports for three people arrested in the murder of a Nellis Air Force Base airman paint a picture of greed and deceit.
Nathan Paet was gunned down in his garage on Dec.1 as he was getting ready to leave for work. The arrest reports say that his wife, Michelle Paet, stood to receive $650,000 in life insurance upon the death of her husband.
Although Michelle Paet has not been arrested, she has been implicated in the murder. Police have arrested 31-year-old Michael Rudolph Rodriguez, 33-year-old Corry A. Hawkins and 23-year-old Jessica Austin. All are facing murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges.
Michelle Paet told police she flirted Michael Rodriguez at her work and was romantically involved with him. In the arrest reports, it states that Michelle Paet told police in an interview that she did plan to kill her husband and develop a relationship with Rodriguez.
In his arrest report, Rodriguez told police he had an alibi stating he was with another woman at the time of the murder.
That woman, who is not named in the arrest report, told police that there was an on-going plan to kill Nathan Paet by Rodriguez, Hawkins and Austin. She also told police that Nathan Paet's wife was involved.
In the report, the woman said she was supposed to get a cut of the money after the murder. She claims Rodriguez told her he shot Paet and then asked her to be his alibi.
LAS VEGAS -- The arrest reports for three people arrested in the murder of a Nellis Air Force Base airman paint a picture of greed and deceit.
Nathan Paet was gunned down in his garage on Dec.1 as he was getting ready to leave for work. The arrest reports say that his wife, Michelle Paet, stood to receive $650,000 in life insurance upon the death of her husband.
Although Michelle Paet has not been arrested, she has been implicated in the murder. Police have arrested 31-year-old Michael Rudolph Rodriguez, 33-year-old Corry A. Hawkins and 23-year-old Jessica Austin. All are facing murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges.
Michelle Paet told police she flirted Michael Rodriguez at her work and was romantically involved with him. In the arrest reports, it states that Michelle Paet told police in an interview that she did plan to kill her husband and develop a relationship with Rodriguez.
In his arrest report, Rodriguez told police he had an alibi stating he was with another woman at the time of the murder.
That woman, who is not named in the arrest report, told police that there was an on-going plan to kill Nathan Paet by Rodriguez, Hawkins and Austin. She also told police that Nathan Paet's wife was involved.
In the report, the woman said she was supposed to get a cut of the money after the murder. She claims Rodriguez told her he shot Paet and then asked her to be his alibi.
"one cigarette can cause a heart attack" WHY WE DON'T STOP SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES IS BEYOND IMAGINATION!!
Just one cigarette can harm DNA, Surgeon General says
In someone with an underlying heart disease, just "one cigarette can cause a heart attack," says Surgeon General Regina Benjamin.
A DEADLY PRACTICE
1 in 5 deaths attributed to tobacco annually.
443,000 Americans killed by tobacco per year.
$193 billion annual cost in health care and lost productivity in the U.S. due to cigarette smoking.
4,100: approximate number of teens who smoke their first cigarette each day.
85% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Even brief exposure to tobacco smoke causes immediate harm to the body, damaging cells and inflaming tissue in ways that can lead to serious illness and death, according to the U.S. Surgeon General's new report on tobacco, the first such report in four years.
While the report, out today, focuses on the medical effects of smoke on the body, it also sheds light on why cigarettes are so addictive: They are designed to deliver nicotine more quickly and more efficiently than cigarettes did decades ago.
Every exposure to tobacco, from occasional smoking or secondhand smoke, can damage DNA in ways that lead to cancer.
"Tobacco smoke damages almost every organ in your body," says Surgeon General Regina Benjamin. In someone with underlying heart disease, she says, "One cigarette can cause a heart attack."
About 40 million Americans smoke — 20% of adults and older teens. Tobacco kills more than 443,000 a year, says the 700-page report, written with contributions from 64 experts.
Cigarette smoking costs the country more than $193 billion a year in health care costs and lost productivity.
Recent changes in the design and ingredients in cigarettes have made them more likely to hook first-time users and keep older smokers coming back, Benjamin says. Changes include:
•Ammonia added to tobacco, which converts nicotine into a form that gets to the brain faster.
•Filter holes that allow people to inhale smoke more deeply into the lungs.
•Sugar and "moisture enhancers" to reduce the burning sensation of smoking, making it more pleasant, especially for new cigarette users.
"This is the first report that demonstrates that the industry has consciously redesigned tobacco products in ways that make them even more attractive to young people," says Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria, parent company of Philip Morris USA, declined to comment until he had time to study the report.
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
In someone with an underlying heart disease, just "one cigarette can cause a heart attack," says Surgeon General Regina Benjamin.
A DEADLY PRACTICE
1 in 5 deaths attributed to tobacco annually.
443,000 Americans killed by tobacco per year.
$193 billion annual cost in health care and lost productivity in the U.S. due to cigarette smoking.
