India's proposal for government control of Internet to be discussed in Geneva

Shalini Singh
May 15, 2012

TheHindu.com:

Led by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Geneva meet is a multi-stakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance structures.

Move to form body with 50 governments to oversee internet governance

The raging controversy over possible excessive state regulation of the internet based on the IT Rules 2011 is now likely to be dwarfed by discussions in Geneva later this week over India's proposal to the United Nations General Assembly, for government control of the Internet.

Led by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Geneva meet is a multi-stakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance structures.

In its proposal submitted to the General Assembly in New York on October 26, 2011, India has argued for a radical shift from the present model of multi-stakeholder led decision-making, to a purely government-run multilateral body that would relegate civil society, private sector, international organisations as well as technical and academic groups to the fringes in an advisory role. The proposal has been floated sans any public consultation, despite the move impacting the country's 800 million mobile and 100 million Internet users.

India is pushing for the creation of a forum called ‘Committee for Internet Related Policies' (CIRP) to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up. The catch is that India's formal proposal is for CIRP to be funded by the U.N., run by staff from the U.N.'s Conference on Trade and Development arm and report directly to the U.N. General Assembly, which means it will be entirely controlled by the U.N.'s member states.

At present, the Internet is governed by a voluntary, multi-stakeholder group called ICANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which keeps the Internet free and, for the most part, decentralized. ICANN already has a Government Advisory Council (GAC), which invites participation from governments across the world, including India. ICANN is headquartered in California, essentially because the Internet was born in the US. Control by the US government over its governance was eventually handed over to non-profits during President Clinton's tenure.

India's proposal could prove controversial for multi-stakeholder communities within the country and across the world, since it entails moving away from the prevailing democratic ‘equal say' process for internet governance to one in which governments would be front and centre, receiving advice from stakeholders and deciding the way forward.

Ironically, India's move to establish government control over the internet came within months of Anna Hazare's success in gathering large crowds at the Ram Lila grounds in August 2011 – a part of which was fuelled by the internet and social media. By early October, Mr. Hazare powered up his campaign further by blogging, tweeting and launching a Facebook profile to connect with his supporters.

The government of India's statement is amusingly defensive, going into some detail to clarify that its proposals ‘should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to take over and regulate and circumscribe the Internet'. It also naively declares that the move addresses the need for ‘quick footed and timely global solutions and policies'. How a 50-member inter-governmental process lodged within the UN bureaucracy, which will meet once every year for two working weeks in Geneva, can respond to decisions that need to be made quickly is unclear.

In response to a detailed questionnaire sent by The Hindu, the Ministry of External Affairs, directing the queries to the Department of Information Technology (DIT) said, “The Indian position on global Internet governance is determined and guided by the DIT. The Department's instructions for India's position at the upcoming meeting in Geneva are still awaited”. This lack of clarity is despite the fact that the global discussion is scheduled for May 18, just three days away. The DIT did not respond to The Hindu's queries despite repeated reminders.

India's move could be guided by apprehensions over Western governments' proximity to ICANN. While experts say this must be addressed, it certainly must not be at the cost of making the Internet a hostage to 50-odd governments.

Russia and China, along with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have already declared extreme positions for government control over the Internet. Last year, Vladimir Putin, who was Russian Prime Minister at the time, stated his goal, to impose ‘international control over the Internet' through the International Telecom Union, a treaty-based organisation under the auspices of the U.N.. Echoing this view, Houlin Zhao, Director of the ITU's Telecommunications Standardization Bureau and a former Chinese government official said, “The whole world is looking to a better solution to internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation.” Before this, China, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan had introduced a UN General Assembly resolution proposing a ‘code of conduct' for the global information society.

Though less extreme, India's proposal appears to be a definite shift towards state control rather than a participative model.

India's proposal may also garner support in Geneva from South Africa and Brazil as part of ‘enhanced cooperation'. With governments around the world spooked by the power of social media and the Internet, which led to the Arab Spring, a wave of demonstrations and protests in the Arab world that toppled decades of dictatorship in countries like Egypt and Libya, it is even possible that India may find passive backing of many governments under the garb of ‘fighting cyber crime and unrest'.

Love, Freedom And The 'War on Women'

Kathryn Lopez
May 21, 2012

Townhall.com:

On his initial road to the White House, President Obama sold himself as "change we can believe in." A day after Mother's Day this year, he ran with that terminology in a commencement speech at Barnard, an all-women's college in New York. That he spoke at Barnard and not his neighboring alma mater of Columbia was, of course, by design. For the "change" at heart of his reelection campaign relies heavily on claiming that a war is being waged on women by those who oppose his radical, menacing health-care legislation.

During the commencement, it was made clear that he was among believers. This is a world where men are not to be considered as reliable helpmates in the journey of life, because if they were, it would implicitly acknowledge the ideologically unthinkable: that men and women are complementary, not meant to be carbon copies in the workplace or anywhere else.

That the president's speech, which included predictable rhetorical flourishes of the imaginary "war on women," came in May, the month during which we honor our moms, was particularly laden with irony.

Our celebration of mothers in May is the stuff of marketing genius, a boon to restaurants and florists, and a staple of Hallmark's sales calendar, but it deserves more. What is motherhood? What is woman? What are the states of the relations between men and women and why would the government ever try to get involved?

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate that some of us are concerned about -- because it seeks to drive religious individuals and institutions out of the public square -- is Orwellian in its claims. It purports to be an issue of women's health, when, in fact, it's an attack on fertility, as is so much -- most especially the contraceptive pill -- that is packaged sold as women's liberation. It's also an attack on pregnancy -- the mandate addresses "preventative services." In the Federal Register we've declared women's fertility an impediment, pregnancy a disease to be prevented.

"They claim that the Church is at war on women because we won't treat motherhood as a disease and children as cancers to be prevented and then killed through pharmacological means similar to how chemotherapy kills tumors," one Catholic priest said from his Massachusetts parish that same Sunday. "In reality," he continued, "it's radical feminism that is really at war with women, because it has declared war on motherhood and the maternal meaning of a woman's existence."

In his Mother's Day homily, my parish priest friend explained what too few Catholics have heard in recent decades. That "the Church teaches that the true good of woman is not found in a 'raw freedom' understood as the ability to do anything a woman wants, including killing her own children and trying to run away from her maternal nature. The true good of woman is found, rather, in an authentic understanding and use of freedom. God has made us free precisely so that we may love, so that we may love him who loves us first, so that we might love others as he has loved us. The real fulfillment of woman is not found in a distorted understanding and use of freedom but in love."

Now be honest. That's not so bizarre, really, is it?

It's the most personal of issues, and you're free to disagree with me on it. And isn't that the point? We are free here -- even to do things as crazy as respect the procreative nature of sex, and to value, not oppress, the genius of the anatomy of woman and the life-giving power of the sexual act. But for how long?

At Barnard they were applauding as speakers hailed the president as a "reproductive rights" savior, a key constituency delighted to see their cause made government edict.

The women of Barnard are free to be the Obama reelection cheerleading squad, but freedom deserves some attention from the rest of us. And good sense, too.

Another Magnificent Moment in the World of Government Stimulus

Daniel J. Mitchell
May 21st, 2012

Townhall Finance:

Most of my work on government stimulus focuses on economic theory and evidence.

But every so often it’s a good idea to remind ourselves of the ridiculous ways that government wastes money.

Here are some details from a boondoggle in West Virginia.

Nobody told Hurricane librarian Rebecca Elliot that the $22,600 Internet router in the branch library’s storage closet was powerful enough to serve an entire college campus. Nobody told Elliot how much the router cost or who paid for it. Workers just showed up and installed the device. They left behind no instructions, no user manual. The high-end router serves four public computer terminals at the small library in Putnam County. …The state of West Virginia is using $24 million in federal economic stimulus money to put high-powered Internet computer routers in small libraries, elementary schools and health clinics, even though the pricey equipment is designed to serve major research universities, medical centers and large corporations, a Gazette-Mail investigation has found. …The Cisco 3945 series routers, which cost $22,600 each, are built to serve “tens of thousands” of users or device connections, according to a Cisco sales agent. The routers are designed to serve a minimum of 500 users. Yet state broadband project officials directed the installation of the stimulus-funded Cisco routers in West Virginia schools with fewer than a dozen computers and libraries that have only a single terminal for patrons.

