Vor wenigen Wochen habe ich versucht zu erklären, warum Zeitungen in den USA günstiger als ihre Deutschen Geschwister sein können. Es war ein Versuch; wer die Antwort kennt - bitte schreiben!

Jetzt hat USA Today, die größte nationale Tageszeitung, eine Preiserhöhung von 25 Cent auf einen Dollar pro Exemplar erhoben. Nach offiziellen Angaben der krisengeschüttelten Gannett Company sind steigende Druckkosten der Grund für den Preisschub.

Aber wie alle anderen Blätter in den USA hat USA Today mit starken Einschnitten bei den Erlösen aus Werbung und Absatz zu kämpfen. Im Vergleich zu deutschen Zeitungen liegt der Anteil der Einnahmen durch Werbung bei ihnen viel höher.

Doch selbst nach der Preiserhöhung wird die Wochentagsausgabe der USA Today noch immer weniger als die New York Times mit $1,50 oder das Wall Street Journal mit $2 kosten.

Deshalb sage ich noch einmal Wow! zu meiner Abo-Zeitung, der Washington Post. Sie kostet wochentags $0,50. Und ein ganz großes Wow! sage ich zu den Geschäftsleuten hinter der Post. Sie haben das Unternehmen Washington Post Company vor langer Zeit mit dem Bildungsanbieter Kaplan auf mehrere Beine gestellt und damit vor einem Absturz wie bei anderen Medienunternehmen bewahrt.

On his blog “The Feed” media critic for St. Petersburg Times Eric Deggans wondered how CNBC’s tourette's afflicted financial “guru” Jim Cramer (host of his show Mad Money) kept his job after telling investors to get out of the market on NBC’s Today show.

On October 7th, Jim Cramer defended his statement on NBC's Today show, saying he still stands behind what he said. According to anchor Meredith Vieira, his comments caused a “firestorm." One email likened his comments to “yelling fire in a crowded building.” Another email pointed out that the financial system is based on “trust” and that Cramer was sabotaging it. What makes this all very ironic is that Cramer has been giving bad advice for a while (he told people to buy Wachovia and Bear Stearns stock), but he’s taking criticism for giving good advice this time: SELL!

Jim Cramer and business journalists (not that he is one) are stuck in a very odd position. Because the market is based so much on confidence, their collective coverage can affect the confidence of the market. It’s sort of like the “observer effect” in science that says in some experiments in quantum physics, the very observation of the experiment could change its outcome. Business journalists are in the same boat.

Howard Kurtz's column “Press May Own a Share in Financial Mess” is about how business journalists failed to foresee this economic crisis. He acknowledges their difficult balancing act: “If these journalists shout too loudly, they can be accused of scaremongering and blamed for torpedoing the stock of outwardly healthy companies.”

Using The Wall Street Journal as an example, he says some stories and opinion pieces did warn about possible collapse, but they failed to paint a full picture of the economic crisis. Basically, they played it down. Some of the journalists he quotes in his piece offer hints as to why:

"…If we had written stories in late 2000 saying this whole thing's going to collapse, people would have said, 'Ha ha, maybe,' and gone about their business." - Fortune Magazine Managing Editor Andy Serwer.

"When I would cover these very issues about problems with regulation, problems with 'is this a disaster waiting to happen?' people would say: 'Well, young man, you don't have an MBA like I do. Trust us. We went to business school.'" - David Brancaccio, PBS.

"The business press tends to get in with the people that they cover. They get in the bubble that is Wall Street, just like political reporters get in the bubble that is the White House and the traveling press of the campaign . . . and they don't see the obvious things." - Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post business columnist, Pulitzer Prize winner.

This does not sound like an environment where honest journalism can go down. Can you smell filters?! How much does sourcing and corporate ownership contribute to the sunny optimism of business pages, even on the verge of a financial crisis? There is real pressure on business journalists to paint a rosy picture and when they don't, they're punished, even when they're giving good advice at the time (a la Jim Cramer). There needs to be enough distance between the business journalist and the market, so that honest, objective reporting can go down.

NotionsCapital presents this week's Roll of Shame, Washington, DC area music venues that advertise "Live Music" but do not include the names of bands in their ads. You may think this is a mere quibble. Think again.

It is not just a matter of disrespect. Bands earn reputations, and omitting their names from advertising fails to capitalize on this. Since venues rate bands on the number of customers they draw, failure to list band names in ads blames bands for the venue's own ignorance and laziness.

As one commenter says: "It's like a restaurant implying that they serve food and then only listing the word ‘Food' on every line of their menu."

Bad enough that club musicians haven't had a raise in 40 years. Bad enough that most clubs leave it to the bands to send information to the free listings in the City Paper and Post. This generic ad stuff is plain absurd.

You can help. Let NotionsCapital know if you see a venue with a "Live Music" sign in the window that doesn't display the name of the band. Joe's Bar says the band schedule is on the website? You cannot click on a URL in a newspaper or a window. Joe's Bar claims the band is named "The Joe's Bar Band?" I don't think so.

Festivals fester in the fall, and some of them advertise "live entertainment" and "live music," so they're on the list.

Here is this week's Roll of Shame, based on paid advertising in the current Washington City Paper and Washington Post Weekend section:

Cox Farms Fall FestivalKramerbooks & Afterwards Cafe

Market Inn

Middle Eastern Bazaar and Food Festival, Saints Peter and Paul Antiochan Orthodox Church

The Reef Restaurant

No band names in your ads? No hyperlinks for you on this post. Get with the program.

