Sunday, April 30, 2006

New York Killers, and Those Killed, by Numbers
By JO CRAVEN McGINTY (NY TIMES 4/28/06)
The oldest killer was 88; he murdered his wife. The youngest was 9; she stabbed her friend. The women were more than twice as likely as men to murder a current spouse or lover. But once the romance was over, only the men killed their exes. The deadliest day was on July 10, 2004, when eight people died in separate homicides.
Five people eliminated a boss; 10 others murdered co-workers. Males who killed favored firearms, while women and girls chose knives as often as guns. More homicides occurred in Brooklyn than in any other borough. More happened on Saturday. And roughly a third are unsolved.
At the end of each year, the New York Police Department reports the number of killings — there were 540 in 2005. Typically, much is made of how the number has fallen in recent years — to totals not seen since the early 1960's. But beyond summarizing the overarching trends, the police spend little time compiling the individual details.
The New York Times obtained the basic records for every murder in the city over the last three years, and while the events make for disturbing reading, the numbers can hint at trends, occasionally solve a mystery and in at least some straightforward way answer for the city the questions of who kills and who is killed in the five boroughs.
From 2003 through 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. No information, beyond an occasional physical description, is available on the killers in the unsolved cases.
Of the rest, men and boys were responsible for 93 percent of the murders; they killed with guns about two-thirds of the time; their victims tended to be other men and boys; and in more than half the cases, the killer and the victim knew each other.
The police said they were more interested in disrupting crime patterns. "We're looking for things with operational implications — time of day, day of the week — to see that we deploy officers at the right times and in sufficient numbers," said Michael J. Farrell, deputy commissioner for strategic initiatives.
The offender and victim were of the same race in more than three-quarters of the killings. And according to Mr. Farrell, they often had something else in common: More than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records; and of those who wound up killed, more than half had them.
"If the average New Yorker is concerned about being murdered in a random crime, the odds of that happening are really remote," Mr. Farrell said. "If you are living apart from a life of crime, your risk is negligible."
Criminologists confirm that assessment. "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City," said Andrew Karmen, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert on victimology. "Victims and offenders are pretty much pulled from the same background. Very often, young victims have young killers. Very often, the victim and killer knew each other."
But plenty of times, events diverge from the norm.
At least a quarter of the city's murders in these three years, were committed by strangers, and in those instances, most were the result of a dispute. Stranger homicides now happen at almost twice the rate of 50 years ago, when, according to a classic study by Marvin Wolfgang, a criminologist, about 14 percent of murders were committed by strangers.
"Homicide used to be regarded as an acquaintance phenomenon with relatively rare incidents involving strangers," said Steven F. Messner, a homicide expert and a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany. "It's still characteristically an acquaintance event. But the stranger homicides are now nontrivial."
After four years as commander of the Brooklyn North homicide squad, Lt. John Cornicello said the murders in his section of the borough had begun to run together. Yet from memory, he rolled off the details of several: The good Samaritan shot for his Lincoln Navigator after offering a ride to a group of stranded people. The ".40-caliber killer," a serial murderer who shot and killed but did not rob four shopkeepers because he believed they were Middle Eastern.
"More and more, they seem to be the result of stupidity," Lieutenant Cornicello said. "Take the Potato Wedge Killer."
In that recent case, a customer at a KFC restaurant became incensed when he did not receive enough starch with his fried chicken order. After demanding both a refund and an order of potato wedges, he later confronted the cashier with whom he had argued and stabbed him to death.
Among all the city's victims, the oldest was 91; she died during a robbery. Whites and Asians, who seldom murdered, were also infrequently killed: Together, they represented 75 or fewer victims each year. Most homicides occurred outdoors. The deadliest hour was 1 to 2 a.m.
And a small but unsettling number of children were among the victims, including 21 infants and 32 children ages 1 to 10, most of whom died at the hands of a parent.
According to Professor Karmen, 10 is the safest age. "You're too old to be abused or neglected as a child," he said, "and you're not old enough to be out on the streets."
An interesting, though uncommon, group of murders that made it into the police accounting in these years involved a handful of victims who died of injuries they had first suffered in crimes committed one or more years before.
Stabbed, shot, beaten or burned, they survived long enough to be counted as murder victims in another calendar year.
Sixty-nine victims fit this description.
In some instances, they were injured decades ago. The medical examiner alerts the police when such deaths occur, according to Sgt. Edward Yee of the Police Department's crime analysis unit, and the police add the victims to that year's murder tally.
For example, 21 deaths that were counted as murders in 2005 resulted from injuries that occurred in earlier years.
The oldest involved a shooting in 1975, when a man attacked his brother in a domestic dispute. That raised the murder toll to 540, the lowest figure recorded by the city in four decades, but only 519 murders were committed last year.
Subtracting these belated deaths makes the recent decline in the number of homicides — which has grabbed headlines — seem even more stunning. But for the purpose of generating the annual murder tally, the police do not distinguish between fresh and delayed murders.
"No one does," Mr. Farrell said, referring to other police departments.
Within the city, 40 percent of the murders occurred in Brooklyn. The 75th Precinct, with 90, had the most of any precinct, but there were hot spots scattered throughout the city, in Brooklyn's 73rd, 79th and 83rd Precincts, for example, and in the 44th and 46th Precincts in the Bronx. In and around the 32nd Precinct in Harlem could be dangerous, too.
No one is certain what explains the recent decreases in the overall number of homicides, but many criminologists believe social factors may help explain why, and where, most murders continue to occur.
"The problem of crime and violence is rooted in neighborhood conditions — high rates of poverty, family disruption, failing schools, lack of recreational opportunities, active recruitment by street gangs, drug markets," Professor Karmen said. "People forced to reside under those conditions are at a greater risk of getting caught up in violence, as victims or as perpetrators."
The police are generally unimpressed by such theories, as well as the minutiae surrounding the deaths.
"Crime is concentrated," Mr. Farrell said. "Who knows why? We're looking at what we can affect."
The roughly one-third of the homicides that remain unsolved create one of the larger categories of murder. Typically, 50 to 55 percent of murders are solved in the same calendar year in which the crime is committed, according to Paul J. Browne, a deputy police commissioner in New York.