Sounds like the government could have bought every user a laptop and squandered less money.

It’s important to realize that this type of boondoggle is the rule, not the exception. Every so often, we see stories about absurd waste, such as the $423,000 study to find out that men don’t like to wear condoms, the Pentagon spending $900 on a $7 control switch, or a $100,000 library grant to a city without a library.

We should get upset about these examples. But remember that the second cartoon in this post is exactly right. The waste, fraud, and pork that we find out about is dwarfed by what remains hidden.
A Rare Bit of Good News from Europe

It seems that there’s nothing but bad news coming from Europe. Whether we’re talking about fake austerity in the United Kingdom, confiscatory tax schemes in France, or bailouts in Greece, the continent seems to be a case study of failed statism.

But that’s not completely accurate. Every so often I highlight good news, such as Switzerland’s successful spending cap, Sweden’s shift to the right on spending, Germany’s wise decision not to be Keynesian, and Portugal’s admission that “stimulus” doesn’t work.

Admittedly, the good news from Europe is oftentimes merely the failure to do something bad. But I’ll take victories in any form.

And that’s why I’m happy that Austria and Luxembourg are blocking a misguided European Commission plan to undermine financial privacy in order to increase double taxation of income that is saved and invested.

Here are some cheerful passages from a story in the EU Observer.

“Completely unjustifiable … grossly unfair … a mystery” – the European Commission and the Danish EU presidency have given Austria and Luxembourg a tongue-lashing for protecting tax evaders. The harsh words came after the two countries on Tuesday (15 May) blocked the commission from holding talks with Switzerland on a new savings tax law designed to recoup some of the estimated €1 trillion a year lost to EU exchequers in tax fraud and evasion. Tax commissioner Algirdas Semeta in a press conference in Brussels said: “The position that Austria and Luxembourg have taken on this issue is grossly unfair. They are hindering 25 willing member states from improving tax compliance and finding additional sources of income.” …Danish economic affairs minister Margrethe Vestager took his side. “It is a mystery why we shouldn’t move on making people pay the taxes that they should pay,” she noted. She described Austria and Luxembourg’s decision as “unfortunate.” For their part, Luxembourg and Austria have declined to publicly explain why they are against the move. Semeta on Tuesday indicated they object to “automatic transfer” of tax data between EU countries and Switzerland, even though the alternative is trusting Switzerland to decide which data it gives and which it withholds. He added that automatic exchange is becoming the international gold standard in the field, with “the US moving in the same direction.”

The quote from the Danish economic affairs minister is especially nauseating. It’s not the “taxes that they should pay.” It’s the “taxes that greedy politicians demand.”

Good tax policy is predicated on the notion that there should not be a bias against income that is saved and invested. This is because double taxation undermines capital formation and thus reduces long-run growth.

Yet European politicians, like many of their American counterparts, are drawn to class warfare tax policy and can’t resist trying to penalize the “evil rich.”

So let’s tip our proverbial hats to Austria and Luxembourg. This is probably just a short-term victory over the unrelenting forces of statism, but let’s enjoy it while it lasts.
P.S. This European kerfuffle is a fight over tax competition vs. tax harmonization. To understand why financial privacy and fiscal sovereignty are desirable, watch the four-part video series at this post.

Hopeless Change for the Young

Bob Beauprez
May 21st, 2012

Townhall Finance:

While we have rescued our economy from catastrophe, we have also begun to build a new foundation for growth."
...............Barack Obama from the White House, August 7, 2009

In 2008, Obama inspired legions of young Americans who bought into his "Change you can believe in" campaign message. According to the Pew Research Center, voters under the age of 30 supported Obama over John McCain 66:31 – by far the largest disparity between young voters and other age groups in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972. In addition to the critical vote totals, Obama attracted thousands of high energy campaign volunteers that brought unbridled enthusiasm to his campaign of Hope-and-Change.

Sadly, three years later, it is more like Hopeless Change that millions of young Americans face. In exchange for that 2:1 vote of confidence they gave Obama in 2008, the 18-29 year-olds are feeling the brunt of the economic stagnation – often by twice the degree of all other age groups. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. labor market is in a malaise, but young adults are in crisis."

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the recession supposedly ended almost three years ago. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, the economic downturn that began in December 2007, lasted 18 months and officially ended in June, 2009. NBER defines a recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. Economists declare the end of a recession when the declining trend is reversed.

The point at which the economy begins to create more new jobs than it sheds each month is crucial in making a determination of when a recovery begins. The following graph analyzes job loss through the eleven U.S. recessions since the end of World War II. Clearly this has been the deepest recession in terms of job loss and it has also been by far the slowest to recover to pre-recession employment levels. Note the rapid recovery to normal employment in all the previous recessions. It will take nearly 6 million more new jobs before the current labor force resembles employment numbers in late 2007 when this recession began.

When economists declared the recession over and the beginning of a period of recovery, the President was quick to react. Not being one to miss a chance to spike-the-football, Barack Obama took full credit with a speech outside the Oval Office in the summer of 2009. Notice the "we have rescued" reference in the above statement from the President. But, the pain of the economic "catastrophe" he claimed to have ended drags on with no real end in sight. And, whatever " new foundation for growth" he was talking about must have been built out of Jell-O.

So, for 35 of the 40 months that he's been in office, Barack Obama has been the beneficiary of an economy technically in expansive, recovery mode – on the way up. That deep into an economic recovery usually means good things are happening like significant GDP growth, new job creation, wages and salaries on the rise – except none of that has happened with this recovery, even though that was the promise of The One as he campaigned for the job and during the honeymoon period of his first term. Now, he says he just needs more time. The American people just need to practice patience. And, of course, it is still George W. Bush's fault.

In his "American Promise" speech in Denver on August 27, 2008, Obama promised an America beyond the "broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush." He used the word "promise" 32 times, so this time he must have really meant it – or, maybe he just thought we didn't hear it the other 31 times.

Unfortunately, what has happened is persistent unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, depressed wages and purchasing power, massive depreciation of home values, doubling of gas prices, rapid increase in food and health care costs, and nearly stagnant economic growth. Virtually everyone and every sector have been negatively impacted, but young Americans just entering the workforce are suffering the most.

A new economic report by Gallup says 32% of 18-29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed in April. That number is greater than the previous month of March (30.1%) and also higher than a year ago (30.7%), so nearly three years after the recovery supposedly began the trend is still worsening. Unemployment among this age group (13.6%) is nearly twice as high as any other age group, according to Gallup. Another 18.4% are working part-time, "but wanting to work full time." This trend is also worse than in March as well as April, 2011.

"Today's slow economic growth is a disaster for those unemployed and underemployed as they look for jobs when so few new jobs are being created. For younger Americans as a group, this is a particularly acute issue," summarized Gallup.

According to newly released research by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, only 49% of college graduates from the classes of 2009-2010-and 2011 had found a full-time job within a year of graduation, compared with 73% for students who graduated in the prior three years. Meanwhile, the cost of that college degree for the job they can't find continues to increase. Average student loan debt for the class of 2010 (the latest available data) was $25,250; a 5% increase over 2009.

Among young people entering the workforce with lower education levels, the prospects are even worse. For young workers with only a high school degree, unemployment is "astonishingly high" according to the Economic Policy Institute. EPI reports that the unemployment rate for young high school graduates jumped from 17.5 percent in 2007 to 32.7 percent in 2010, "dwarfing the increases in prior recessions," and remains above 31% still today. A staggering one-out-of-two black high school graduates (49.1%) are unemployed. For Hispanics, it is 33.8%.

If fortunate enough to find a job, new graduates likely have to settle for less than their predecessors, too. According to EPI, the starting hourly wages had declined for both young men (7.6%) and women (6%) as compared to 2000, and wages are barely above 1989 levels when adjusted to 2011 dollars.