Image by Mike Licht, who likes to go to several of the shameful venues above (Get it together, people!).

I'm more cynical than ever thanks to this whole "palling around with terrorists" deal. It seems to me that the following oft-repeated lines should elicit the following responses from reasonable people. Reasonable people in this case shall be played by...MYSELF!

Clearly, Obama is a terrorists. Haha, how can you say that without laughing at how ridiculously wrong that is.

But, seriously, this proves he's a Muslim right? Right, Al Qaeda's dastardly plan to elect an extremist to the White House to destroy our country from the top down was foiled the minute he took the cover name Barack Hussein Obama. If only they had gone with Plan B: John Peter Makepeace Paul Jones Thackeray Astor VI. I don't have time for this...

But isn't Bill Mohammad Abdul Ayers a terrorist friend of his who gave him a deal on some land? No, you're thinking of that silly Tony Rezko affair which, is unsurprisingly not the most memorable non-story in this election. Also, his name is Bill Ayers.

Terrorist Muslim! No and no. Honestly, are we just shouting nouns now?

Doesn't this show that Obama demonstrates judgement that is at best naieve and at worst really, unpresidentially bad in choosing people to associate himself with? So we should look at who candidates associate themselves with. Ok. In one corner we have Barack Obama known associate (to varying degrees of closeness) to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and alleged angry black woman...Oprah. In the other, John McCain a rumored member of the Republican Party and their most recent and current President is George W. Bush. Is this really a pissing contest you want to get into?

BUT BILL AYERS WAS A TERRORIST BOMBER! I see your crazy terrorist bomber associate, sir and raise you one Republican backed effort to train and support Osama bin Laden to become a professional thorn-in-the-side-of-superpowers terrorist in the 80's. The past reveals some strange and not so smart associations between people. Go figure.

(switching gears)

This is a ridiculous attack, Obama was on a big wheel (i.e. was a tot) when Ayers was off acting like Snidley Whiplash.   Ok that was dumb and this is just as dumb...Age and timing has nothing to do with the substance of the charge. You're making a ridiculous assumption about the statement and responding to what isn't said...which is basically REALLY REALLY BAD SPIN. By your logic (i.e. really, really, bad logic),  it is ridiculous criticize neo-Nazis because they weren't even alive when Hitler came into power. Ergo, there is no possible connection between the past crimes of someone and younger persons connection to their legacy of hate.

I, an average Joe American who supports Obama, have totally been on corporate boards with people and not checked their backgrounds to see if they were well-known terrorists and/or have met them. Thus, Barack is totally, probably, likely, telling the truth. Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth? Incidentally, you don't sound smart and knowing so much as stupid and blindly self-aggrandizing.

They're not friends.  End of non-story. How do you know?

It's right here in the Obama campaign talking point and is in no way self-serving or potentially misleading because they don't do that. Uh-huh, so you drank the grape Kool-Aid?

It's the attack of desperate people. HUFF! Not so desperate as to become talking heads on cable news...like you, however.

Oh, shut up, Vogue Republic with your sass-backing and sexy, sardonic wit. [Alexis Carrington Eye Flare]

The palling around with a terrorist line is only marginally less ridiculous than the defences of it. My take on the whole episode is this. Let's be frank. Both candidates have some shady dealings with people in their past. We have one debate left. Make that the question. Senators we have tons of names and scandals we can go on about. Bottom line, how do you choose the people you want to have around you. Why? What mistakes have you made and what have you learned? That's the question that hasn't been answered by either of the candidates to, really, anyone's satisfaction.

To skip the following paragraphs and read something marginally shorter but significantly less sardonic...here's a piece by regular WaPo columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Honestly, Senator Obama does have some explaining to do about the people he associates himself with in a very specific way. He crossed paths with Ayers and tells us he didn't know of his past. Granted, this was the pre-Google era but still...that's a bit of a stretch. You're smart and politically astute, Senator. You're telling me that in the years you crossed paths with this 'person who lives in your neighbourhood' nobody casually mentioned his past? Hell that's like running into Ted Kaczynski at the volunteer centre and saying, "hmm, that's a nice name, is it Polish?"

Next on the list, is Reverend Wright. Which, to me, is a classically bungled affair that screamed hasty cover up followed by a well choreographed one. First we heard, Obama wasn't at church on those days. Then it was some weak parrying with the press followed by THE GREATEST SPEECH ON RACE EVAR!!1! or as critics called it the Throw Your Grandmother Under The Bus Speech. It was a good speech but not everyone has a racist grandmother, mine was sexist. Again, go figure. Also, in hindsight was his heavy-handed insinuation that old people are secretly racist a shameless dirty attack on John McCain. Probably not but now that it's been said in cyberspace can it PLEASE become the next scandal du jour?

Honestly, I've been to enough church services in my life to know that not necessarily everyone in attendance agrees with everything said. Even in small town, middle America, I doubt anyone truly offended by a pastor's comments would immediately call a press conference or stand up in the middle of service and denounce them as mean and divisive. So to expect that from Senator Obama is rather ridiculous. Also, as much as I found Wright's comments to be controversial and divisive, so what?

To be honest it was nice to shake things up a bit and actually talk about why he would say the things he did and discuss race in America a bit more honestly and openly. People are more than a sixty-second soundbyte and if anything the whole episode made me want to know more about Obama, Wright, their connection and them separately. The only thing I found disturbing was the alacrity with which Obama through the good Reverend under the bus and kept going. It was like watching Speed IV: Race to the White House.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that maybe an 'edited-for-shock-value-week-long-news-cycle' unfairly distorted the public's view of a man of importance and value to Senator Obama. Hell, I watch reality television. I'm not willing to entertain the idea that cutting Wright out of Obama's campaign and life was anything more than a completely transparent politically expedient completely bereft of any integrity whatsoever.