4,100: approximate number of teens who smoke their first cigarette each day.
85% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Even brief exposure to tobacco smoke causes immediate harm to the body, damaging cells and inflaming tissue in ways that can lead to serious illness and death, according to the U.S. Surgeon General's new report on tobacco, the first such report in four years.
While the report, out today, focuses on the medical effects of smoke on the body, it also sheds light on why cigarettes are so addictive: They are designed to deliver nicotine more quickly and more efficiently than cigarettes did decades ago.
Every exposure to tobacco, from occasional smoking or secondhand smoke, can damage DNA in ways that lead to cancer.
"Tobacco smoke damages almost every organ in your body," says Surgeon General Regina Benjamin. In someone with underlying heart disease, she says, "One cigarette can cause a heart attack."
About 40 million Americans smoke — 20% of adults and older teens. Tobacco kills more than 443,000 a year, says the 700-page report, written with contributions from 64 experts.
Cigarette smoking costs the country more than $193 billion a year in health care costs and lost productivity.
Recent changes in the design and ingredients in cigarettes have made them more likely to hook first-time users and keep older smokers coming back, Benjamin says. Changes include:
•Ammonia added to tobacco, which converts nicotine into a form that gets to the brain faster.
•Filter holes that allow people to inhale smoke more deeply into the lungs.
•Sugar and "moisture enhancers" to reduce the burning sensation of smoking, making it more pleasant, especially for new cigarette users.
"This is the first report that demonstrates that the industry has consciously redesigned tobacco products in ways that make them even more attractive to young people," says Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria, parent company of Philip Morris USA, declined to comment until he had time to study the report.
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
Ronni Chasen Killing - Fatally Shot Hollywood Publicist in Robbery Gone Wrong
Ronni Chasen Killing: Harold Smith's Suicide Gun Matched to Publicist's Death
Police Say Bicyclist Harold Smith Fatally Shot Hollywood Publicist in Robbery Gone Wrong
Beverly Hills Police believe they have a solid theory behind who murdered Hollywood publicist Ronni Chasen, putting an end to Hollywood's latest who-done-it mystery.
The gun used to kill Chasen most likely is the same one used by person of interest, Harold Martin Smith to kill himself last week, according to preliminary police ballistics tests.
"Preliminarily, we believe Mr. Smith acted alone. We don't believe it was a professional hit," Beverly Hills Police Chief David Snowden said.
Despite coverage that has speculated Chasen was killed as part of an elaborate plot, police now believe Smith, 43, an ex-convict, simply rode a bicycle alongside Chasen's Mercedes Benz and opened fire as she waited to make a left turn off Sunset Boulevard.
"We believe it was a random act, and we believe Mrs. Chasen was going to be the victim of a robbery," Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Mike Publicker said.
Chasen, 64, represented A-list movie stars and promoted some of Hollywood's top films. She was on her way home from the premiere of "Burlesque" on the night of Nov. 16 when she was killed.
Andrew Blankstein, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, said that the Beverly Hills Police Department remains cautious despite what seems to be a break in the case.
"They're not saying that this is a closed case, and one of things that they're going to be looking … for is additional forensic material at the scene, as well as, one of the things that we've heard is that they were examining videotaped surveillance from the neighborhood. So does that surveillance show Mr. Smith either around the crime scene or on his way to the crime scene on his bicycle," Blankstein said.
Skeptics who have followed the case closely might find it hard to believe that one man on a bicycle could carry out this killing.
"There's been a lot of rumor built on rumor in this case and certainly with the speculation about theories of motive that's one of the aspects of this case which kind of definitely muddied the waters," Blankstein said. "In this kind of vacuum of information, people have come up with every kind of theory. I mean it's worthy of any kind of Hollywood plot line that you can come up with."
It turned out not be an elaborate, movielike plot, but information from a tipster to the TV show "America's Most Wanted" helped crack the case. Police sought to question Smith at his home in Hollywood's Harvey Apartments Dec. 1, after receiving an anonymous tip from "America's Most Wanted." Before they could talk to Smith, he shot himself to death.
"The tipster, at this point, wants to remain anonymous," Publicker said, "and we're going to respect that, as will "America's Most Wanted."
There was a reward of more than $100,000 for tips, and police say there is a possibility the person who called in the tip will get the reward.
The suspect, Smith, boasted about committing the murder, claimed he had $10,000 coming to him for the crime and said he would not be willing to return to jail, his neighbors told ABC News.
Smith had a long criminal record.
In the aftermath of his suicide, residents said they doubted Smith when he took credit for Chasen's murder. They noted that he was tall but of slight, unimposing build, and that he was seen regularly riding through the neighborhood on a bicycle, wearing gray gardening gloves and sometimes behaving strangely.
One neighbor of Smith's still doubts his involvement in the crime.
"It doesn't quite add up, that this would be somebody that would be able to do this by himself," Sammy Samorano said.