Obama ravaged the economic record of his predecessor pointing out that during Bill Clinton's two terms in office, "the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush." But, under Obama first 39 months, median household income has declined $4.300 - $2,900 since June 2009 when the recovery supposedly began.

Nearly four years into Obama's "American Promise" young people are finding they have to compete with more than 20 million other unemployed or underemployed Americans. Degree in hand and ready to claim their place in America's great "middle class" they discover that 95% of the net job losses during the recession were in the middle-skill occupations like office workers, sales associates, bank tellers, and machine operators. And, thus far, those mid-level jobs haven't started coming back.

According to the Pew Research Center, since 2010 the share of young adults 18-24 years old currently employed (54%) has been the lowest since the government began collecting data in 1948. Additionally, the gap in employment between the young and all working-age adults is the widest in recorded history – about 15%.

For all of the soaring rhetoric in that laced Obama's 2008 American Promise speech, young Americans are hard pressed to see much fulfillment of his litany of promises. According to Pew, by huge margins, Americans of all ages believe reaching some basic financial goals is harder for today's young adults than it was for their parents. Whether the objective is finding a job (82%), saving for the future (75%), paying for college (71%), or buying a home (69%), Americans believe that today's younger generation has a tougher row-to-hoe. The prolonged bad economy has affected the personal lives of young Americans, too, and the nation's culture and future as a result; 31% say they have postponed getting married or having a baby. Nationally, the birthrate has fallen every year since 2007. Pew also found that 24% of young adults moved back in with their parents for economic reasons after living on their own.

As with all other age groups, the economy is the number one issue on the minds of young adult voters, too, and they are not happy. A newly released survey showed just 34% of 18-to-24 year olds are "satisfied" with Obama, while 51% said they were "disappointed," "worried" or "angry." The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and Georgetown University's Berkeley Center sampled 2000 young adults and found Obama held a narrow 48:41 lead over a "generic" Republican candidate – a dramatic shift from the 66:31 advantage he enjoyed over McCain with young voters in 2008.

A day can change a lot in politics. A week is like forever, and the election is still 25 weeks away. The landscape could change, but "Things are very, very bleak and very different than four or five years ago," according to Cliff Zukin, a political science professor at Rutgers University's Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, of the economic situation facing young adults. "These guys are in trouble and they know it," says Zukin.

In 2008, young people voted for the candidate most like them; he liked to have a good time, didn't have much in the way of experience, but talked a really good game. He seemed more like a cool older brother than their grandfather.

But, this time it is more like, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It is clear that Obama was all talk, or "big hat, no cows." Instead of some new American Promise when they get out of school ready to take on the world, today's young Americans face the lowest employment-to-population ratio since 1948. "Their employment prospects are dim, their debt is high, their lives are on hold and a stunning number are living with their parents, even into their 30s," even the blindly liberal MSNBC admitted.

Mitt Romney may resemble a wise, successful, experienced, and staid older uncle rather than the try-anything, live-for-today big brother with his hair on fire, but a little more composure, dignity, and a strait-laced sense of propriety might be the "Change" that voters are looking for in 2012.

Rather than just somebody that might be fun to hang out with, Romney gives voters an option of a President with vastly more experience, a steady hand who has successfully steered large, complex, troubled enterprises – public as well as private – through very difficult circumstances. In the end, Romney may not entirely erase the 2:1 edge Obama held with young voters in 2008, but I'll bet he gets pretty close, and in the critical swing states like my Colorado, that "change" for 2008 might make all the difference.

Polling 101: Navigating the Polls in an Election Year

by Mike Flynn
May 20th, 2012

Breitbart News:

As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational affect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern day polling is more art than science.

All polls reflect certain biases--not necessarily in the political sense--of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional "outlier" poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.

If you are reading this, you're likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what's called the "voter screen." In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:

Both Pew Research and Nate Silver have each looked at the differences for different elections from 2004, 2008 and 2010; and they both came to essentially the same answer:

- Polling “adults” generally favors Democrats by a net of 7%.
- Polling “registered voters” generally favors Democrats by a net of 4%.
- Polling “likely voters” is always the most accurate.

So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5-R46.5, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.

For the life of me, I don't understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll "adults" on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren't registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won't be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians.

With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won't come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates.

But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be misleading. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.

When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren't representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by "weighting" the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation's demographics.

Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms "weight" their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.

In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:
Democrats 39%
GOP 32%
Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:
Liberal 22%
Conservative 34%
Moderate 44%

In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:
Democrats 35%
GOP 35%
Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:
Liberal 20%
Conservative 42%
Moderate 38%

So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have "tossed" certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.

So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don't think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.

Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.

A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:
Democrats 40%
GOP 37%
Independents 24%
Liberal 27%
Conservative 42%
Moderate 32%

So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don't think that's likely.

Politico's recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:
Democrats 37%
GOP 34%
Independents 28%

(Note: I've done my own "weighting" and assigned "leans GOP" and "leans Democrat" to "Independents.")

A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:
Democrats 42%
GOP 34%
Independents 20%

What color is the sky in FoxNews' world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party?

I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the "hope and change" promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.

So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you'd be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.

Report: Dems Seek To Disenfranchise Obama Arkansas Challenger's Voters

by John Nolte
May 20th, 2012

Breitbart News:

If this report is true, if indeed Arkansas state Democrats are threatening to ignore any delegates President Obama's primary challenger, John Wolfe, might win this Tuesday, this is an obvious attempt to not only disenfranchise his voters but to also suppress the turnout of his voters, who are now being informed their vote might not count.

Michael Warren at The Weekly Standard:

After a poll released this week showed President Barack Obama only beating his Democratic primary opponent John Wolfe Jr. by seven points, 45 percent to 38 percent, in Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District, state Democrats moved to practically disenfranchise Arkansas voters. "[D]elegates Wolfe might claim won't be recognized at the national convention," national party officials are telling state Democrats. Wolfe is being accused of not following the party rules. ...

Wolfe insists he’s done the due diligence to qualify for delegates and that the state party is making decisions ad hoc to get the results they desire. “This is ridiculous," he says. "These guys are trying to tamp down voter enthusiasm.”

If he's denied delegates he's rightfully won, Wolfe says, Democrats would be effectively disenfranchising those who chose him over President Obama. And if that happens, he’ll take his own party to court.

“They took my money and put my name on the ballot,” he says. “They’re trying to make people think it’s hopeless to vote against Obama.”

Wolfe is also on the ballot for Texas’s primary on May 29.

Wolfe suspects these suppression efforts are coming directly from the top, the DNC.

After Obama lost nearly 42% of the West Virginia primary vote to a prison inmate and 20% of the North Carolina primary vote to "no preference," Democrat officials are obviously and legitimately concerned that a strong primary showing from a relatively unknown attorney will only add insult to the president's injury. Not only is there a poll of Arkansas Democrats showing Mr. Wolfe within striking distance of Obama (in the Fourth Congressional District), but should Wolfe come out of this Tuesday's primary with any head of steam or media attention, he could repeat his success in the May 29 Texas primary, where he is currently on the ballot.

As I mentioned in my interview with Wolfe earlier this week, Wolfe's story is one the media doesn't want to tell. The Narrative is supposed to be about presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney having trouble consolidating his base, not the Democrat incumbent who is also the media's chosen candidate.

If the exact same scenario were in play but with players who each had an "R" after their name as opposed to a "D," I suspect the media would've done everything in their power to turn Wolfe into a folk hero by now in an effort to undermine the sitting Republican. Thus far, however, the media's reaction to Wolfe has been one of almost total radio silence -- a position that will be difficult to maintain should Wolfe achieve a respectable showing in a couple of days.

While Wolfe and I disagree on many of the issues, in my dealings with him I have found him to be a serious and thoughtful individual, a man worthy of respect.

If the Weekly Standard reports are true, it's unfortunate party Democrats would choose such a low road, but not at all surprising.