It just seems that Senator Obama has these associations with people, however strong or loose, that are 'beneficial' in someway. They get tainted by scandal and are then quickly run out of town. They're victims of the scandal-hungry media frenzy that surrounds him and an inability to demonstrate anything other than shock at their less than laudable past acts or statements. Either he doesn't do his homework on the people he associates with or his 'shock' is all an elaborate, if not obvious, deception. It's a question, worth asking and getting an answer to. I will say this, his selection of Joe Biden was incredibly brilliant...unless it turns out that Joe Biden knows 7-11's are exclusively staffed by Indians because he's been knocking them over for 35 years to supplement his Senate income.

How and why John McCain chooses his associates is also a valid and interesting question. It isn't shocking that a number of his campaign staffers are former Bushies, especially considering that working for a sitting and twice-elected President isn't usually bad for ones resume. It is shocking that he would hire them and listen to the advice of people who are responsible for some of the worst, most under-handed attack ads of the modern age. Attacks that John McCain was, himself, a victim of. Although, after reversing his position on the torture that he was also a victim of, I suppose that's not entirely unexpected.

It's sad because a man who so clearly wanted to run a principled campaign and - bless his heart - still thinks that he does has clearly fallen so short of that goal. McCain's grievances against Bush in 2000 and Romney in the primary were very real and dare I say it, respectable. Yet, here we are and there isn't a reason for it. Yes, the Bush people knew how to win. One could even say if they could sell Bush to the electorate, selling McCain would be a walk in the park. The reality TV show competition lesson of the week that McCain failed to remember is that if you aren't true to yourself and play the game trying to conform to what 'experts say' you'll mess up spectacularly and fail.

Since becoming the nominee, the campaign has careened from one ill-conceived message to another, made poor decision after poor decision, gone negative way in the worst ways at the worst time, and undermined every shred of decency and respect that people had for John McCain that wasn't tied into generic respect to his time in uniform. Interestingly enough, the only real aspect of this campaign that's McSame '08, is his campaign staff. The Republicans, Independents, and voters across the spectrum were looking for something new, a re-branding of the Grand Old Party. Instead the McCain camp has well earned my nickname for them the Straight Talk Ship of Fools.

To come back to the point, Senator McCain, has worked with and against many members of both parties at times and it's not helpful to ask why he associates with Republicans, including President Bush. It is helpful to ask why he thinks choosing people who are more interested in winning through attrition than building up John McCain and rebuilding the Republican brand was either a good choice for him or a good decision for America? Also, if experience and readiness to lead are so critically important for this nation, why choose a Vice-President who is neither?

They've both made some questionable decisions about who to trust, hire, work with, and associate themselves with. They've also made some decisions regarding their associates that have been transparently political and shameless in their lack of integrity. So really, we can ask them to share with their future employers how they choose the people around them, and what they've learned about all the mistakes they've made in the past. Or we can blame them for making them in the first place and ask them if they like puppies and freedom?

For the hell of it. Curious about Ayers and Obama and their semi-non-relationship read all about it at CNN PT: Here.

NEWSOBSERVER.COM

Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON - Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

It seems when I bring this and other similar issues up about Barack Obama it is some kind of evil and bad thing. Well I have called the Democratic leadership in the North Carolina general Assembly corrupt for their good ol’ boy politics. Read the following quote and think hard before you decide to vote for Barack Obama.

This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.

Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in the service of his own ambition.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

While Wall Street melts down around us,  John McCain and Sarah Palin continue their "Enraged Talk Express" campaign. It what surely will go down in history as the meanest, dirtiest campaign ever.

McCain is ensuring his legacy as a hate monger.

Using the nastiest tactics they can dream up, McCain, Palin, and a host of angry, bitter surrogates are running around the country lying, exaggerating and mis-stating the facts in order to fool and misdirect you from the truth that we are in one heck of a mess of their making.

Everywhere McCain or Palin go now, it is all about sowing fear and mistrust of Barack Obama using lies, innuendos and yes, race baiting their desperate crowds. Crowds of shocked and desperate people who are appalled that the Republican party has now found itself in such a god awful mess.

These crowds are so stirred up by McCain and his pals with viscious verbal attacks that cause some ignorant people to scream "liar", "kill him", "off with his head" or racial epithets directed at nearby African American television camera men. See CNN story here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

It's appalling.

Said Obama in response to the Republican Rage Rallies - "anger and division are not what we need right now."  he went to say that it's "easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. I think that folks are looking for something different," he said. "But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious."

These people are mad as hell and don't seem to understand why Obama has been climbing in the polls.

Could it be that there are more people that disagree with the Republicans then there are that disagree with the democrats? Do the republicans think they there are the exclusive owners of patriots and that everyone else is a terrorist or a socialist?

Maybe the majority who is being reflected in the polls are sick and tired of the same old republican policies and tactics, except for one distinct difference. They aren't revving up crowds with hate mongering and anger therapy.

These crowds sound like they came out of time transporter straight from the racially charged 1960's where rampant racism abounded.

One gentlemen who has been shown on several news broadcasts expressing his anger suggested Obama, Pelosi and a few others were taking the country towards socialism.