Beverly Hills police said Los Angeles investigators removed a bicycle from the scene of Smith's suicide and would be delivering it to the police for analysis.
Beverly Hills police repeatedly emphasized that the ballistics matching the guns were preliminary and that the investigation continues.
Police Say Bicyclist Harold Smith Fatally Shot Hollywood Publicist in Robbery Gone Wrong
Beverly Hills Police believe they have a solid theory behind who murdered Hollywood publicist Ronni Chasen, putting an end to Hollywood's latest who-done-it mystery.
The gun used to kill Chasen most likely is the same one used by person of interest, Harold Martin Smith to kill himself last week, according to preliminary police ballistics tests.
"Preliminarily, we believe Mr. Smith acted alone. We don't believe it was a professional hit," Beverly Hills Police Chief David Snowden said.
Despite coverage that has speculated Chasen was killed as part of an elaborate plot, police now believe Smith, 43, an ex-convict, simply rode a bicycle alongside Chasen's Mercedes Benz and opened fire as she waited to make a left turn off Sunset Boulevard.
"We believe it was a random act, and we believe Mrs. Chasen was going to be the victim of a robbery," Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Mike Publicker said.
Chasen, 64, represented A-list movie stars and promoted some of Hollywood's top films. She was on her way home from the premiere of "Burlesque" on the night of Nov. 16 when she was killed.
Andrew Blankstein, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, said that the Beverly Hills Police Department remains cautious despite what seems to be a break in the case.
"They're not saying that this is a closed case, and one of things that they're going to be looking … for is additional forensic material at the scene, as well as, one of the things that we've heard is that they were examining videotaped surveillance from the neighborhood. So does that surveillance show Mr. Smith either around the crime scene or on his way to the crime scene on his bicycle," Blankstein said.
Skeptics who have followed the case closely might find it hard to believe that one man on a bicycle could carry out this killing.
"There's been a lot of rumor built on rumor in this case and certainly with the speculation about theories of motive that's one of the aspects of this case which kind of definitely muddied the waters," Blankstein said. "In this kind of vacuum of information, people have come up with every kind of theory. I mean it's worthy of any kind of Hollywood plot line that you can come up with."
It turned out not be an elaborate, movielike plot, but information from a tipster to the TV show "America's Most Wanted" helped crack the case. Police sought to question Smith at his home in Hollywood's Harvey Apartments Dec. 1, after receiving an anonymous tip from "America's Most Wanted." Before they could talk to Smith, he shot himself to death.
"The tipster, at this point, wants to remain anonymous," Publicker said, "and we're going to respect that, as will "America's Most Wanted."
There was a reward of more than $100,000 for tips, and police say there is a possibility the person who called in the tip will get the reward.
The suspect, Smith, boasted about committing the murder, claimed he had $10,000 coming to him for the crime and said he would not be willing to return to jail, his neighbors told ABC News.
Smith had a long criminal record.
In the aftermath of his suicide, residents said they doubted Smith when he took credit for Chasen's murder. They noted that he was tall but of slight, unimposing build, and that he was seen regularly riding through the neighborhood on a bicycle, wearing gray gardening gloves and sometimes behaving strangely.
One neighbor of Smith's still doubts his involvement in the crime.
"It doesn't quite add up, that this would be somebody that would be able to do this by himself," Sammy Samorano said.
Beverly Hills police said Los Angeles investigators removed a bicycle from the scene of Smith's suicide and would be delivering it to the police for analysis.
Beverly Hills police repeatedly emphasized that the ballistics matching the guns were preliminary and that the investigation continues.
I don't even know how to understand this distructive behavior? WHY would any sane person do this?
Nutmeg Treated as Drug for Hallucinogenic High
Poison Centers See Upswing of Nutmeg Hallucinogenic High
A sprinkle of nutmeg in eggnog or a pinch in apple pie can add the perfect punch to a holiday dessert. But winter's favorite spice has also made headlines as an unconventional way of getting high -- it's called a nutmeg high.
Nutmeg contains myristicin, a natural compound that has mind-altering effects if ingested in large doses. The buzz can last one to two days and can be hallucinogenic, much like LSD.
According to reports this week from the ABC affiliate WPLG in Miami, the Florida Poison Information Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital has recently seen a small spike in phone calls reporting people who snorted, smoked or ate the spice.
"It's the flavor of the month," said Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein, medical director at the center. "But most people only try it once because they have such nasty side effects. The rewards are not worth the risks."
About 30 minutes to an hour after taking large doses of nutmeg, people usually have severe gastrointestinal reactions, including nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. But that's just the beginning. Hours into the high, people can suffer from heart and nerve problems as well.
"This is where people have to be really alert," said Gaylord Lopez, director of the Georgia Poison Center in Atlanta. "A person who has an unrecognized heart ailment could have problems that could lead to irregular rhythms. One plus one can add up to nine really quickly."
