April 2007 Archives
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Election Issues
E-mails being sought from Karl Rove's computers, and recent revelations about critical electronic conflicts of interest, may be the smoking guns of Ohio's stolen 2004 election. A thorough recount of ballots and electronic files. preserved by a federal lawsuit, could tell the tale.
The major media has come to focus on a large batch of electronic communications which have disappeared from the server of the Republican National Committee, and from White House advisor Rove's computers. The attention stems from the controversial firing of eight federal prosecutors by Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales.
But the time frame from which these e-mails are missing also includes a critical late night period after the presidential election of 2004. In these crucial hours, computerized vote tallies may have been shifted to move the Ohio vote count from John Kerry to George W. Bush, giving Bush the presidency.
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Election Issues
Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush's re-election?
The answer appears to be yes. There is more than ample documentation to show that on Election Night 2004, Ohio's "official" Secretary of State website %u2013 which gave the world the presidential election results %u2013 was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, including the secret White House e-mail accounts that have emerged in the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales%u2019s firing of eight federal prosecutors.
Recent revelations have documented that the Republican National Committee (RNC) ran a secret White House e-mail system for Karl Rove and dozens of White House staffers. This high-tech system used to count and report the 2004 presidential vote%u2013 from server-hosting contracts, to software-writing services, to remote-access capability, to the actual server usage logs themselves %u2013 must be added to the growing congressional investigations.
Lenders Sought Edge Against U.S. in Student Loans - New York Times
In a fierce contest to control the student loan market, the nation's banks and lenders have for years waged a successful campaign to limit a federal program that was intended to make borrowing less costly by having the government provide loans directly to students.
As the media fills with whimsical good-byes to one of America's greatest writers, lets not forget one of the great engines driving this wonderful man--he HATED war. Including this one in Iraq. And he had utter contempt for the men who brought it about. Kurt Vonnegut was a divine spark of liberating genius for an entire generation. His brilliant, beautiful, loving and utterly unfettered novels helped us redefine ourselves in leaving the corporate America in the 1950s and the Vietnam war that followed.
Having seen the worst of World War II from a meatlocker in fire-bombed Dresden, Kurt's Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five and God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, cut us the intellectual and spiritual slack to seek out a new reality. It took a breathtaking psychic freedom to merge the interstellar worlds he created from whole cloth with the social imperatives of a changing age. It was that combination of talent, heart and liberation that gave Vonnegut a cutting edge he never lost.
Leaving us in his eighties, Kurt also leaves us decades of anecdotes and volumes of writings--and doodlings--about which to write. But lost in the mainstream obituaries--including the one in the New York Times--is the ferocity with which he opposed this latest claque of vicious war-mongers.
Vonnegut gave his last campus speech in Columbus. He and I met here many years ago, after another speech. Not knowing me from Adam, he was gracious enough to give me his home address.
Out of the blue, I sent him a book-length poem about the passing of my parents. I was shocked when he called me on the phone about it. I asked for his help in finding a publisher. He said to publish it on my own, and gave me advice on how to do it, along with a blurb for the cover.
From then on we talked by phone. His conversation was always friendly, funny, insightful. When last I asked him how he was, he replied: "Too fucking old!"
Last year, apparently on the spur of the moment, he agreed to speak again at Ohio State. It would be his last campus lecture.
When word spread, a line four thousand students long instantly formed at a university otherwise known only for its addiction to football.
Anyone expecting a safe, whimsical opener from this grand old man of sixties rebellion was in for a shock. "Can I speak frankly?" he asked Professor Manuel Luis Martinez, the poet and writing teacher who would "interview" him. "The only difference between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler is that Hitler was actually elected."
Thank you Kurt. You helped me make myself. - Ken
recordonline.com - Commentary: A life touched by the late Kurt Vonnegut
What a crappy day. It's not the icy snow remnants on my car this morning, the overcast skies, the unrelenting rain. Even if Mother Nature had given us gorgeous weather, the world would feel dark. The world should be dark. The world IS dark. Reading of Kurt Vonnegut's death at 1 a.m. Thursday, I was devastated. I cried. I cursed a god I don't even believe in.
I didn't know Kurt Vonnegut; he didn't know me. I'm one of so many fans who'll say "This man and his works have had a profound effect on who I am." His biting social commentary, imaginative science fiction, inspirational humanism and courageous self-awareness spoke to me in a way no other author ever has, or probably will.
www.kansascity.com | 04/11/2007 | Imus isn't the real bad guy
Thank you, Don Imus. You've given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You've given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You've given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it's 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we're fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I'm sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent's or Snoop Dogg's or Young Jeezy's latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.I ain't saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don't have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
Does the increased use of social networking sites by children lead to increased risk? Concern about online predators and pornography has led some politicians and law enforcement officials to call for unreasonable restrictions on public access to these sites.
But is the perception of increased risk accurate? How much of the public discussion of these trends is myth, and how much is fact? Two recent studies suggest that many fears are overblown.
The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire recently released a study that found that unwanted online solicitations are down from 19% in 1999 to 13% today %u2014 a decline that is taking place despite the rising popularity of social networking sites.
Of the unwanted solicitations that were received, a significant number (43%) came from other minors, not from adults.