The police clear an additional number of murders from previous years, for an overall annual clearance rate of about 70 percent. That beats the national average, which is closer to 62 percent, according to F.B.I. statistics.
In New York, several things may contribute to the number of open cases, according to the police and criminologists. A significant number may have been stranger murders, which are particularly hard to solve. It can take months to collect witness statements.
And sometimes, detectives just cannot get the right person to talk.
"The big secret of detective work," Lieutenant Cornicello said, "is that you've got to get somebody else to tell you what happened."
NY Times
A Plan to Rebuild by 2012, and Doubts on the Big Rush
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
The new plan for ground zero calls for the accelerated construction of a sprawling commercial complex: 8.8 million square feet of office space in four towers 58 to 70 stories high. All would open within a year of each other, by 2012.
Gov. George E. Pataki and others say the conceptual plan, officially approved yesterday by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey after months of gridlock, will rejuvenate Lower Manhattan and ensure that it remains the financial capital of the world.
But some construction and real estate industry executives, and some urban planners, hear echoes of the hoopla surrounding the original World Trade Center project more than 30 years ago. They are questioning whether the rapid building of so much speculative office space would have the same destabilizing consequences for the downtown market as the twin towers had in the 1970's.
Some experts are even wondering whether there will be enough steel, concrete and curtain wall to build the four towers by 2012 at the same time that two baseball stadiums, the $2 billion Goldman Sachs headquarters, the $1.7 billion expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, Moynihan Station, 10,000 apartments and various subway projects are under construction.
Yesterday, the influential Regional Plan Association and the Fiscal Policy Institute welcomed the plan, but they, like many developers, continued to question the wisdom of building the tallest of the skyscrapers, the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, intended to be a symbol of the city's resilience.
They said the tower would stand too far from public transportation and was unlikely to attract corporate tenants, who view it as a potential terrorist target. Some government officials suggested that the site be brought up to street level and then put into mothballs next year.
"The Freedom Tower is a disastrous idea that should be scratched," said Susan S. Fainstein, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University.
Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, was far more upbeat. "This agreement will provide a significant boost to the economy of Lower Manhattan by eliminating much of the uncertainty regarding the area's economic future," she said, adding that businesses would be lured by the neighborhood's comparatively low business costs.
But one thing is certain: the cost of the buildings, now estimated at $6.3 billion, is going to jump. Jones Lang LaSalle, the real estate company advising the Port Authority, has built inflation into the numbers. Construction costs are continuing to escalate, at the rate of 1 percent a month.
"I don't know how long it'll continue," said Frank J. Sciame, the former chairman of the New York Building Congress, "but that's the case for the next year or two."
The World Trade Center, a 10 million-square-foot office complex built by the Port Authority, opened in late 1970 during one of the worst real estate markets since the Depression. To provide anchor tenants for the 110-story towers, state agencies moved into two million square feet of space in one tower, and the Port Authority took 900,000 square feet in the second.
The trade center also offered subsidized rents to lure tenants out of surrounding buildings, angering local landlords.
It was not until the mid-1980's that the state began relocating to other buildings. And a breakthrough came in 1985, when Dean Witter Financial Services leased 24 floors in Tower 2, opening the way for other financial firms. Still, occupancy fluctuated wildly until 1998, when companies fleeing high rents in Midtown pushed the occupancy rate to 98 percent.
In late 2002, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg outlined his vision for downtown and drew on some of the lessons of the trade center. He said that it made no sense to rush ahead to rebuild the 10 million square feet of lost office space.
"If we are honest with ourselves," he said, "we will recognize that the impact on our city was not all positive. The twin towers' voracious appetite for tenants weakened the entire downtown market."
But last fall, Mr. Bloomberg started calling for the ground zero project to accelerate. And the plan approved yesterday moves the completion date for the four office towers to 2012, from 2015.
Government agencies — city, state, federal and the Port Authority — are expected to account for 25 percent of the 8.8 million square feet, only slightly less space than they took up in the twin towers in 1972.
"The need to relocate government offices to the World Trade Center in the 1970's was a sign of the economic failure of that project," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, a senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute. "It would make more sense to ensure that we fully fund the public spaces, like the memorial and the performing arts center. Then, allow for the gradual development of the office space with market demand."
One downtown landlord, who expects to lose his government tenant to the new trade center complex, said, "They're about to make the same mistake they did in the 1970's."
The executive, who was granted anonymity because he did not want to damage his relationship with his largest tenant, a government agency, predicted: "They'll pull all the city, state and federal agencies out of other buildings and put them in there. It'll take a long time for other owners to relet their buildings."
Barry M. Gosin, chief executive of Newmark Knight Frank, a real estate firm, also said the timetable was too short. "They'll be competing with themselves," he said. "They should leave a few sites zoned and ready to go when demand dictates."
But Bill Rudin, a third-generation developer and a major downtown landlord, said that his family was one of the few in real estate who supported the trade center in 1970, and that he supported the new ground zero plan. He said that while a few downtown companies would move to the new towers, most would come from outside the area.
"There is a need for this type of space," he said. "In the last year or so, we've seen Midtown tighten and companies being priced out. Where are they going to but downtown?"
Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that he was still concerned about building all four towers simultaneously, which "may very well lead to too much office space coming on the market at one time." But, he added, the empty holes at the trade center site have become a "great disincentive to rent downtown."
"On balance," the mayor said, "I'd just as soon get everything going."
Still, it may be physically impossible to build all four towers by 2012, as well as the memorial, the museum, the $2 billion PATH terminal and other nearby projects. Even before the accelerated schedule, Charles J. Maikish, executive director of the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, estimated that there would be 10,000 to 15,000 construction workers a day on ground zero projects over the next three to five years.
The trade center site will be competing for materials and labor with a dozen other major projects, including the extension of the No. 7 subway line on the West Side and the construction of the Second Avenue Subway on the East Side.
Home
World
U.S.
N.Y. / Region
Business