Let me understand this. We are in the process of Nationalizing our banks through the bailout McCain and Republicans as well as Democrats also support and that's not socialistic? Obama didn't create this mess nor is he the one making economic policy.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, the hate mongering, race baiting and terrorist labeling is coming from the top of the republican ticket and it must end with direction from the top of the Republican ticket - that's Senator McCain and Sarah Palin.

Stop the hate rallies Senator McCain! - Tell your supporters to stop because they are appearing like lunatic extremists of society screaming for peoples heads and screaming "terrorist"!

Focus on the issues that matter to us. We don't need an angry, bitter, ticked off man, we need a calm leader with ideas. We've got problems, but you've got issues (personal ones)!

You are inciting hatred and appear to be the opposite image of what America stands for.

Senator McCain - show some leadership NOW and stop the hate mongering before you go down in history with others who practiced such evil, vile and despicable behaviors.

If you fail to do so you will be potentially responsible for instigating violence.

Related articles:

• Death threat against Obama probed after McCain rally
• GOP Anger Unleashed At McCain Rallies
• Barack Obama called 'terrorist' at Republican rallies as US election campaign turns nasty

At 7:00 p.m. in Braden Auditorium at Illinois State University, Mr. O'Brien will address the community with "An Evening with Tim O'Brien."  A book signing will follow the event.
 
All events are free and open to the public.

Mr. O'Brien is a Vietnam veteran and calls upon that experience for many of his works.  He attended Harvard University and once worked for the Washington Post.

His books include:
If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home (1973)
Northern Lights (1975)
Going After Cacciato (1978)
The Nuclear Age (1985)
The Things They Carried (1990)
In the Lake of the Woods (1994)
Tomcat in Love (1998)
July, July (2002)

For additional information contact Toni Tucker ttucker@ilstu.edu or (309) 438-7402.

Then there are truly brainwashed who sit there and tell those of us who don't like living in a surveillance ridden society that if we had nothing to hide we shouldn't be concerned.

Well, I have nothing to hide; BUT I am concerned. I'm a private person, I like my privacy. If I meet someone interesting and wanted to engage in a little phone or cyber erotica (hey, we all like a little dirty talk once in a while) with them, I want to feel that our exchange IS private. If I am angry about something the government has done (as with this bailout) and want to vent that anger verbally either on the phone to a friend or even right here on my own blog, and I want to feel safe that I'm not about to be labeled a "terrorist" for the "angry thoughts" I am spouting.

I just read in the Washington Post this morning about an anti-death penalty/anti-war group in Maryland that was spied on by some agencies and labeled "terrorists" for doing nothing wrong and for lawfully and peacefully wanting to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Spying Gone Awry

A covert surveillance operation in Maryland tramples on civil liberties.

Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A18

THOMAS E. HUTCHINS, the former Maryland state police superintendent, spoke about a covert operation that spied on harmless activists for the first time at a legislative hearing this week. Mr. Hutchins, who authorized the operation, didn't provide new information about the spying program. But his spirited defense of the surveillance and his refusal to acknowledge serious missteps offers insight into the flawed mind-set that led to the operation's creation.

Mr. Hutchins's testimony followed the release of a report that depicts the spying operation in vivid detail. The surveillance started as an attempt to gather information about those protesting the death penalty. Spurred by the post-Sept. 11 frenzy to detect terrorist plots, it morphed into 14 months of spying, during which the state mistakenly labeled 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists. The 93-page report, compiled by former Maryland attorney general Stephen H. Sachs, concluded that the secret monitoring, which occurred from March 2005 to May 2006, "significantly overreached." That's a considerable understatement.

The monitoring started when a police commander requested information about whether the upcoming executions of two death row inmates would lead to unruly protests. Mr. Hutchins claimed that his men were not spying but monitoring "open public meetings." He arrogantly asserted, "I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government." His story was incomplete, to say the least. In fact troopers used aliases to infiltrate organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists, even though an early assessment of the "threat" posed by the death penalty protesters "did not identify any specific threat to public safety."

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Read the FULL STORY here, and be sure to read the report too.

I would suggest that Mr. Hutchins re-read the Declaration of Independence, which states that the people not only have the right BUT a duty to question their government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Granted, we cannot, nor should we, go to this extreme over any/every little thing. Although I must admit to wondering why we haven't over the past 7 years under this current administration that shows nothing but disdain for our Constitution and the Republic our founders bled and died to create.

The First Amendment also protects our right to question government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So exactly what part of these two documents, that are the very basis and foundation of our country, does this Mr. Hutchins NOT understand?

This is just the beginning. The FBI now has new guidelines that basically allow exactly the same kind of thing that Mr. Hutchins did in Maryland.

Published on Saturday, October 4, 2008 by Agence France Presse

New, Controversial FBI Guidelines Go Into Effect

WASHINGTON - US Attorney General Michael Mukasey has signed new guidelines for FBI operations he said are designed to better protect the country from terrorist attacks, but that raise concern of some lawmakers and civil rights groups.

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, seen here in July 2008, has signed new guidelines for FBI operations he said are designed to better protect the country from terrorist attacks, but that raise concern of some lawmakers and civil rights group (AFP/Getty Images/File/Chip Somodevilla)

"These guidelines provide more uniform, clearer and simpler rules for the FBI operations ... are designed to allow the FBI to become, among other things, a more flexible and adept collector of intelligence," Mukasey and FBI director Robert Mueller said in a statement Friday."Since the 9/11 attacks, the FBI and the Department of Justice more broadly have set priorities for and reorganized their activities to prevent future terrorist acts against the American people," the statement said.

