This like rehiring the Mafia to preserve order in the neighborhood because the regular cops can't cut it.

Iraq Contractor in Shooting Case Makes Comeback

by James Risen

The State Department has just renewed its contract to provide security for American diplomats in Iraq for at least another year. Threats by the Iraqi government to strip Western contractors of their immunity from Iraqi law have gone nowhere. No charges have been brought in the United States against any Blackwater guard in the September shooting, either, and the F.B.I. agents in Baghdad charged with investigating whether Blackwater guards have committed any crimes under United States law are sometimes protected as they travel through Baghdad by Blackwater guards.

The chief reason for the company's survival? State Department officials said Friday that they did not believe they had any alternative to Blackwater, which supplies about 800 guards to the department to provide security for diplomats in Baghdad. Officials say only three companies in the world meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two do not have the capability to take on Blackwater's role in Baghdad. After the shooting in September, the State Department did not even open talks with the other two companies, DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, to see if they could take over from Blackwater, which is based in North Carolina.

"We cannot operate without private security firms in Iraq," said Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. "If the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq."

Love them.
A beautiful redolence, a bitter taste.
A wonderful reminder of my youth sitting in a tree surrounded by the blossoms and soft spring air.

A 3" thick 10" square brown box arrived yesterday by mail, mauled and resealed by the postal busy bodies looking for bombs, drugs and terrorist threats no doubt. In the box was oodles of curly styrofoam and a sprig of a lilac branch wrapped in cellophane. The package was in the mail long enough, the search brutal enough that the tiny blossoms were no longer attached to the twig. I gathered up all the blossoms and floated them in a bowl of water which now sits beside me releasing that smell onto the room.

A heartwarming gift from a heart warming friend who wrote:

Hi cul,

Hope you enjoy these for a few days anyway
Peace and Love,
Jimi

Thanks, I will.

Nutshell:

Two guys in prison for life, one innocent the other guilty. The guilty guy knows the other guy is innocent and tells his lawyers such but refuses, by dint of lawyer/client privilege, to allow them to tell anyone until after his death. 26 years later the guilty guys dies and the lawyers, still risking censure by laws pertaining to lawyer/client privilege, decide to spill the beans and the the innocent guy is eventually released.

So because of a strict adherence to lawyer/client privilege protecting the rights of the guilty guy, some innocent guy spends 26 years of his life imprisoned. What happened to the innocent guy's rights?

Should the right to lawyer client privilege in this case be allowed to override the right to life, liberty...?

I think not.

What say ye?

When Law Prevents Righting a Wrong

by Adam Liptak

Staples Hughes, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.

"If you testify," Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner's request for a new trial, "I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?"

But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, "it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans."

Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client's secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice - for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.

A lawyer's broad duty to keep clients' confidences is the bedrock on which the justice system is built, they argue. If clients did not feel free to speak candidly, their lawyers could not represent them effectively. And making exceptions risks eroding the trust between clients and their lawyers in future cases. Experts in legal ethics are quick to point out that the various players in the adversary system have assigned roles and that lawyers generally must tend to a limited one.

"Lawyers are not undercover informants," said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University. Indeed, said Steven Lubet, who teaches legal ethics at Northwestern, few clients would confess to their lawyers if they knew the lawyers might some day choose to disclose that information.

The analysis does bend a bit, in two ways, in cases involving death.

Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but many allow disclosure of client confidences to prevent certain death or substantial bodily harm. That means, several legal ethics experts said, that lawyers may break a client's confidence to stop an execution, but not to free an innocent prisoner. Massachusetts seems to be alone in allowing lawyers to reveal secrets "to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another."

And there is debate over how a client's death affects a lawyer's obligation to keep the client's secrets. Most lawyers and courts say the obligation lives on. But it can be hard to live with the consequences.

Thank you Mildred and Richard for sharing your love.

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died at 68 years. Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

''There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause,'' the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

Loving made this public statement about the right to marry the person you love:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

(Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement)

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right."

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Interesting observations on why dumbing down can be a survival technique:

Lots of Animals Learn, but Smarter Isn't Better

By Carl Zimmer

"Why are humans so smart?" is a question that fascinates scientists. Tadeusz Kawecki, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Fribourg, likes to turn around the question. "If it's so great to be smart," Dr. Kawecki asks, "why have most animals remained dumb?

Leif Parsons

Dr. Kawecki and like-minded scientists are trying to figure out why animals learn and why some have evolved to be better at learning than others. One reason for the difference, their research finds, is that being smart can be bad for an animal's health.

Learning is remarkably widespread in the animal kingdom. Even the microscopic vinegar worm, Caenorhadits elegans, can learn, despite having just 302 neurons. It feeds on bacteria. But if it eats a disease-causing strain, it can become sick.

The worms are not born with an innate aversion to the dangerous bacteria. They need time to learn to tell the difference and avoid becoming sick.

Many insects are also good at learning. "People thought insects were little robots doing everything by instinct," said Reuven Dukas, a biologist at McMaster University.