Saturday, April 29, 2006

In Legal Deal, Limbaugh Surrenders in Drug Case
By JEFF LEEDS
Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio host, was charged yesterday with prescription drug fraud and turned himself in to Florida authorities as part of a deal to resolve a lengthy inquiry into whether he improperly obtained painkillers.
Mr. Limbaugh, who is one of the nation's most popular radio personalities and is heard on nearly 600 stations, turned himself in yesterday afternoon to the Palm Beach County sheriff on a warrant for fraud to conceal information to obtain a prescription. He was released about an hour later on $3,000 bail, the authorities said.
Mr. Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, said his client and prosecutors in Palm Beach County had reached a settlement in which Mr. Limbaugh would be charged with a single count in connection with allegations that he illegally obtained multiple prescriptions for a drug from more than one doctor.
As part of the agreement, which Mr. Black said would be filed with the court on Monday, the charge would be dropped in 18 months if Mr. Limbaugh continued to undergo treatment for drug addiction.
Mr. Limbaugh is also required to refrain from breaking the law during the 18-month period, pay $30,000 to Florida officials to offset the cost of the investigation and pay $30 a month for the cost of supervision, Mr. Black said.
Mr. Limbaugh filed a plea of not guilty in court. Mr. Black said in a statement that "Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor-shopping, and we continue to hold this position."
Mr. Limbaugh has been the leading voice of conservative talk radio since the mid-80's and has been regarded as playing an important role in the rallying of voters in the Republican Party's sweep of Congress in 1994 and mobilizing support for the impeachment of President
Bill Clinton in 1998.
Before his own problems with painkillers surfaced, Mr. Limbaugh had regularly told listeners that drug users should be jailed.
Florida officials began investigating Mr. Limbaugh in 2003, when a tabloid report quoted his maid as saying she had assisted him in obtaining OxyContin, a time-release narcotic. In October of that year, Mr. Limbaugh said on the air that he was addicted to painkillers and would enter a rehabilitation center.
He made the announcement several days after resigning as an ESPN sports analyst because of race-related remarks he made about
Donovan McNabb, the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback.
Mr. Limbaugh said that he began taking painkillers after he had spinal surgery in the 1990's and that he had tried to end his addiction to pain medication before, twice checking into "medical facilities."
Prosecutors seized Mr. Limbaugh's medical records after learning that he had obtained a large volume of painkillers from a pharmacy near his home in Palm Beach. But the inquiry slowed as state officials and Mr. Black fought over whether the records had been seized properly.
Kraig T. Kitchin, the president of Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates Mr. Limbaugh's program, said yesterday that he was "pleased that a settlement has been reached between Rush Limbaugh and the State of Florida that finally brings this matter to an end."
Mr. Kitchin added: "Rush's not-guilty plea is consistent with the position he has taken all along. Throughout it all, he has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to his listeners, affiliates and advertisers. We have always stood by Rush — for good reason — and will continue to do so."