Visual, auditory or sensory hallucinations do not set in until hours after ingesting the spice, so there is also the worry that someone could overdose, thinking they haven't taken enough to feel anything.
Dr. Marcel Casavant, medical director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children's Hospital, said that it is fairly common for teenagers to experiment with household products to get high. And the results can be devastating.
Poison Centers See Upswing of Nutmeg Hallucinogenic High
A sprinkle of nutmeg in eggnog or a pinch in apple pie can add the perfect punch to a holiday dessert. But winter's favorite spice has also made headlines as an unconventional way of getting high -- it's called a nutmeg high.
Nutmeg contains myristicin, a natural compound that has mind-altering effects if ingested in large doses. The buzz can last one to two days and can be hallucinogenic, much like LSD.
According to reports this week from the ABC affiliate WPLG in Miami, the Florida Poison Information Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital has recently seen a small spike in phone calls reporting people who snorted, smoked or ate the spice.
"It's the flavor of the month," said Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein, medical director at the center. "But most people only try it once because they have such nasty side effects. The rewards are not worth the risks."
About 30 minutes to an hour after taking large doses of nutmeg, people usually have severe gastrointestinal reactions, including nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. But that's just the beginning. Hours into the high, people can suffer from heart and nerve problems as well.
"This is where people have to be really alert," said Gaylord Lopez, director of the Georgia Poison Center in Atlanta. "A person who has an unrecognized heart ailment could have problems that could lead to irregular rhythms. One plus one can add up to nine really quickly."
Visual, auditory or sensory hallucinations do not set in until hours after ingesting the spice, so there is also the worry that someone could overdose, thinking they haven't taken enough to feel anything.
Dr. Marcel Casavant, medical director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children's Hospital, said that it is fairly common for teenagers to experiment with household products to get high. And the results can be devastating.
Hackers Attack Those Seen as WikiLeaks Enemies
LONDON — In a campaign that had some declaring the start of a “cyberwar,” hundreds of Internet activists mounted retaliatory attacks on Wednesday on the Web sites of multinational companies and other organizations they deemed hostile to the WikiLeaks antisecrecy organization and its jailed founder, Julian Assange.
Within 12 hours of a British judge’s decision on Tuesday to deny Mr. Assange bail in a Swedish extradition case, attacks on the Web sites of WikiLeaks’s “enemies,” as defined by the organization’s impassioned supporters around the world, caused several corporate Web sites to become inaccessible or slow down markedly.
Targets of the attacks, in which activists overwhelmed the sites with traffic, included the Web site of MasterCard, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which revoked the use of its computer servers; and PayPal, which stopped accepting donations for Mr. Assange’s group. Visa.com was also affected by the attacks, as were the Web sites of the Swedish prosecutor’s office and the lawyer representing the two women whose allegations of sexual misconduct are the basis of Sweden’s extradition bid.
The Internet assaults underlined the growing reach of self-described “cyberanarchists,” antigovernment and anticorporate activists who have made an icon of Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian.
The speed and range of the attacks also appeared to show the resilience of the backing among computer activists for Mr. Assange, who has appeared increasingly isolated in recent months amid the furor stoked by WikiLeaks’s Web site posting of hundreds of thousands of secret Pentagon documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Assange has come under renewed attack in the past two weeks for posting the first tranche of a trove of 250,000 secret State Department cables that have exposed American diplomats’ frank assessments of relations with many countries, forcing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express regret to world leaders and raising fears that they and other sources would become more reticent.
The New York Times and four other news organizations last week began publishing articles based on the archive of cables made available to them.
In recent months, some of Mr. Assange’s closest associates in WikiLeaks abandoned him, calling him autocratic and capricious and accusing him of reneging on WikiLeaks’s original pledge of impartiality to launch a concerted attack on the United States. He has been simultaneously fighting a remote battle with the Swedish prosecutors, who have sought his extradition for questioning on accusations of “rape, sexual molestation and forceful coercion” made by the Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied any wrongdoing in the cases.
American officials have repeatedly said that they are reviewing possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange, a step that could lead to a bid to extradite him to the United States and confront him with having to fight for his freedom on two fronts.
The cyberattacks in Mr. Assange’s defense appear to have been coordinated by Anonymous, a loosely affiliated group of activist computer hackers who have singled out other groups before, including the Church of Scientology. Last weekend, members of Anonymous vowed in two online manifestos to take revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks.
Anonymous claimed responsibility for the MasterCard attack in Web messages and, according to one activist associated with the group, conducted waves of attacks on other companies during the day. The group said the actions were part of an effort called Operation Payback, which began as a way of punishing companies that attempted to stop Internet file-sharing and movie downloads.
The activist, Gregg Housh, who disavows a personal role in any illegal online activity, said that 1,500 supporters had been in online forums and chat rooms organizing the mass “denial of service” attacks. His account was confirmed by Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher at Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Mass., firm that tracks malicious activity on computer networks.