Obama's secrets will come out in this Election

Times24-7

PJMedia
by: Roger Kimball
Sunday, May 20, 2012

At the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle observes than human beings are by nature curious animals: they ask questions and want to know the truth about the world around them. But not all men. One of the great oddnesses of the 2008 campaign was the code of omerta enforced by the the legacy media about anything having to do with Obama’s past. Where was he born? Don’t know, don’t care. What were his college years like? Can’t you move on to something important, like the time Mitt Romney ragged some hippie in high school? Why did Obama say that former Weatherman Bill Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood” when he was plainly an important political mentor, if not also the ghostwriter, for the future president?

And on and on and on. There are a lot of questions to be asked about Barack Obama. Why are his college records sealed? Why can’t we see a certified copy of his birth certificate? Why are his medical records sealed? I’ve been told that his Social Security registration was issued by Connecticut, which would be odd, but cannot check because that too is sealed. Obama worked as a lawyer, but we don’t know who he worked for because his client list is sealed. Why is it that Michelle Obama can no longer practice as an attorney? We know the fact but not the reason.

As I say, last time around, general infatuation guaranteed that Obama got more or less a free pass from the legacy media. I suspect there will be much more curiosity as the summer progresses and we get into the campaign. For one thing, the nimbus of inviolability around Obama has been seriously breached. He is no longer the pristine knight come to lower the oceans, fix the economy, and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America into a green paradise where everyone suckles happily at the federal mammary gland except the evil coal producers who are miserable bankrupts. No, I suspect that even The Washington Post, even The New York Times, will have to take a peek or two under the covers of the tale of this international man of mystery.

Media's Kenyan cover-up: Obama's past ignored

Read the original article at PJMedia

Protesters arrested at DA's office in wake of Blomberg case

By Brian Rogers
Updated 11:06 p.m., Friday, May 18, 2012

Houston Chronicle:

Activist attorney Maria Elena Castellanos, center, looks up on Friday as police enter to arrest her, Kofi Taharka, right, and Krystal Muhammad on charges of criminal trespass in Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos' office. Photo: Johnny Hanson / © 2012 Houston Chronicle

Anger and outrage over the acquittal of a former Houston police officer rocked the Harris County District Attorney's Office Friday as a dozen activists protested at her office and three blocked the public entrance until they were arrested.

"You're a racist!" one of the activists shouted several times at District Attorney Pat Lykos as she came in to the lobby through a different door to tell the protesters that she would not allow anyone to "occupy" the lobby or capitulate to threats.

The not guilty verdict this week has sparked heated criticism in the black community with many leaders saying the decision by the all-white jury to acquit Andrew Blomberg, who is white, was racist. Blomberg was accused of stomping on 15-year-old Chad Holley, who is black, during a 2010 arrest and beating that was videotaped.

In the lobby Friday, Lykos told the group she was not intimidated by the protests, and would meet with them if they go through the proper channels.

"If people here truly want to have a meeting, then go over there to the window and schedule it," Lykos told the group, who refused to move. "I will not meet with anyone who occupies our lobby, who impedes the administration of justice, who uses profane language with our employees, so I am asking you to leave now."

After a morning of blocking the door, three protesters were arrested by the Precinct 1 constable's deputies who control security in the courthouse and charged with criminal trespass.

The squabble was more about rage and indignation than a meeting.

"The people are sick and tired," said Minister Robert Muhammad. He said the people he speaks for believe there is no justice. "People are suffering, they're hurt and the system that's in place is causing them more hurt and more harm."

DA met with ministers

Lykos met with several community leaders, including Muhammad, and local ministers James Dixon, James Nash and community activist Quanell X.

Muhammad said Lykos listened to their concerns, but is not making any changes.

"She didn't agree with us on anything," Muhammad said. He said Lykos explained the process, but did not agree to change anything. "Pat Lykos was hardcore," he said.

Lykos and the prosecutors who went to trial have been harshly criticized because no blacks were on the six-person jury that heard Blomberg's misdemeanor case of official oppression.

Because of intense media coverage, prospective jurors were questioned individually over the course of a week. Blomberg's defense team struck the only two blacks in the pool of 19.

In the district attorney's lobby Friday, former city councilwoman Jolanda Jones and members of the New Black United Front and the New Black Panther Party criticized the office and the jury selection and said they wanted to discuss it with Lykos. They were angry because they weren't allowed in the meeting after it started. Lykos said they were not invited and were not welcome.

Jones and Muhammad said the group should have been allowed into the meeting when they finally arrived and would have if they had been on time. Lykos disputed the point and said the protesters were not welcome.

"It could have been avoided," Muhammad said of the arrests and protest. "It could've been avoided if there were proper charges against the police. It could've been avoided if we didn't turn a blind eye and deaf ear to police brutality."

After the meeting with the ministers, Lykos issued a statement saying, "Although we disagreed on much, we agreed to keep the door open for additional discussions. People must have trust and confidence in the legal system."

3 placed under arrest

Before NBUF chairman Kofi Taharka, Krystal Muhammad of the New Black Panther Party of Houston and attorney Maria Elena Castellanos were arrested, the three laid down on the floor with their hands behind their heads, mirroring Holley's position during the beating by HPD officers. Holley fell as he fled from police after a burglary and rolled on to his stomach with his hands on his head as officers caught up to him peppering him with punches, kicks and stomps. Holley was later convicted of the crime and spent two years on probation.

Blomberg, who can be seen raising his foot over the teen's head, said he was using his boot to move the teen's arm. Prosecutors argued unsuccessfully in a trial that spanned three weeks that he stomped Holley's head or neck.

House OKs $642B defense bill that Obama threatened to veto

Published May 18, 2012
Associated Press

Fox news:

The House on Friday ignored a presidential veto threat and passed a $642 billion defense bill that abandons the deficit-cutting agreement that President Obama and congressional Republicans backed last summer.

On a 299-120 vote, lawmakers backed the spending blueprint that adds $8 billion for the military for next year. The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move.

Lawmakers also rejected the military's request for another round of domestic base closings. The White House has threatened a veto, as Republicans made wholesale changes in Obama's budget proposal.

Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.

A coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans fell short in their effort to end the controversial policy established last year and based on the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.

The House rejected an amendment by Reps. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Justin Amash, R-Mich., that would have barred indefinite detention and rolled back mandatory military custody. The vote was 238-182.

"The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial," Amash said during hours of House debate.

The policy's supporters argued that ending it would weaken national security and coddle terrorists.

The spending blueprint calls for money for aircraft, ships, weapons, the war in Afghanistan and a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel, billions of dollars more than Obama proposed.

The bill snubs the Pentagon's budget that was based on a new military strategy shifting focus from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. The bill spares aircraft and ships slated for retirement, slows the reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps and calls for construction of a new missile defense site on the East Coast.

A Democratic effort to stick to last year's deficit-cutting pact and cut $8 billion from the bill failed Friday on a 252-170 vote.

The detention issue has created an unusual political coalition in Congress.

Conservatives fear it could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that's later linked to terrorism. They argue it would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by a Democratic president.

Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration's war against terrorism.

The provision in the current defense law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely.

When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

In February, the Obama administration outlined new rules on when the FBI, rather than the military, could be allowed to retain custody of al-Qaida terrorism suspects who aren't U.S. citizens but are arrested by federal law enforcement officers. The new procedures spelled out seven circumstances in which the president could place a suspect in FBI, rather than military, custody, including a waiver when it could impede counterterrorism cooperation with another government or when it could interfere with efforts to secure an individual's cooperation or confession.

In a face-saving move, the House voted 243-173 Friday for an amendment that reaffirms Americans' constitutional rights.

During Thursday's debate, Republicans insisted they're stronger on defense than Obama.

Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, railed against "the secret deal the president has with the Russians to weaken our missile defense," a reference to Obama being caught on an open microphone in March telling then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more room to negotiate after the November election.

The White House wrote to Turner on April 13, insisting that in pursuing cooperation with Russia, "We have been clear that we will not agree to any constraints limiting the development or deployment of United States missile defenses."

The GOP effort to make Obama's national security record an issue in the campaign has made little headway. Opinion surveys show Americans give the president high marks on defense after the killing of Osama bin Laden, repeated drone attacks against suspected terrorists and a weakened al-Qaida and an end to the Iraq war.