The new, revised regulations -- the original version met strong criticism from congressional committees last month, comprise 50 pages dealing with five areas of FBI investigation, including criminal, national security and foreign intelligence.

Mukasey said most of the new, streamlined rules "will be available to the public ... As a result, the general public will have access in a single document to the basic body of operating rules for the FBI's activities."

But despite Mukasey's assurances that the new regulations "reflect consultation with Congress as well as privacy and civil liberties groups," not all concerns over their effect on privacy rights were dispelled.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy said the new guidelines expand the FBI's powers of surveillance.

"It appears that with these guidelines, the attorney general is once again giving the FBI broad new powers to conduct surveillance and use other intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any indication of wrongdoing or any approval even from FBI supervisors," Leahy said in a statement.

Read the FULL STORY here.

When you read about the new methods that the FBI will be allowed to use, you have to wonder if they fashioned it after the Maryland operation as they are similar.

The ACLU is all over this also.

As I said earlier, I have nothing to hide, but I want to retain my God-Given Right to express my opinions, thoughts, and yes anger in peaceful ways without worrying about the government labeling me as a terrorist.

You have to wonder what this administration is so worried about that they seem to have no problem shredding our Constitutional guarantees.

This is NOT the America I was born into, and I don't like where I see this new Amerika (yes I deliberately misspelled it) going.

Everyone poses for a group picture outside.  Jonathan Newton with the Washington Post gives his thumbs up.

Phew! What a week I've had. From September 29 - Oct 5 I was volunteering my time at Western Kentucky's Mountain Workshops in Mayfield, Ky., responsible for editing well over 8,000 pictures for the website.  In addition, I shot a few behind the scenes pictures for the BACKSTAGE link (at top right corner of site).  There was never shortage of something fun going on all week!! 

The workshop has been in operation since 1974.  I've attended workshops 2000-2003 2007, 2008 and each year it amazes me how many beautiful pictures come back from the participants.  In the past two years the workshops have grown with the addition of the multimedia workshops.  Participants in multimedia employ the same basic journalistic principles to tell captivating stories, except with the additional use of video and audio.  

All around it was a great experience hanging out and talking photography with some of the industry's most talented photographers and editors.  It was like a big, happy, yet often tired, family of people from USA TODAY, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post National Geographic, Dallas Morning News, MSNBC to name a few. Very cool people indeed.

I am honored to have been part of this event, especially because WKU is my alma mater. Go big Red!!

To learn more just click on the site: www.mountainworkshops.org

Milbank’s lone racist at the rally soon became a group or a mob of people shouting racial epithets. A New York Times editorial Tuesday “The Politics of Attack” misquoted Milbank’s Post column, claiming that one person shouted “Kill him” and “others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.” Many blogs followed suit: “Crowd at Palin Rally Hurled Racial Epithets at African American on News Crew,” read the headline at Pensito Review. This was too much for Bob Somerby, the left-leaning blogger at the Daily Howler. Calling Milbank “a highly unreliable chronicler,” Somerby taunted the Times for multiplying racists at the rally: “It’s the power of pluralization...One example becomes much more powerful when we stick an ‘s’ on the end. In this case, one epithet-shouter turns into a group. How many people were shouting those epithets? The editors let you imagine.”

via The Power of One by John Leo, City Journal 9 October 2008

The Bush administration has become famous for its divisiveness, unlawfulness, and lack of transparency. It should come as no surprise that this week the Washington Post covered a news story about non-violent Maryland activists and protesters (a.k.a. opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war) who have been put on a terrorist watch list.

"Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July."

"The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists 'fringe people.' "

"Stunned senators pressed Sheridan to apologize to the activists for the spying, assailed in an independent review last week as 'overreaching' by law enforcement officials who were oblivious to their violation of the activists' rights of free expression and association. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, does not apologize but admits that the state police have 'no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime' by those classified as terrorists."

The series of articles is best read in this order:

Maryland State Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists

Activists Mislisted as Terrorists Are Blocked From Keeping Copies of Intelligence Files

Spying Gone Awry: A covert surveillance operation in Maryland tramples on civil liberties.

The real surprise is that some people are surprised by this. Isn't this par for the Bush administration course? Really - how big of a jump is it to go from suspending habeus corpus to listing "protesters" as terrorists?

Sure, sure, President Bush didn't personally do this - it was the Maryland State Police. Well, here comes a politically charged comparison: Hitler didn't personally kill millions of Jews, but he did instruct others, to instruct others, to instruct others to do it. It's called leadership - and it has a direct hand in local government by both actively supporting some initiatives and by neglecting to disallow other initiatives.

When the real owners of the home he was making himself at home in came home (how's that for three homes in one phrase?), they found him in the bed and called the police.  Pretty quickly it was apparent that he was not any threat, and he prepared to leave.

But not before the grace-filled homeowners 1) refused to press any charges and 2) filled up a bag with homemade food for him.

The explanation was "Sicilian hospitality."  

Wow!  Grace.

Check it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803762.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

What Kind of Executive are You?

Queensboro’s new executive jacket is the stylish and sensible choice of outerwear for today’s executive.  It’s affordable, comfortable, and looks much more expensive than it actually is.  That is appropriate, because today’s executives need to take a different approach than executives of yesteryear—or even yesterweek.

According to the Washington Post, Richard S. Fuld Jr., former CEO of Lehman Brothers netted over $40 million last year, which included over $4 million in bonuses. On Monday, he sat in a congressional hearing investigating the collapse of his company.  Remember L. Dennis Kozlowski?  He’s the former Tyco CEO, the infamous executive who spent company money to buy a $16,000 umbrella stand.  From what we’ve been hearing, none of our executive customers can do that right now.