Most of the corporations whose sites were targeted did not explain why they severed ties with WikiLeaks. But PayPal issued statements saying its decision was based on “a violation” of its policy on promoting illegal activities.
Almost all the corporate Web sites that were attacked appeared to be operating normally later on Wednesday, suggesting that any economic impact was limited. But the sense of an Internet war was reinforced when Netcraft, a British Internet monitoring firm, reported that the Web site being used by the hackers to distribute denial-of-service software had been suspended by a Dutch hosting firm, Leaseweb.
A sense of the belligerent mood among activists was given when one contributor to a forum the group uses, WhyWeProtest.net, wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”
Mr. Housh acknowledged that there had been online talk among the hackers of a possible Internet campaign against the two women who have been Mr. Assange’s accusers in the Swedish case, but he said that “a lot of people don’t want to be involved.”
A Web search showed new blog posts in recent days in which the two women, identified by the Swedish prosecutors only as Ms. A. and Ms. W., were named, but it was not clear whether there was any link to Anonymous. The women have said that consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange became nonconsensual when condoms were no longer in use.
The cyberattacks on corporations Wednesday were seen by many supporters as a counterstrike against the United States. Mr. Assange’s online supporters have widely condemned the Obama administration as the unseen hand coordinating efforts to choke off WikiLeaks by denying it financing and suppressing its network of computer servers.
Mr. Housh described Mr. Assange in an interview as “a political prisoner,” a common view among WikiLeaks supporters who have joined Mr. Assange in condemning the sexual abuse accusations as part of an American-inspired “smear campaign.”
Another activist used the analogy of the civil rights struggle for the cyberattacks.
“Are they disrupting business?” a contributor using the name Moryath wrote in a comment on the slashdot.org technology Web site. “Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.”
JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA
Within 12 hours of a British judge’s decision on Tuesday to deny Mr. Assange bail in a Swedish extradition case, attacks on the Web sites of WikiLeaks’s “enemies,” as defined by the organization’s impassioned supporters around the world, caused several corporate Web sites to become inaccessible or slow down markedly.
Targets of the attacks, in which activists overwhelmed the sites with traffic, included the Web site of MasterCard, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which revoked the use of its computer servers; and PayPal, which stopped accepting donations for Mr. Assange’s group. Visa.com was also affected by the attacks, as were the Web sites of the Swedish prosecutor’s office and the lawyer representing the two women whose allegations of sexual misconduct are the basis of Sweden’s extradition bid.
The Internet assaults underlined the growing reach of self-described “cyberanarchists,” antigovernment and anticorporate activists who have made an icon of Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian.
The speed and range of the attacks also appeared to show the resilience of the backing among computer activists for Mr. Assange, who has appeared increasingly isolated in recent months amid the furor stoked by WikiLeaks’s Web site posting of hundreds of thousands of secret Pentagon documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Assange has come under renewed attack in the past two weeks for posting the first tranche of a trove of 250,000 secret State Department cables that have exposed American diplomats’ frank assessments of relations with many countries, forcing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express regret to world leaders and raising fears that they and other sources would become more reticent.
The New York Times and four other news organizations last week began publishing articles based on the archive of cables made available to them.
In recent months, some of Mr. Assange’s closest associates in WikiLeaks abandoned him, calling him autocratic and capricious and accusing him of reneging on WikiLeaks’s original pledge of impartiality to launch a concerted attack on the United States. He has been simultaneously fighting a remote battle with the Swedish prosecutors, who have sought his extradition for questioning on accusations of “rape, sexual molestation and forceful coercion” made by the Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied any wrongdoing in the cases.
American officials have repeatedly said that they are reviewing possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange, a step that could lead to a bid to extradite him to the United States and confront him with having to fight for his freedom on two fronts.
The cyberattacks in Mr. Assange’s defense appear to have been coordinated by Anonymous, a loosely affiliated group of activist computer hackers who have singled out other groups before, including the Church of Scientology. Last weekend, members of Anonymous vowed in two online manifestos to take revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks.
Anonymous claimed responsibility for the MasterCard attack in Web messages and, according to one activist associated with the group, conducted waves of attacks on other companies during the day. The group said the actions were part of an effort called Operation Payback, which began as a way of punishing companies that attempted to stop Internet file-sharing and movie downloads.
The activist, Gregg Housh, who disavows a personal role in any illegal online activity, said that 1,500 supporters had been in online forums and chat rooms organizing the mass “denial of service” attacks. His account was confirmed by Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher at Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Mass., firm that tracks malicious activity on computer networks.
Most of the corporations whose sites were targeted did not explain why they severed ties with WikiLeaks. But PayPal issued statements saying its decision was based on “a violation” of its policy on promoting illegal activities.