Republicans, in a further assault on Obama's authority, on Friday secured approval for an amendment prohibiting the president from making any unilateral reductions to U.S. nuclear forces. The vote was 241-179.

And in a blow to establishment Republicans, the GOP-controlled House rejected appeals from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business community to back an amendment limiting funds for institutions or organizations established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The vote was 229-193.

The chamber supports Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty "because it would provide clear legal rights and protections to American businesses to transit, lay undersea cables, and take advantage of the vast natural resources in and under the oceans off the U.S. coasts and around the world, spokesman R. Bruce Josten said in a statement. He noted the treaty also is backed by the Defense Department.

Tea party Republicans and other conservatives have expressed concerns about the treaty impinging on U.S. sovereignty.

Mom and 8 sons busted for running heroin ring

Posted: May 18, 2012 12:16 PM
Updated: May 18, 2012 7:32 PM

My Fox Pheonix:

CHANDLER, Ariz. -

A major drug bust has occurred in the valley – and a Chandler mother and her eight sons are suspected of smuggling heroin into Arizona from Mexico.

Police said the mother, Grace Valencia Lara, and her sons were allegedly selling heroin and cocaine in downtown Chandler.

"Our investigators learned, this family was a part of a larger organization," said Chandler Police Det. Seth Tyler.

While investigating the family, they stumbled on a much bigger drug ring.

Police have arrested six of the brothers and said they think they were the bridge to smuggling drugs much further away than Chandler.

"There's probably good likelihood the drugs originated in Mexico from one of the cartels," said Det. Tyler.

Police said the Valencia Lara family was on their radar. They had been called to the house for domestic violence and other crimes.

Authorities seized 30 pounds of heroin, along with cocaine and a small amount of marijuana.

The drugs are worth $1.75 million.

Police said at least 40 people were arrested and are facing drug and gang-related charges. They are street and prison gang members, along with criminals from the illegal drug distribution trade.

The drug ring has been under investigation for a year, but it's believed that it had been operating for two to five years.

Other suspects were allegedly smuggling drugs into state prisons, along with distributing them throughout the valley.

This means local street gangs who sold drugs in the valley somehow managed to infiltrate the state prison system and sell drugs to inmates.

Authorities are calling this bust "a significant dent in the heroin and cocaine trade."

Chandler police, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Corrections, the state Gang Task Force and the Attorney General's Office worked as a team on the investigation.

"Diverse" appointments to superior, appeals courts

Bob Egelko
Saturday, May 19, 2012

SF GATE:

Gov. Jerry Brown appointed a former State Bar leader to a judgeship in Contra Costa County on Friday. He also nominated a former San Francisco school board attorney as the first Latino on the state appeals court in San Jose, and chose a Los Angeles prosecutor as California's first Muslim judge.

The appointees are:

-- Judy Johnson, 63, of Rodeo to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Johnson was the State Bar's executive director from 2000 to 2011 and its chief trial counsel from 1994 to 2000 after 17 years as a prosecutor in San Francisco.

-- Miguel Marquez, 45, of San Jose to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose. Marquez has been county counsel for Santa Clara County since 2009 and previously served as general counsel for the San Francisco Unified School District and a deputy city attorney in San Francisco.

If confirmed by the state Commission on Judicial Appointments, Marquez would become the first Latino to serve on a court that hears appeals from cases in Santa Clara, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Their population is almost 40 percent Latino, and the appointment underscores Brown's "campaign pledge to diversify the bench," said Chris Arriola of La Raza Lawyers Association.

-- Halim Dhanidina, 39, of Los Angeles to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dhanidina has been a deputy district attorney since 1998 and will be the first Muslim on the bench in California, said Aziza Hasan of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. She said the appointment sends a message to Muslim Americans that "access and power within the system are achievable goals."

Superior Court judges make $178,789 a year, and appeals court justices make $204,599.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.

This article appeared on page C - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Good riddance! Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi dies in Libya

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 7:30 PM, May 20, 2012
Posted: 8:30 AM, May 20, 2012

TRIPOLI, Libya — Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer who was the only person ever convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, died at home in Tripoli Sunday, nearly three years after he was released from a Scottish prison to the outrage of the relatives of the attack's 270 victims. He was 60.

Scotland released al-Megrahi on Aug. 20, 2009, on compassionate grounds to let him return home to die after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. At the time, doctors predicted he had only three months to live.

Anger over the release was further stoked by the hero's welcome he received on his arrival in Libya — and by subsequent allegations that London had sought his release to preserve business interests in the oil-rich North African nation, strongly denied by the British and Scottish governments.

Al-Megrahi insisted he was innocent, but he kept a strict silence after his release, living in the family villa surrounded by high walls in a posh Tripoli neighborhood, mostly bedridden or taking a few steps with a cane. Libyan authorities sealed him off from public access. When the one-year anniversary of his release passed, some who visited him said al-Megrahi bitterly mused that the world was rooting for him to die.

His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, confirmed that he died in Tripoli in a telephone interview but hung up before giving more details.

Saad Nasser al-Megrahi, a relative and a member of the ruling National Transitional Council, said al-Megrahi's health had seriously deteriorated in recent days and he died of cancer-related complications.

Al-Megrahi passed away at his Tripoli home on Sunday morning, according to another NTC member, Moussa al-Kouni.

To the end, al-Megrahi insisted he had nothing to do with the bombing, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

"I am an innocent man," al-Megrahi said in his last interview, published in several British papers in December. "I am about to die and I ask now to be left in peace with my family."

In New York City, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims said al-Megrahi's death was "to a degree a relief" and insisted that his 2009 release from jail was a political deal.

"If he had been that bad three years ago, he wouldn't have lived this long. It was a political deal," said Glenn Johnson of Greensburg, Pa, whose 21-year-old daughter Beth Ann Johnson was killed in the bombing.

New Jersey mom Susan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the 1988 bombing says al-Megrahi's death should not be "an excuse" to end any ongoing investigations into who planned and carried out the blast.

Cohen told the Associated Press she has "no pity" for al-Megrahi. The Cape May Court House woman lost her 20-year-old daughter in the bombing and hopes that United States and British officials will now "dig even deeper" into the case .

Cohen was an outspoken opponent of the decision to release al-Megrahi; she felt he should have stayed in prison until he died.

Al-Megrahi's death, which came seven months after ousted leader Moammar Khadafy was killed, leaves many unanswered questions that have surrounded the Lockerbie case, despite the conviction.

The U.S., Britain, and prosecutors in his trial contended that he did not act alone and carried out the bombing at the behest of Libyan intelligence. After Khadafy's fall, Britain asked Libya's new rulers to help fully investigate but they put off any probe.

They also rejected Western pressure to jail or return al-Megrahi.

"He is between life and death, so what difference would prison make?" his brother, Abdel-Nasser al-Megrahi, said at the time.

Little was known about al-Megrahi. At his trial, he was described as the "airport security" chief for Libyan intelligence, and witnesses reported him negotiating deals to buy equipment for Libya's secret service and military.

But he became a central figure in both Libya's falling out with the West and then its re-emergence from the cold.

To Libyans, he was a folk hero, an innocent scapegoat used by the West to turn their country into a pariah. The regime presented his handover to Scotland in 1999 as a necessary sacrifice to restore Libya's relations with the world.

In the months ahead of his release, Tripoli put enormous pressure on Britain, warning that if the ailing al-Megrahi died in a Scottish prison, all British commercial activity in Libya would be cut off and a wave of demonstrations would erupt outside British embassies, according to leaked U.S. diplomatic memos. The Libyans even implied "that the welfare of U.K. diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk," the memos say.

But in the eyes of many Americans and Europeans, he was the foot-soldier carrying out orders from Khadafy's regime. Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister at the time of the conviction, said the verdict "confirms our long-standing suspicion that Libya instigated the Lockerbie bombing."

The bombing that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland was one of the deadliest terror attacks in modern history. The flight was heading to New York from London's Heathrow airport and many of the victims were American college students flying home to for Christmas.