Entrepreneur or Executive?  Or Both?

You’re the owner of a new business.  You and your husband or wife operate out of your house, providing goods or services.  You’ve found your niche.  You need to grow.  You need local PR coverage, credit, and customers.  You need to spend time networking.  As the owner/operator of your business, you do everything from packaging goods for shipment to meeting with loan officers.  You need to look sharp without spending a bunch of money.  Tough times mean that you have to work harder and look more professional than ever to inspire confidence in your customers and your investors.  Lucky for you, Queensboro has been serving the needs of small to medium sized business owners and executives for over 25 years.  In addition to the new Sueded Microfiber Executive Jacket, Queensboro offers tons of professional, affordable apparel ready for customization with your company logo.  (Despite our low prices, we are definitely not a racket!)

Friendly to Small Businesses

Queensboro is lucky to have a lot of interesting small businesses as our customers.  We’ve profiled a few of them here on the blog (Flying J Fainters Fainting Goats, Roth Electric Sound and Al Melvin, a Keller Williams agent), and will continue to highlight more. Many of our small business customers send us emails expressing their delight at being able to order affordable, quality logo apparel in small quantities so that they can compete, image-wise, on the same playing field with much larger companies.  We love to hear from our customers.  If you have any suggestions for us to help you and your business grow, be sure to email us!

Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber -- even a repentant one -- he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" -- of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Read it all.

Dans un article sur un voyage récent en Allemagne, McIntyre mentionnait un repas de Rieslingbraten, un boeuf braisé d'abord mariné longuement (de trois à six jours!) dans le riesling. J'étais pour le moins intrigué, alors j'ai cherché sur Internet, pour ne finalement trouver qu'une seule recette - en allemand. Un coup de traduction Google et un peu de recherche sur des dictionnaires en ligne m'ont permis de tout déchiffrer.

Je vous en donne les grandes lignes, avec un tout petit brin d'adaptation. Vous allez voir, c'est pas compliqué.

Vous prenez une pièce de boeuf à braiser (palette, épaule, etc. - disons 2 kilos). Vous versez une bouteille de riesling dans un bol assez grand pour accueillir la pièce de boeuf (et idéalement, pour qu'elle soit couverte par le riesling). Vous mettez dans le riesling deux feuilles de laurier, un clou de girofle, quelques baies de genièvre, quelques grains de poivre noir, des grains de moutarde ou de la moutarde sèche en poudre, un peu de romarin, de piment (genre Espelette), d'estragon, de cerfeuil, de persil. Vous brassez un peu et vous placez la viande dans le plat.

Si ça couvre entièrement, vous laissez au frigo trois jours ou plus et vous ressortez au moment de cuire. Si ça ne couvre pas entièrement, retournez la pièce soir et matin pour que le tout marine également.

Au moment de cuire, vous sortez la viande de la marinade. Vous mettez un peu d'huile à chauffer dans une casserole allant au four et vous faites brunir vivement la viande de tous les côtés. Vous réservez la viande et vous faites revenir, toujours à feu vif, des oignons hachés dans la casserole. Quand les oignons ont caramélisé un brin, vous versez une bonne demi-tasse de bouillon ou de fond de veau et vous laissez le tout bouillir une minute.

Ajoutez un peu de farine pour épaissir la sauce, placez le boeuf dedans et mettez le plat couvert au four préchauffé à 350 °F (180 ° C). Comptez une bonne heure par kilo de viande pour la cuisson. Vérifiez de temps en temps l'état du liquide, retournez la pièce de boeuf et ajoutez au besoin un peu d'eau ou de marinade. On pourrait même cuire un peu plus longtemps et un peu plus lentement (à 300-325 °F - 160°C) pour une cuisson plus délicate.

Quand le boeuf est cuit, on le met en réserve dans un plat, sous un papier d'aluminium. On en profite pour préparer la sauce: on fait réduire le tout quelques minutes, on ferme le feu et on ajoute de la crème. Si on veut, on peut passer la sauce au chinois (ou à la passoire de nylon) pour enlever les oignons caramélisés. Mais les oignons, comme ça, c'est si bon...

On tranche la viande, on nappe de sauce, et on accompagne le tout de légumes racines, de pommes de terre poêlées ou encore de spätzle ou de nouilles aux oeufs.

Et avec ça, on boit, bien sûr, un riesling. Cette semaine, j'ai bu le tout avec un Riesling Spätlese de la Moselle, le Studert-Prüm Graacher Domprobst 2001. Beaux arômes d'abricot, robe paille claire, rond, juste assez enveloppant, l'acidité bien présente mais adoucie gentiment par le temps. Un délice.

J'aurais peut-être essayé le tout avec un riesling plus jeune, pour que l'acidité un peu plus vive vienne rafraîchir un peu plus le tout. Mais ce qui était clair - limpide, même - c'est qu'il fallait du blanc. J'avais sous la main un excellent vin de syrah de Californie (Peay Vineyards La Bruma 2005, une importation personnelle), à la hauteur d'un Côte-Rôtie. Délicieux, le vin venait toutefois casser le goût de la viande. Le mariage des deux était tout ce qu'il y a de plus terne.

Le blanc, au contraire, vient éclairer la viande, rendue très aromatisée par la marinade et même un brin acidulée. Ça change de l'ordinaire, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire. Et les parfums sont carrément envoûtants. Le lendemain matin, ça embaumait encore partout dans la cuisine.