Almost all the corporate Web sites that were attacked appeared to be operating normally later on Wednesday, suggesting that any economic impact was limited. But the sense of an Internet war was reinforced when Netcraft, a British Internet monitoring firm, reported that the Web site being used by the hackers to distribute denial-of-service software had been suspended by a Dutch hosting firm, Leaseweb.
A sense of the belligerent mood among activists was given when one contributor to a forum the group uses, WhyWeProtest.net, wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”
Mr. Housh acknowledged that there had been online talk among the hackers of a possible Internet campaign against the two women who have been Mr. Assange’s accusers in the Swedish case, but he said that “a lot of people don’t want to be involved.”
A Web search showed new blog posts in recent days in which the two women, identified by the Swedish prosecutors only as Ms. A. and Ms. W., were named, but it was not clear whether there was any link to Anonymous. The women have said that consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange became nonconsensual when condoms were no longer in use.
The cyberattacks on corporations Wednesday were seen by many supporters as a counterstrike against the United States. Mr. Assange’s online supporters have widely condemned the Obama administration as the unseen hand coordinating efforts to choke off WikiLeaks by denying it financing and suppressing its network of computer servers.
Mr. Housh described Mr. Assange in an interview as “a political prisoner,” a common view among WikiLeaks supporters who have joined Mr. Assange in condemning the sexual abuse accusations as part of an American-inspired “smear campaign.”
Another activist used the analogy of the civil rights struggle for the cyberattacks.
“Are they disrupting business?” a contributor using the name Moryath wrote in a comment on the slashdot.org technology Web site. “Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.”
JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
SARAH KILLING ANIMALS FOR FUN!?
In Her Defense, I'm Sure the Moose Had It Coming
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."
You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.
I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals.
I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.
So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)
And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.
(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)
I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.
Aaron Sorkin.Playwright, screenwriter and television writer
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."
You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.
I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals.
I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.
So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)
And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.
(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)
I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.
Aaron Sorkin.Playwright, screenwriter and television writer
In political gamble, Reid seeks votes that are sure to fail
On Wednesday afternoon, the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate did something that sounds odd: He set himself up to lose an important vote.
Then he did it again, on another key issue.
And Thursday he'll do it two more times.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) planned votes where his favored bills were expected to fail. For Reid, failure is actually the point. He wants to put Republicans on record as blocking all four.
On Wednesday, he took up seniors' benefits and collective- bargaining rights for police and firefighters' unions, and on Thursday he will call votes on an immigration bill that would assist people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, and legislation that would provide health-care benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
These "test votes" are a sign of the sclerotic state of Congress, clogged by filibuster threats. Usually, it is the people out of power who resort to grand, futile gestures.
Now - in a political gamble - it's the guys in charge.
"Just because the party of 'Just say no' has been blocking all these initiatives, it doesn't mean we're not going to try," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid. "At some point, you've got to take a stand, and let the chips fall where they may."
Senate Democrats, who hold a majority in the chamber, held their last "test vote" on Saturday - two, actually. The first proposal called for an end to tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, on income greater than $250,000 for a family.
Democrats needed 60 senators to agree. They got just 53.
Then Democratic leaders staged a vote to let the tax cuts expire only for income of more than $1 million per year for a family. That failed, too.
In theory, these votes were supposed to demonstrate that Republicans were favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class.
In practice, however, it demonstrated that Senate Democrats weren't strong enough to get what they wanted.
Two days later, President Obama and congressional Republicans went around them and cut a deal to keep all the tax cuts.
On Wednesday, however, Senate Democrats set out to use the same tactic.
Test votes have worked before, said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University. Civil rights advocates, for instance, used them to attract attention to their cause: By showing their weakness in Congress, they gained public sympathy and strength.
But there is a risk.
"The question is . . . who gets blamed when they fail?" Binder said. "More often than not, it goes that the majority gets blamed for failing to govern, more than the blame gets passed to the minority."
Before the votes began, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) jabbed at Democrats for holding votes they knew they'd lose.
"They don't even intend to pass these items," McConnell said on the Senate floor. He compared the process to theater: "Are we here to perform, or are we here to legislate?"
The four measures at issue are:
l A bill that would send $250 checks to Social Security recipients who face a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase, a proposal that fell short in a House vote Wednesday. The Senate voted 53 to 45 - seven short of the needed 60 votes - on a measure to bring the bill to the floor for debate.
l A bill that would require states to give police and firefighters' unions "adequate" collective bargaining rights. This has been criticized as trampling on states' autonomy. That proposal failed in the Senate Wednesday on a 55 to 43 vote.
l The DREAM Act, a proposal that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to this country as children and grew up to attend college or serve in the military. Critics say the legislation would amount to a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
l A bill that would provide long-term medical care for men and women who suffered health problems while responding to the Sept. 11 attacks or helping to clean up the wreckage. It has been attacked for its multibillion-dollar cost.