Khadafy handed over al-Megrahi and a second suspect to Scottish authorities after years of punishing U.N. sanctions. Four years later, in 2003, Khadafy acknowledged responsibility — though not guilt — for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation of about $2.7 billion to the Lockerbie victims' families. He also pledged to dismantle all weapons of mass destruction and joined the U.S.-led war on terror.

The regime maintained it handed al-Megrahi over and paid compensation only to win the lifting of sanctions. The steps won Khadafy quick rewards, with Western powers resuming diplomatic contacts and signing lucrative business deals.

In 2001, a Scottish court — set up in the neutral ground of a military base in the Netherlands — convicted al-Megrahi of planting the bomb but acquitted his co-defendant, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, a Libyan Arab Airlines official, of all charges. El-Megrahi ended up serving eight years of a life sentence.

The prosecution's case was built around a tiny fragment of circuit board discovered among the airline wreckage that investigators determined was part of the timer of the bomb, hidden in a suitcase. Investigators said the suitcase was loaded onto a flight from Malta, booked through to Pan Am 103 via Frankfurt.

An executive from a Swiss company testified that he had sold timers of the same make to Libya. Investigators found that al-Megrahi traveled to Malta on a false passport a day before the suitcase was checked in and left the following day.

Key to convicting al-Megrahi was the testimony of a Malta shopkeeper who identified him as having bought a man's shirt in his store. Scraps of the garment were found wrapped around the timing device.

However, a Scottish judicial body that carried out a major review of the evidence cast doubt on the shopowner's ID of al-Megrahi and said there was evidence the shirt was purchased on a day when al-Megrahi was not in Malta.

Al-Megrahi's lawyers also claimed that British and U.S. authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators away from suggestions the bombing was an Iranian-financed plot carried out by Palestinians to avenge the shooting down of a civilian Iranian airliner by a U.S. warship — in which some 290 people were killed — several months before the Lockerbie bombing. The judicial body, however, discounted theories of intentional misdirection.

Al-Megrahi had appealed his conviction, but had to drop the appeal to be eligible for compassionate release.

"I say in the clearest possible terms, which I hope every person in every land will hear — all of this I have had to endure for something that I did not do," al-Megrahi said in a statement after his release.

"I had most to gain and nothing to lose about the whole truth coming out — until my diagnosis of cancer," he said. "To those victims' relatives who can bear to hear me say this, they continue to have my sincere sympathy for the unimaginable loss that they have suffered."

Some of the victims' families in Britain are also not convinced of al-Megrahi's guilt.

"By abandoning his appeal, we the families will be robbed of the opportunity to find justice," the Rev. John Mosey, whose daughter Helga died aboard Flight 103, said in 2009.

"I came away from the court 85 percent convinced he did not do it, based on the evidence I heard," said Mosey, who is from Cumbria, England, and attended all but one week of al-Megrahi's nine-month trial.

In announcing al-Megrahi's release from prison, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he was motivated by Scottish values to show mercy even though al-Megrahi had not shown compassion to his victims.

"Some hurts can never heal, some scars can never fade," MacAskill said. "Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."

Al-Megrahi is survived by his wife, Aisha, and five children.

The real curse of the Kennedys: It’s their treatment of women

Last Updated: 10:14 AM, May 20, 2012
Posted: 11:15 PM, May 19, 2012
Maureen Callahan

New York Post:

Along with their waning power, wealth, privilege and prestige, here’s another element of the Camelot mystique that needs to be extinguished: the myth of “The Kennedy Curse.” It’s almost a reflexive national reaction when we hear of yet another Kennedy dying too young, so of course it was invoked again last week, when news broke that Mary Richardson Kennedy, the estranged 52-year-old wife of Robert Kennedy Jr., had hung herself in her barn on Wednesday. A curse, however, implies supernatural intervention by vengeful gods jealous of mortal youth, beauty, brilliance.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife Mary Richardson Kennedy during a 2002 gala benefit to celebrate the Sundance Institute 20th Anniversary at Cipriani on 42nd St. in New York City

Let’s just call it what it is: the natural fallout when you’re a member of a family riddled with entitled, underachieving drunks, drug addicts and adulterers, whose treatment of women is historically deplorable.

It’s a top-down mentality that began in the 1920s, with patriarch Joe. Leaving aside his other character flaws — running with gangsters, espousing racist and anti- Semitic beliefs, buying his son’s presidential election — Joe was such a callous philanderer that he often brought his mistress, actress Gloria Swanson, home to dinner with his wife, Rose.

Joe, to be sure, set the bar high, and his sons, as we now know, engaged in lifelong attempts to clear it. They performed admirably. Bobby Kennedy ran around on wife Ethel with, among others, Marilyn Monroe (when his brother Jack was done with her) and, after Jack’s death, his widowed sister-in-law, Jackie.

Until recently, JFK’s relentless womanizing was contextualized as a glamorous flaw, one he shared with many other men who have held the office, born of the swinging, shaken-martini ’60s. We now know that JFK was a remorseless predator, a sitting president who got a teenage intern drunk, took her virginity on his wife’s bed, then later suggested she perform oral sex on an aide while he watched. As that intern, Mimi Alford, wrote in her memoir “Once Upon a Secret,” the president would often have her travel with him, stashing her in the cargo hold with the luggage.

And Ted. Where to begin? There are the well-documented stories of truly sleazy behavior, but it’s quite the legacy when partying with your nephew leads to his trial for rape—and that’s just a footnote. Ted was the worst of the three, pitching off a bridge at Chappaquiddick in 1969, leaving a young campaign aide named Mary Jo Kopechne to die at the bottom of a lake while he slept off the booze, then strategized spin control.

Of course, he got away with it. While his long-suffering wife, Joan, slid into alcoholism and depression — after being conscripted to call the Kopechne family and offer the Kennedys’ sincere condolences — Ted continued partying while burnishing his legacy as the Senate’s liberal lion. He finally explained why he never spoke about Chappaquiddick in his memoir, “True Compass,” written while on his deathbed.

“[W]hatever attacks and misrepresentations I have suffered as a result of Chappaquiddick, I know that they have been nothing compared to the grief endured with dignity by Mary Jo’s father, Joe, who died on Christmas Eve 2003, and her mother, Gwen, who died in 2007. I know that my public discussion of that terrible night would only have caused them more pain. I also have a personal distaste for self-justification.”

Clearly!

And lest we forget the third-generation Kennedys: the late Michael Kennedy (affair with the teenage babysitter); Ethel’s nephew Michael Skakel (convicted of the 1975 murder of teenage neighbor Martha Moxley); William Kennedy Smith (tried for rape in 1991); Joe Kennedy II (getting an annulment without telling his wife);Doug Kennedy (kicking and shoving his maternity nurse).

If you were related to these people — really, would you tell anyone? Yet somehow, Americans have continued to imbue the Kennedy name with qualities long ago revealed to be mere chimeras, as ghostly as the hoary, faux-patrician rituals to which they cling: Capture the Flag, touch football, speaking with Brahmin accents.

The day after Mary Kennedy was found hanging in her barn, her estranged husband did what his family does best: sincerely insincere damage control.

“A lot of times, I don’t know how she made it through the day,” Robert Kennedy Jr. said this week. “She was in a lot of agony for a lot of her life.”

The self-serving implication: not that he would ever know how she came to be that way.

“I remember being seated at a dinner next to Bobby around 10 years ago that she was also at,” a close friend of Mary’s told The Post last week. “It was the first time I had met either of them, and he put his hand on my thigh under the table. He was such a dog that way.”

Yesterday, the Kennedys buried Mary in Hyannisport, near the famous family compound. In life, Mary had been banned from there for years. In death, she is now the good Kennedy wife, keeping up appearances.

The Facebook president in need of new friends

May 20, 2012 3:24 pm
By Edward Luce

Financial Times:

Hope, change, friends. At a certain point in the past few years, Barack Obama and Facebook began to overlap in people’s minds. Not only did Mr Obama’s 2008 campaign demonstrate Facebook’s potency as an electoral tool, it also hired Chris Hughes – a Facebook co-founder – to do the job.