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Left Awakens, maybe...
The Euston Manifesto
Wednesday, 29 March 2006
A. Preamble
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.
The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.
The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.
Download

B. Statement of principles
1) For democracy.We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.
2) No apology for tyranny.We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
3) Human rights for all.We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.
4) Equality.We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions — now routinely ignored by governments across the globe — is a priority for us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse.
5) Development for freedom.We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism.We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
7) For a two-state solution.We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.
8) Against racism.For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.
9) United against terror.We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.
10) A new internationalism.We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law — in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".
11) A critical openness.Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.
12) Historical truth.In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.
13) Freedom of ideas.We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.
14) Open source.As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries.
15) A precious heritage.We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.
C. Elaborations
We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.
The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people — children in particular — die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.
These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or "understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.
The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.
This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.
Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics — remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.
The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.
D. Conclusion
It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda — the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression — are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.

Russia launches Israeli spy satellite
By HENRY MEIER Seattle Post Intelligencer
MOSCOW -- Russia on Tuesday launched a satellite for Israel that the Israelis say will be used to spy on Iran's nuclear program.
The Eros B satellite was launched from a mobile pad at the Svobodny cosmodrome in the Far East, said Alexei Kuznetsov, a spokesman for the Russian military space forces.
About 20 minutes later, the satellite successfully reached orbit, Russian news agencies reported, citing the space forces' press service.
"The Israeli satellite reached its target orbit and has been transferred to the client's control," Kuznetsov was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.
Israel's Channel 10 TV reported that the launch was successful, but the satellite would not deploy its power panels for another day and a half.
The satellite is designed to spot images on the ground as small as 27 1/2 inches, an Israeli defense official said. That level of resolution would allow Israel to gather information on Iran's nuclear program and its long-range missiles, which are capable of striking Israel, he said.
The satellite, which can remain in orbit for six years, can photograph the same spot on the Earth once every four days, according to ITAR-Tass.
"The most important thing in a satellite is its ability to photograph and its resolution," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter. "This satellite has very high resolution, and (state-run) Israel Aircraft Industries has a great ability to process information that is relayed."
It could take up to 10 days to see whether the images that are transmitted are sharp and clear, he said.
Israel has for years regarded Iran as the primary threat to its survival, disputing Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made this threat more tangible by repeatedly questioning Israel's right to exist, most recently on Monday, when he said Israel was a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live."
Interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that he takes threats by Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map "very seriously."
"We do not take it lightly," Olmert said, speaking from Jerusalem by satellite relay to an Anti-Defamation League meeting in Washington. "We are powerful and able to defend ourselves."
An attempt to launch a military spy satellite, Amos 6, failed last year. Amos 5 is still in orbit, and Channel 10 reported Israel plans to launch another spy satellite next year.
Iran's threatening comments about Israel had special resonance on Tuesday, which Israel marked as Holocaust remembrance day. Israeli Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres, in Poland for observances, drew a parallel between Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.
"We will haven't recovered from this (the Holocaust) and I still hear these calls from Iran to destroy Israel," Peres said.
Ahmadinejad's words, he added, "are enough to put us all on alert."