À moins que la viande ait été cuite dans le vin rouge, le vin blanc est d'ailleurs à considérer pour les plats de boeuf braisé ou bouilli. Sans le sang et le caramélisé de la grillade ou de la rôtisserie, la saveur plus délicate du braisé s'accommode très bien d'un blanc ayant une bonne substance. Un chardonnay bien mûr et ayant pris du beurré après quelques années de vieillissement, avec un bouilli traditionnel, c'est un mariage aussi réussi que surprenant.

Sorry, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?  Perhaps he hasn't won anything at the tables.  When you sit down at a craps table, you are guaranteed to lose more than you win.  Anyone who's gambled playing any game knows this.  Is it now a requirement that we have to put a big stamp on our tax returns that says "I DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING PLAYING CRAPS THIS YEAR?"

I have two words for this stupid, useless information:  Who cares?  This has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's electibility, and nothing to do with real issues.  This story is a piece of crap, that's it.  A completely irrelevant piece of steaming horse crap.  No one with a brain and a good amount of intact brain cells cares about this stuff, really.  Do they?

For the full story, go here:  A Gambling Man, But No Winnings

When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.

The media is all over itself about how smart and experienced Biden is. Political analyst Charlie Cook is quoted in the Washington Post on Saturday as saying “Biden is clearly so much more knowledgeable, by a factor of about a million.” Saturday Night Live does a skit about Biden being smart, if slimy. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is treated as being nothing more than a simpleton.

Yet, take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

Source: what a vice president does

Do you really want a VP that does not know what the job is all about?

Earlier this year alot of hype was generated by a SONIC drive-in opening shop in Southgate. Here's the difference: SONIC makes good commercial and (in my opinion) average food where 5 Guys Burgers and Fries has done barely any advertising here in Michigan but makes award winning burgers. 5GBF was started by Jerry and Janie Murell and their four sons and sells nothing but burgers (and hot dogs), fries and cola, hence the name. Jerry and his sons left poor Janie out of the name, i'm guessing for purposes of iambic pentameter then two years after the Murells opened their burger chain they had a 5th son who replaced Jerry in the family business as the "fifth guy".

5 Guys Burger and Fries has been voted best burger or fries by numerous publications out east including: Delaware Today Magazine,  Charlotte City Magazine, Richmond Magazine, Philadelphia Magazine, The Liberty Champion wherever that is, and has been featured in the Washington Post.

Five guys is scheduled to open franchises across the Metro Detroit area in early 2009.  In the mean time check out these other Local burger joints.

  Little Brother's Burgers

201 W 4th Steet Royal Oak MI

248-414-4541

Travis Hamburgers

23500 Greater Mac Ave St. Clair Shores MI

586-778-0101   

 -OR-

30100 Gratiot Roseville MI

586-775-3400

Abby Lane Gourmet Burgers

16890 15 Mile Road Fraiser MI

586-415-2229

Telway Hamburger System

27000 John R Rd Madison Heights MI

248-545-7962 

-OR-

6820 Michigan Ave. Dearborn MI 

313-843-2146

Bray's Hamburgers

22941 Dequindre Rd. Hazel Park MI

248-542-8878

Hunter House Hamburgers

35075 Woodward Ave. Birmingham MI

248-646-7121

For more information on Five Guys Burgers and Fries visit www.fiveguys.com

*Thanks to Mark Parus for the heads up.

It really is sad though, that people think the media is "in the tank" for Obama.  Consider this: Candidate A claims that 1+1=2.  Meanwhile, Candidate B says that 1+1=Muslim.  The mainstream media reports that Candidate B is incorrect (except for Fox News, of course), and is immediately decried as "elitist" or "liberal", simply because they called Candidate B out on his inaccuracy.  This is essentially what is happening now, and it's even getting bad enough that Palin supporters are turning on reporters attending her events.

Newsflash.  McCain and Palin are throwing baseless smears at Obama, inciting their supporters to shout things like "kill him", and the MSM is calling them out on it.  That's their job.  The fault is not on them, but on McCain-Palin for running one of the most dishonorable campaigns in history.

A federal judge has ruled that the Redskins must continue to run captioned play-by-play and start showing the lyrics of songs played in the stadium so that the deaf and hard of hearing can have "full game experience."

This ruling affects all stadiums and I'm guessing this includes all sports venues?  Does it also include NASCAR and MMA, I had pondered.

The ruling is tied to ADA.  And because of that, it would make sense why the federal judge would rule the way he did (that is, if you are familiar with the American Disabilities Act.)

The public appears to not be in favor of this ruling, since the Polls [In the beginning] showed almost half had opposed it, whereas the other half (give or take) supports it.

I do have mixed feelings about this ruling.  There are several factors that comes into mind, with regards to this.  And, I'll get to that in a little bit.

Shane Feldman, a 30 year old deaf fan said " "The Redskins needed to understand that they had to provide captioning so that we could really the enjoy the game."  Key word here is "Game."  I'll get to that in a little bit too.

Apparently since 2006, the Redskin's FedEx Field have been captioning play-by-play and even captioning the "Star Spangled Banner" and "Hail to the Redskins."  The deaf and Hard of Hearing wanted a full stadium experience that includes public address announcements, advertisements, music and other information.

Another stadium in Washington D.C., Nationals Ballpark captions everything that is said on the ballpark's public address system.  Everything except the lyrics to the song that the Cheerleaders are performing to.  They are currently looking at the ruling to see if they need to make any adjustment to what they are already doing.