In each case, the Senate vote is not to approve or reject the bills. Instead, it is something far more confusing: a vote to end a filibuster - the Senate tradition where a bill's opponents can block it by standing up and talking themselves hoarse. Except now, the Senate does not usually require the stand-up-and-talk part.
Like nuclear war, a filibuster need only be threatened. To beat that threat, Reid needs 60 votes.
And no one expected he would have them.
So will the bills' supporters be pleased that he made the effort?
"What it shows is that his ability to lead has been severely impaired, over the last several months," said James Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, which supports the Sept. 11 bill and is neutral on the collective-bargaining bill (the organization believes that Reid has watered it down severely).
Reid's strategy of a stage-managed failure, Pasco said, wouldn't exactly increase the order's faith in him.
"It's going to make us more cautious than we already were in throwing our support and our trust behind an individual" on Capitol Hill, Pasco said.
But Thomas Mann, a congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution, said this is the best option for Reid.
Mann said that someone needs to point out how often the filibuster threat is used now. In the mid-1980s, Congress voted on filibuster threats only about 10 times a year.
In the current Congress, the number was about 40.
"It really is bizarre, but because of the use of the filibuster, it is the majority that puts forward votes that they know they will lose," Mann said. But he said that at least Reid's effort demonstrates that the Senate's rules need to be changed: "In my view, they do it too little."
David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post
Then he did it again, on another key issue.
And Thursday he'll do it two more times.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) planned votes where his favored bills were expected to fail. For Reid, failure is actually the point. He wants to put Republicans on record as blocking all four.
On Wednesday, he took up seniors' benefits and collective- bargaining rights for police and firefighters' unions, and on Thursday he will call votes on an immigration bill that would assist people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, and legislation that would provide health-care benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
These "test votes" are a sign of the sclerotic state of Congress, clogged by filibuster threats. Usually, it is the people out of power who resort to grand, futile gestures.
Now - in a political gamble - it's the guys in charge.
"Just because the party of 'Just say no' has been blocking all these initiatives, it doesn't mean we're not going to try," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid. "At some point, you've got to take a stand, and let the chips fall where they may."
Senate Democrats, who hold a majority in the chamber, held their last "test vote" on Saturday - two, actually. The first proposal called for an end to tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, on income greater than $250,000 for a family.
Democrats needed 60 senators to agree. They got just 53.
Then Democratic leaders staged a vote to let the tax cuts expire only for income of more than $1 million per year for a family. That failed, too.
In theory, these votes were supposed to demonstrate that Republicans were favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class.
In practice, however, it demonstrated that Senate Democrats weren't strong enough to get what they wanted.
Two days later, President Obama and congressional Republicans went around them and cut a deal to keep all the tax cuts.
On Wednesday, however, Senate Democrats set out to use the same tactic.
Test votes have worked before, said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University. Civil rights advocates, for instance, used them to attract attention to their cause: By showing their weakness in Congress, they gained public sympathy and strength.
But there is a risk.
"The question is . . . who gets blamed when they fail?" Binder said. "More often than not, it goes that the majority gets blamed for failing to govern, more than the blame gets passed to the minority."
Before the votes began, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) jabbed at Democrats for holding votes they knew they'd lose.
"They don't even intend to pass these items," McConnell said on the Senate floor. He compared the process to theater: "Are we here to perform, or are we here to legislate?"
The four measures at issue are:
l A bill that would send $250 checks to Social Security recipients who face a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase, a proposal that fell short in a House vote Wednesday. The Senate voted 53 to 45 - seven short of the needed 60 votes - on a measure to bring the bill to the floor for debate.
l A bill that would require states to give police and firefighters' unions "adequate" collective bargaining rights. This has been criticized as trampling on states' autonomy. That proposal failed in the Senate Wednesday on a 55 to 43 vote.
l The DREAM Act, a proposal that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to this country as children and grew up to attend college or serve in the military. Critics say the legislation would amount to a kind of amnesty for lawbreakers.
l A bill that would provide long-term medical care for men and women who suffered health problems while responding to the Sept. 11 attacks or helping to clean up the wreckage. It has been attacked for its multibillion-dollar cost.
In each case, the Senate vote is not to approve or reject the bills. Instead, it is something far more confusing: a vote to end a filibuster - the Senate tradition where a bill's opponents can block it by standing up and talking themselves hoarse. Except now, the Senate does not usually require the stand-up-and-talk part.
Like nuclear war, a filibuster need only be threatened. To beat that threat, Reid needs 60 votes.
And no one expected he would have them.
So will the bills' supporters be pleased that he made the effort?
"What it shows is that his ability to lead has been severely impaired, over the last several months," said James Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, which supports the Sept. 11 bill and is neutral on the collective-bargaining bill (the organization believes that Reid has watered it down severely).
Reid's strategy of a stage-managed failure, Pasco said, wouldn't exactly increase the order's faith in him.