Mr Hughes is a donor to the Obama 2012 campaign. So too is Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, who recently hosted a fundraiser for Mr Obama in her home. Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s principal founder, is one of three American inventors Mr Obama cites when he extols US innovation – the other two being Thomas Edison and Bill Gates.

In the same way that Halliburton offered a corporate expression of the Bush administration, Facebook captures the zeitgeist of Mr Obama’s. It is little surprise the freshly-listed Facebook faces the same overblown expectations with which Mr Obama started out. It may be too late for Facebook to learn from Mr Obama and since its valuation it has $104bn worth of reasons not to care.

But it is not too late for Mr Obama to transcend the social marketing values that seem to characterise his re-election campaign. Its vocabulary is often indistinguishable from Facebook’s. In his IPO filing, Mr Zuckerberg promised to find ways to allow advertisers to “join the conversation” with registered Facebook users. Some may say this is another form of eavesdropping.

The Obama campaign also has a habit of calling for “conversations”. Likewise, whether it is an email from Michelle Obama asking you to “surprise” her husband on his birthday with a donation, or another $3 lottery solicitation to win dinner with Barack and Joe, Obama 2012’s terms of endearment often match Facebook’s faux-intimate undertones.

There are plenty of sceptics about Facebook’s record-breaking valuation. Given the legal uncertainty on how – and what – it will be able to harvest from our personal information, doubters wonder if the launch price could redeem the hype. Facebook may justify the exuberance by turning into an all-encompassing platform for email, search, networking and entertainment – as it hopes to do. Or it could be a disappointment.

Mr Obama’s frothy initial valuation offers parallels. Having marketed himself as the man who would transcend Washington’s cynical ways, Mr Obama’s brand was quickly tarnished. It was one thing to promise and fail to close Guantánamo Bay. It was quite another to produce a new rationale for indefinite detention without trial. Or his promise to clean out the lobbyists, who have never had it so good. Or the fact that Mr Obama has now prosecuted more people for leaking under the Espionage Act than all former administrations combined. And so on.

Like most successful tech start-ups, Mr Obama remains captive to the same voices with which he secured his dazzling initial success. But unlike Facebook, or Google, he now has an opportunity to start again. He should begin by breaking out of the marketing worldview with which he has imprisoned himself.

That would require a reappraisal of what brought him to power in 2008. One friend and adviser to the White House describes the misperception as follows: “They caught the [anti-George W. Bush] wave beautifully in 2008 but they didn’t invent it. They still think they did.” The wave has long since crested. But the self-belief – and complacency about the limitations of Mitt Romney as an opponent – are still strong.

Mr Obama’s approval ratings remain stuck at well below 50 per cent and voters say they trust his opponent more on the economy. This is unsurprising given that re-election campaigns are usually referendums on the incumbent. Most Americans consistently say they do not think their children will be better off than them. And trust in public institutions, which was at a historic nadir when Mr Obama took office, has not budged. Mr Obama’s stubborn poll numbers echo scepticism about Facebook: Last week 59 per cent of Americans said they did not trust it to protect their privacy.

Mr Zuckerberg will have to find ever better ways to slice and dice the data of his 901m customers. Mr Obama is approaching his own customer base in precisely that frame of mind. In contrast to 2008, Mr Obama’s re-election campaign is betting that this year’s race will be won through mobilisation rather than persuasion. His priority is thus to appease aggrieved elements in the Democratic base, such as Hispanics, unions, the young and gays – and presumably, at some point, the environmentalists.

Sometimes micro-targeting works. Getting out the base, with a dollop of character assassination thrown in, was how Mr Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004. It may work for Mr Obama in 2012 – and it would obviously help if he could define Mr Romney as a heartless asset-stripper. But it is a poor mandate on which to govern. Witness how quickly the oxygen went out of Mr Bush’s second term. It is also a poor substitute for a genuine “conversation” (apologies) about the daunting challenges America faces.

In 2008 Mr Obama stuck throughout with the motif “Change you can believe in”. In 2012 brand Obama is no longer an exciting start-up. People are cynical. The president needs to convince them he is running a viable enterprise that knows where it is going and which can deliver on performance. His latest, and probably fleeting, attempt at an election slogan is “Forward”. To what, exactly, is by no means obvious.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Newark NJ Mayor Cory Booker: "Bain has done a lot to support businesses"

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - May 20, 2012 11:19 am

Newark Mayor Cory Booker credited Bain Capital with growing businesses and said attacks on private equity must stop, during “Meet the Press” Sunday.

As far as that stuff, I have to say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. It’s—to me, we’re just getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially, I know, I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses; this to me, I’m very uncomfortable.



Booker went on to compare the private equity attacks to attacks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, calling them a “distraction” and “crap.”

But the last point I’ll make is, this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough—stop attacking private equity, stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop. Because what it does is it undermines to me what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues. This is either going to be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s going to be a big campaign about the issues that the American public cares about.

Former Obama administration auto czar Steve Rattner also defended the record of Bain Capital last week, during a “Morning Joe” segment.

“So, yeah, I do think to pick out an example of somebody who lost their job unfortunately, this is part of capitalism. This is part of life,” Rattner said. “And I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.”

Rubio on Obama: Most 'Divisive Figure in Modern American History'

10:09 AM, May 20, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

The Weekly Standard:

Florida senator Marco Rubio slammed President Barack Obama in a South Carolina speech delivered last night to a large gathering of Republicans.

“For all the policy disagreements that we may have with the president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago, with his promises to unite America and lift it up,” Rubio said about Obama, referring to his 2004 DNC speech and 2008 presidential run.

But, Rubio said, President Obama has changed: “The man who today occupies the White House and is running for president is a very different person. We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years.”

Rubio, who might be the next Republican vice presidential nominee, also said that Obama and his Democratic party are on a "destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate" path.

"The president and his party’s view of America’s government and our lives is a failed one. It hasn’t worked. His ideas that sounded so good in the classrooms of Harvard and Yale haven’t really worked out well in the real world," said Rubio. "They get frustrated. They can’t win on their record, and so they’ve chosen to go down a different road, one that I think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate."

Rubio also used the speech to introduce himself and talk about his personal story.

Putin to dominate new Russian government

Sun May 20, 2012 4:34pm EDT

* Putin loyalists seen in key economic posts

* Medvedev to bring in liberal reformers

* Privatisation a battleground between factions

* Sechin to keep influence over energy

By Gleb Bryanski and Douglas Busvine

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW, May 21 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin will unveil a government dominated by loyalists on Monday, leaving Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev limited scope to pursue his reform agenda and entrenching the Kremlin's grip over the economy's commanding heights.

Medvedev, 46, named premier after Putin returned to the Kremlin on May 7, has pledged to launch pro-growth policies and a privatisation drive to wean Russia's $1.7 billion economy off its dependence on oil.

But, even though the partners in Russia's ruling 'tandem' announced they would switch jobs as long ago as last September, the lengthy and secretive process of forming a government has raised concerns that it will be riven by factional conflict.

Medvedev, speaking at a Group of Eight summit at the weekend where leaders discussed how to contain the euro zone's debt crisis, rebutted the sceptics.

"The government will be substantially renewed - that's why forming it has taken longer than in the past," he said at Camp David, U.S. President Barack Obama's retreat outside Washington.

"We have a plan of action ... that was tested in the first phase of the crisis," Medvedev told reporters. "If needed, we can put it into effect - in that sense all our guns are loaded."

The lineup to be unveiled on Monday will bring in new faces from the team of young market liberals who served in the Kremlin during Medvedev's four-year term as president.

One, Arkady Dvorkovich, shared smiles with Medvedev's spokeswoman as the prime minister took questions from reporters outside a log cabin at Camp David.

Dvorkovich is tipped for an economic post, possibly deputy premier. Billionaire former power industry executive Mikhail Abyzov, another Medvedev adviser, may also land a senior role.

WHO'S IN CHARGE?

Sources say however that Putin, 59, is likely to extend his influence over economic policy by ensuring that the finance and economy portfolios are taken by placemen who identify with his credo of state-led economic development.