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Alone Together:
Guest host "Walter"
From Andrew Sullivan: I agree completely! Read this and think about what a pest these gizmo's have become!
22 Apr 2006 02:35 pm
Eating dinner at a bar the other night, I sat next to a sales rep for a company that produces portable home dialysis units. He was drinking pretty hard, celebrating a deal that he'd just closed and telling me how soaring diabetes rates were going to create ever greater demand for his revolutionary product. I thought he was going to propose a toast to kidney failure.
But what bothered me most about our conversation was the streamlined plastic phone device implanted in his right ear and connected via Bluetooth to the Palm Treo lying on the bar in front of him. Every minute or two the earjack would light up, suddenly pulsing white and blue, and I'd forget whatever I was saying to him or whatever he was saying to me. Finally, I asked him what the light was. "That just means the thing's turned on," he said. As he said this, he was looking at his Treo screen, which he did about every thirty or forty seconds. His face changed -- had some important message arrived? Still speaking to me, but without much focus now, he tapped out a line or two of text with his amazingly prehensile thumbs. He'd left the scene, I sensed; he was somewhere else. At headquarters, perhaps. And I'd been placed on hold.
I didn't like it. I never like it. And it happens constantly. I'll be in the middle of what I take to be a sincere human interaction with somebody and they'll start cutting in and out -- checking the Blackberry, texting on the cell phone, stylus-ing the electronic calendar. No apologies, either. No 'excuse mes.' As though a mixture of physical proximity and electronic separation is the accepted new mode of social togetherness. I swear I've seen couples out on dates who speak to each other only when the menu comes, to negotiate their appetizers, and then drift off into conversations with others until the check arrives.
And yet they call it "communications technology."
When the dialysis salesman returned to earth, I committed a faux pas by asking him what he'd just been writing about. I thought I was entitled to ask this question because he'd been conducting his business in front of me. I found out otherwise. He glared at me. What kind of spying busybody was I? The warmth between us never returned and we ate our salads in different universes, staring at the TV behind the bar. The light in his earjack pulsed. I paid my tab. When I left, I mumbled a goodbye, but the salesman didn't acknowledge it. He was tapping on his keys.
--Walter

Friday, April 21, 2006

More on the fascist antics of Kansas A.G. Kline
Judge Blocks Law to Report Sex Under 16
By JODI RUDOREN (NY TIMES)
A federal judge ruled yesterday that Kansas law did not require health care workers to report to the authorities sexual activity by people under age 16, invalidating a 2003 opinion by the state's attorney general.
The judge, J. Thomas Marten of Federal District Court in Wichita, said the reporting of consensual sex among similarly aged teenagers would deter young people from seeking medical care and overwhelm the state authorities.
The ruling blocks the attorney general's advisory opinion from guiding the enforcement of Kansas' law requiring the reporting of abuse that causes injury. The opinion suggested that any
pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or request for contraception fell under the law.
The decision by Judge Marten came in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of doctors, nurses, therapists and sex educators. It was the second legal setback in as many months for the attorney general, Phill Kline, and his efforts to restrict
abortions in the state.
The Kansas Supreme Court on Feb. 3 limited Mr. Kline's investigation into two abortion clinics by stripping the medical records he had requested of patients' identifying information.
In yesterday's decision, Judge Marten said Mr. Kline's opinion improperly conflated illegal sexual activity — intercourse, oral sex and lewd touching by anyone under 16 are prohibited in Kansas — with abuse.
"The opinion wrongly redefines the common understanding of both state agencies and mandatory reporters by denoting all sexual activity to be 'inherently injurious,' " wrote Judge Marten, who was appointed by President
Bill Clinton. "The attorney general's overexpansive interpretation of the reporting statute not only fails to serve the public interest, it actually serves to undermine it."
Simon Heller, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group that filed the suit, said the ruling could have broad national implications because it was the first to assure adolescents constitutional protection for private communication with health care workers.
Another lawyer for the group, Bonnie Scott Jones, said in a statement, "States cannot be allowed to simply pull up a chair in every doctor's office in the state and listen in on teenagers seeking health services."
Mr. Kline, a Republican, was unavailable for an interview. A three-paragraph statement that he sent by e-mail to reporters largely ignored the substance of the judge's ruling, instead claiming success for defending the constitutionality of the reporting statute, which was not a central question in the lawsuit.
"I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that the rape of a child harms a child," he said. "When the Kansas Legislature wrote this statute, they unquestionably had the protection of children in mind."
But Judge Marten said that Mr. Kline's advisory opinion was "contrary to a plain reading" of state law.
FROM NT TIMES 21 April 2006
Home
World
U.S.

Rosewood