"It's going to make us more cautious than we already were in throwing our support and our trust behind an individual" on Capitol Hill, Pasco said.
But Thomas Mann, a congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution, said this is the best option for Reid.
Mann said that someone needs to point out how often the filibuster threat is used now. In the mid-1980s, Congress voted on filibuster threats only about 10 times a year.
In the current Congress, the number was about 40.
"It really is bizarre, but because of the use of the filibuster, it is the majority that puts forward votes that they know they will lose," Mann said. But he said that at least Reid's effort demonstrates that the Senate's rules need to be changed: "In my view, they do it too little."
David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post
Exclusive: Sarah Palin Under Cyber-Attack from Wikileaks Supporter
The website and personal credit card information of former Gov. Sarah Palin were cyber-attacked today by Wikileaks supporters, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate tells ABC News in an email.
Hackers in London that the Palin team believe to be affiliated with “Operation Payback” – a group of supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks – have tried to shut down SarahPac and have disrupted Sarah and Todd Palin’s personal credit card accounts, SarahPAC aide Rebecca Mansour said.
“No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange's antics,” Palin emailed ABC News. “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.”
Palin has criticized Wikileaks founder Assange, writing on Facebook that his “past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?...Assange is not a 'journalist' any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands."
Activist Gregg Housh told the New York Times "that 1,500 people were on online forums and chatrooms including Anonops.net, mounting mass and repeated 'denial of service' attacks on sites that have moved against Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks in recent days."
A cached page from Anonops.net shows Palin's site as a suggested target.
A SarahPAC.com technical aide said that the "DOS attackers, a group loosely known as Anon_Ops, used a tool called LOIC (Lower Orbit Ion Cannon) to flood sarahpac.com. The attackers wanted us to know that they were affiliated with wikileaks.org through an obscure message in our server log file.“
The tech emailed this screenshot to show what he's talking about.
Mansour said that an employee called Todd Palin this afternoon and told him that his and his wife's account had been compromised and that a company in London was involved.
It wasn't clear whether the attack to the Palins' credit card account today was related to the attack on her website.
Anon_Ops describes itself as an "anonymous, decentralized movement which fights against censorship and copywrong." It has enlisted volunteers "create counter-propaganda, organizing attacks (DDoS) on various targets related to censorship (time, date and target will be published by that time)." For that reason, it is difficult to ascertain the exact motivation of any attacker.
Added Mansour, “the governor voiced her opinion knowing full well that she was speaking out against a shady disreputable organization with no regard for laws or human life. This is how they operate. The world should not be intimidated by them.”
Mansour added that Wikileaks supporters claim to be “in favor of free speech yet they attack Sarah Palin for exercising her free speech.” She said SarahPAC.com was not harmed because Palin’s staff was able to move quickly to protect the site.
-Jake Tapper CBS News
Hackers in London that the Palin team believe to be affiliated with “Operation Payback” – a group of supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks – have tried to shut down SarahPac and have disrupted Sarah and Todd Palin’s personal credit card accounts, SarahPAC aide Rebecca Mansour said.
“No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange's antics,” Palin emailed ABC News. “This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts.”
Palin has criticized Wikileaks founder Assange, writing on Facebook that his “past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?...Assange is not a 'journalist' any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands."
Activist Gregg Housh told the New York Times "that 1,500 people were on online forums and chatrooms including Anonops.net, mounting mass and repeated 'denial of service' attacks on sites that have moved against Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks in recent days."
A cached page from Anonops.net shows Palin's site as a suggested target.
A SarahPAC.com technical aide said that the "DOS attackers, a group loosely known as Anon_Ops, used a tool called LOIC (Lower Orbit Ion Cannon) to flood sarahpac.com. The attackers wanted us to know that they were affiliated with wikileaks.org through an obscure message in our server log file.“
The tech emailed this screenshot to show what he's talking about.
Mansour said that an employee called Todd Palin this afternoon and told him that his and his wife's account had been compromised and that a company in London was involved.
It wasn't clear whether the attack to the Palins' credit card account today was related to the attack on her website.
Anon_Ops describes itself as an "anonymous, decentralized movement which fights against censorship and copywrong." It has enlisted volunteers "create counter-propaganda, organizing attacks (DDoS) on various targets related to censorship (time, date and target will be published by that time)." For that reason, it is difficult to ascertain the exact motivation of any attacker.
Added Mansour, “the governor voiced her opinion knowing full well that she was speaking out against a shady disreputable organization with no regard for laws or human life. This is how they operate. The world should not be intimidated by them.”
Mansour added that Wikileaks supporters claim to be “in favor of free speech yet they attack Sarah Palin for exercising her free speech.” She said SarahPAC.com was not harmed because Palin’s staff was able to move quickly to protect the site.
-Jake Tapper CBS News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)