Over at one of the deaf blog aggregator site, there were a number of bloggers that wrote about this latest ruling. Most admonished the public for their ignorance.

A blogger known as "Deaf Mom" explains why deaf and hard of hearing people would need lyrics to be captioned at a live football game.  Deaf Mom feels that the deaf/HOH should have access to the same information as everyone in the stadium when stuffs is being broadcasted over a microphone.  And as she puts it:

"People with normal hearing have the ability to access what goes on in a stadium.  Even if a person couldn't understand what was said on the loudspeaker, they have the choice to get up and go closer to a speaker or find a quieter place near the food stand to grasp what is said."

For one blogger, the judge's ruling wasn't enough. One would think once a ruling is in place, law is law.  Who cares what people think, right?  Well, for this blogger, it was imperative that people go to the Washington Post Poll and vote to make it right.

Another blogger also blogged about the Poll numbers at Washington Post as well.  Encouraging people to vote in favor of at the Polls, and pretty much saying that the more the numbers change (in the poll)  in their favor, that it would somehow turn the public's opinion on this matter.

And this is what this blogger had to say about the ruling:

"Wanna bet how quickly they will change their mind if they lose their hearing? Funny because a lot of hearing people do benefit from the closed captioning, like if there are loud cheerings or jeers."

I clicked on the poll last night and voted "no opinion" and the results showed 64% yes, 33% no, and 1% no opinion (That's me!)  The poll is located on the same website as the article in Washington Post.  Simply put, it is not a valid poll anymore.

So, the Poll has, in effect, became unreliable due to manipulation.  Think about it, if the other side was afforded the same manipulation, you'll see the polls tilting the other way too.  Not a reliable poll, for one.  And, how is the poll going to change people's opinion?  I have considered starting a poll that asks whether one would let a Poll result influence their opinion on a matter.  Polls do not necessarily reflect the true numbers of the total population's view.

Here are some interesting comments from that deaf blogger's site:

"I'm a hard core football [fan] and I don't care about CC"

"I strongly feel that is pretty frivolous of Shane Feldman and the legal parties insist on the captioning of lyrics (songs)"

"It isn't a sports thing, friends. It's a DEAF thing."

"I prefer watch play games and read score board. Caption on the screen is a distraction!"

"I look forward to the day that all deaf and hard of hearing people can access the same things as people who can hear. "

Over at Sports Law Blog, here are what some of the commentors are saying in regards to the latest ruling on captions in a stadium.

"There has got to be some sort of personal responsibility here--this is clearly an attempt to extort money from the team."

"if this gentleman does not have to listen to the nonsense being blared at the crowd over the PA system in FedEx Field, he is very fortunate indeed."

"I think the deaf should have mandatory NFL referee penalty signal training as a prerequisite to attend. "

Now, that's an Idea!   :)

Seriously, I have misgivings. First off, apparently the Redskins have been captioning their games.  They have been captioning the two significant songs being played.  They have provided what was needed for a deaf and hard of hearing person to be able to enjoy the GAME.

But, in reality, we don't need captions to follow the game.  Now consider what one commenter in the Sports Law Blog stated:

"Someone has a chip on his shoulder.  What about an NFL game, seen live, needs captioning?

Penalties?  No, that's what the refs signals are for.  I've known the refs signals since I was about 5 years old.

Replays?  There's no play-by-play in the stadium anyway.

Scores?  Duh."

Who's going to have time to follow the captions when your eye would more likely focus on the ball and the player's moves on the field.  One wouldn't even have time to keep his eyes on the captions in the screen, you would agree, No?  I'm going to bet that these deaf hard-core sports fans will agree with this statement, in the majority.  Captions are a distraction in sports venues, usually.

To be able to experience and enjoy the game, we don't need to know the lyrics to a song that Cheerleaders dances to. I mean, if someone could just show the name of the artist and the song being played, one could look up the lyrics later and buy the song to listen to.   Let's be real here, most deaf (except those that are Hard of Hearing) do not bother to listen to music.  I'm hard of hearing, I listen to music all the time.  I would not expect them to caption the lyrics.  Sure, it'll be nice, but, if I like a song so much, I will buy the song and look up on the lyrics myself.

It's not like the Redskins were refusing to caption anything, they HAVE been captioning the important part of the 'game experience'.

Right now the focus is on "captioning the lyrics," more so than anything else.

Consider this,  if we were to start captioning every music video and post it in Deaf Read, the number of hits are going to be so low which defies the whole purpose of demanding captioning of  lyrics.

And speaking of LIVE game, it cost money!  Used to be cheap to get in to watch LIVE sports game, but, these days are gone.

Now with some frivolous demand to caption song lyrics that the Cheerleaders are dancing to, is only going to increase the cost of admissions to these LIVE games.

The game experience is gonna get pretty expensive, all just for a song.

I watch many sports on TV and captioning is always in the way, I don't bother to watch the captioning at all.   You're gonna find out that many people don't care for these public announcements or some sportscaster's opinion about the game.  And as most hearing people will say, you should consider yourself fortunate not to have to listen to all the crap.

That aside, ADA does say we should have the right to equal access.  But, how far is too far and what constitutes a reasonable solution?

Here's a subtitled music video of Linkin Park - "Leave out all the rest" by Jadisha over at YouTube.

While other news publications like the Times and the Washington Post took a more traditional route to the debate 2nd presidential debate New York Magazine, by far my most FAVORITE magazine (although I have many "favorites") took a completely different stance on Tuesday night's events. I wish I would have seen this article sooner... perhaps I wouldn't have tuned in.