Should career bureaucrat Anton Siluanov stay on as finance minister and Andrei Belousov be promoted to economy minister, that would indicate that Putin wants to take personal control on the economy - traditionally the preserve of the prime minister.

Putin's return to the Kremlin has been accompanied by the biggest protests of his 12-year rule against alleged fraud in the recent national elections, led by an emerging opposition that says its views - and those of millions of Russians who want political change - are being ignored by the country's leaders.

"They are making (forming a government) as conspiratorial as possible, and that doesn't sell well in this political climate," said Vladimir Frolov of government-relations firm LEFF Group.

The country's top banker German Gref, a former economy minister, said however that Putin was ready to heed the views of Russians and act to put the economy on a sustainable footing.

"The election campaign has shown that Putin is ready for a serious transformation - I know there is a lot of scepticism about that," Gref, who is chief executive of Sberbank, told reporters travelling with Medvedev.

Although latest figures show that Russia's economy grew at a healthy 4.9 percent rate in the first quarter, that has been pumped up by lavish pre-election spending that has driven up the oil price at which Russia's budget will balance in the future.

"The oil curse will get us sooner or later," added Gref. "The government has no option but to create a favourable climate for investment and growth."

Yet Putin, who opted out of attending the G8 summit to hold meetings on the new government, showed a more populist than reformist streak in decisions he took while Medvedev was away.

He signed an order slashing the number of officials' cars allowed to use flashing blue lights - hated by drivers on Moscow's choked roads - and appointed a production worker at a tank factory as his representative to the Urals industrial belt.

Putin's new Urals envoy, Igor Kholmanskikh, made waves when he volunteered in a video link-up with Putin to come to Moscow with "the boys" to chase election protesters off the streets.

PROXY BATTLEFIELD

Gref's bank is at the top of a list of state assets slated for privatisation, but the sale of a 7.6 percent stake planned for last September has been repeatedly delayed.

First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov recently slapped a veto on a near-term sale due to poor market conditions, that have since deteriorated further, reducing the value of the stake to $4.3 billion.

Shuvalov, according to sources and media reports, should stay despite media reports over his wife's lucrative financial dealings with Russia's billionaire oligarchs. He has admitted the deals but denied any impropriety.

The English-speaking lawyer is seen as one of the few officials who can mediate in the battles for power and influence between the market liberals and another faction of men with a background, like former KGB spy Putin, in the security services.

The greatest mystery surrounds the political future of Igor Sechin, the informal head of the siloviki - or men of power - who as Putin's energy 'tsar' has enjoyed sweeping control over the oil industry in the world's largest crude producer.

In his last act as prime minister, Putin nominated Sechin to the board of Russia's main state energy holding company, a position that would allow Sechin to wield huge influence even if he loses his post as deputy premier.

Since Putin's election victory on March 4, Sechin has brokered three major offshore exploration deals involving state oil major Rosneft, sought to block the privatisation of state oil pipeline monopoly Transneft and acted to reassert state control over the power sector.

That sets the scene for a possible confrontation should Mededev appoint Abyzov, a co-author of reforms to break up the state power monopoly in 2007, to a senior energy role.

It could also spell trouble for Medvedev, whose durability has been called into question by what many saw as his humiliating agreement to step down to pave the way for Putin to return for one, and possibly two, six-year terms.

$12,984--Increase in Debt Per Household Since First 2011 Bipartisan Spending Deal

By Terence P. Jeffrey
May 18, 2012

CNS News - The White House and the congressional leaders of both parties in Congress have begun maneuvering this week over the issue of the federal debt and what to do when the government hits the latest statutory limit on that debt--$16.394 trillion—which Congress and the president agreed to when they cut a deal on the debt limit last August.

The federal debt is currently $15.709 trillion, or about $685 billion below the limit.

The first spending deal the White House and leaders of both parties in Congress made last year was on March 2. On that day, the president signed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past March 4, when the previous continuing resolution, passed by a lame-duck Congress in late 2010, expired.

The March 4 CR kept the government funded for two weeks and was approved by a bipartisan 335-91 vote in the House and a bipartisan 91-9 vote in the Senate.

Since that March 4, 2011 bipartisan continuing resolution, the federal government has been funded by a series of bipartisan deals cut between the White House and congressional leaders.

In the meanwhile, under these bipartisan spending deals, according to official figures published by the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt has climbed from $14,182,627,184,881.03 to $15,708,753,671,767.64.

That is an increase of $1,526,126,486,886.61.

Given that the Census Bureau estimates there are about 117,538,000 households in the United States, the per household increase in the federal debt since Congress enacted its March 4, 2011 bipartisan spending deal has been approximately $12,984.

Robin Gibb, Bee Gees Co-Founder, Dead at 62

Singer had been battling cancer

By
David Browne
May 20, 2012 6:35 PM ET

Robin Gibb, one-third of the Bee Gees, died Sunday after a long battle with cancer, his spokesperson has confirmed via a statement. Gibb was 62 years old.

"The family of Robin Gibb, of the Bee Gees, announce with great sadness that Robin passed away today following his long battle with cancer and intestinal surgery," reads the statement. "The family have asked that their privacy is respected at this very difficult time."

Two years ago, Gibb battled colon and liver cancer, but despite making what he called a "spectacular recovery," a secondary tumor recently developed, complicated by a case of pneumonia in April. The singer was hospitalized last month and fell into a coma at one point, although he was later said to have regained consciousness and communicated with family members.

Gibb was born in the Isle of Man in 1949, along with twin brother Maurice. (Maurice died in 2003 of complications from a twisted intestine; eerily, Robin had surgery for the same medical issue in 2010.) Along with their older brother Barry, the brothers began harmonizing as a trio in Australia, where the family moved in 1958. Although the Bee Gees had some success in Australia – they hosted a weekly variety show there – they didn't truly arrive until they returned to England and signed with manager Robert Stigwood. Robin's quivering, vulnerable voice was featured prominently on several of the group's earliest and most Beatles-eque hits, including "New York Mining Disaster 1941," "I Started a Joke," "Massachusetts," and "I've Gotta Get a Message to You."

Although he looked and sounded like the meekest Bee Gee, Robin grew into the family rebel. By 1969, he and Barry were feuding over whose song should be singles, and Robin, then 20, was declared a "ward of the state" by their father when his drinking and partying seemed to take over his life. "It happened so fast that we lost communication between us," Gibb later recalled. "It was just madness, really."

But it was also Robin who, in 1971, made the first call to Barry to reunite with his brothers. Robin's solo career had stalled, and Barry and Maurice's attempts to continue the Bee Gees as a duo had floundered as well. "If we hadn't been related, we would probably have never gotten back together," Robin said at the time. Robin's voice was heard, beautifully, on the chorus of their minor 1972 hit "Run to Me."

The Bee Gees' massive second wind arrived with their proto disco hit, "Jive Talkin'," in 1975; two years later, their contributions to Saturday Night Fever made them bigger stars than ever. Most of the hits from that era featured Barry's falsetto voice, but the brothers' vocal blend remained an indelible part of their sound.

The group entered another fallow period during the early Eighties, although during this time, Robin produced a semi-hit album by Jimmy Ruffin, brother of the Temptations' David Ruffin. The last Bee Gees album, This Is Where I Came In, was released in 2001. Two years later, Maurice died, and with his passing the Bee Gees ended. (Their other, younger brother Andy died in 1988.)

Robin and Barry reunited periodically – in 2010, they made an appearance on American Idol and inducted ABBA into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame – and talked about a duo tour, but nothing materialized. Robin, though, kept his hand in music. With his son Robin-John, he wrote an ambitious piece, The Titanic Requiem, a mix of orchestral and vocal pieces telling the story of the doomed liner on the 100th anniversary of its sinking. "It's a serious subject and it's not a rock opera," Gibb said before its debut. "There are no backbeats. This could have been written 300 years ago."

Featuring the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the work had its world premiere in London on April 10th. But in a sign that Gibb's health had taken a turn for the worse, he wasn't able to attend.

SOURCE: Rolling Stone