Research by Dr. Dukas and others has shown that insects deserve more respect. Dr. Dukas has found that the larvae of one of the all-time favorite lab animals, the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, could learn to associate certain odors with food and other odors with predators.

In another set of experiments, Dr. Dukas discovered that young male flies wasted a lot of time trying to court unreceptive females. It takes time to learn the signs of a receptive fly.

Dr. Dukas hypothesizes that any animal with a nervous system can learn. Even in cases where scientists have failed to document learning in a species, he thinks they should not be too quick to rule it out. "Is it because I'm not a good teacher or because the animal doesn't learn?" Dr. Dukas asked.

Although learning may be widespread among animals, Dr. Dukas wonders why they bothered to evolve it in the first place. "You cannot just say that learning is an adaptation to a changing environment," he said.

It is possible to adapt to a changing environment without using a nervous system to learn. Bacteria can alter behavior to help their survival. If a microbe senses a toxin, it can swim away. If it senses a new food, it can switch genes on and off to alter its metabolism.

"A genetic network like the one in E. coli is amazingly good in changing environments," Dr. Dukas said.

Learning also turns out to have dangerous side effects that make its evolution even more puzzling. Dr. Kawecki and his colleagues have produced striking evidence for these side effects by studying flies as they evolve into better learners in the lab.

and people just don't want to hear it. Wright basically offers a wake up call, a reality check on the mythical America that those who are offended by his statements root their patriotism in.

Until I watched this video I didn't quite grasp the meaning of his "theology of liberation" concept. Now I understand it to mean something I have myself often put forward about why it is essential that Christianity (or any other religion) stop seeing God as a "white male"; because from that notion flows all the falsely assumed superiorities of patriarchal and racist societies - and in turn, all of the political and economic injustices for peoples of all races.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. addresses the National Press Club on April 28, 2008

Cheney needs serious jail time for this crap.

Mosaic Intelligence Report: A Tale of Gitmo Inhumanity

Imprisoned for six years without being charged or given a trial, Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj was finally released from the U.S. Navy prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, late last week.

of capturing this shot?

Rio de Janeiro - Christ the Redeemer statue is hit by lightening.

I found the pic surfing but there was no attribute, if you know who took it please inform me.

For weeks now I've been trying to rid myself of a visiting mouse who is not toilet trained and has more than over stayed his welcome. It doesn't eat much true, but it does chew things and obviously is a night owl because that's the time that it decides to make scratching sounds in the ceilings and walls.

I've tried traps and sticky pads and mind control techniques, none of which has proved to be in the least effective. I've even left it a tiny bowl of peanut butter and soda cracker chips out near the back of the fridge and in cupboards under the sinks sans any traps, hoping it would eventually get too fat to be very active. That didn't last more than couple of days because she/he doesn't touch them and I don't want to host a cockroach banquet either. I'm not all that annoyed by it really, but I fear its a female and I will soon be hearing the thunderous pitter patter of many more little feet while I'm trying to sleep.

Any suggestions?

Like a lot of other people I was outraged by the full acquittals of the NY undercover cops that killed unarmed Sean Bell in a hail of more than 50 bullets.

Everybody everywhere who knows anything about the case and followed the trial know that the acquittals are a travesty and a complete miscarriage of justice. Fortunately further investigation is being speared by Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Lawmaker vows thorough probe into Sean Bell shooting

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday met with the family of a man fatally shot by police just hours before his wedding, promising a thorough federal investigation of the incident.

Three New York police detectives were acquitted Friday on all counts in the case of Sean Bell, an unarmed man killed in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a strip club on November 25, 2006. Bell's two friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield, were wounded in the shooting.

"We are going to be putting together the federal strategy," said Rep. John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a Michigan Democrat. "This is important."

"We want to make sure that justice is served and that a message is sent out, not just to law enforcement but to the young people of this country, that these kinds of tragedies have to end in this country," he said.

The Justice Department said it was conducting an independent investigation to determine if the trio's civil rights were violated.

The Detectives Endowment Association, the union representing Detectives Gescard Isnora, Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper, said they were trying to set up a meeting with Conyers as well because they believe the committee should "hear both sides of the story."

"That's what's fair to the detectives and the American people," said Michael Palladino, president of the association.

  [snip]

Witnesses said that around 4 a.m. on November 26, 2006 -- closing time -- an argument broke out as Bell and his friends left the club. Believing Guzman was going to get a gun from Bell's car, one of the detectives followed the men and called for backup.

Bell, Guzman and Benefield got into the car, with Bell at the wheel. The detectives drew their weapons, said Guzman and Benefield, who testified they never heard the plainclothes detectives identify themselves as police. Bell was in a panic to get away from the armed men, his friends testified.

But the detectives, according to their lawyers, thought Bell was trying to run down one of them, believed their lives were in danger and started shooting.

Oliver, who reloaded his semiautomatic in the middle of the fray, fired 31 times, while Isnora fired 11 times and Cooper, whose leg was brushed by Bell's moving car, fired four times, the NYPD said.

No gun was found in or near Bell's car. None of the detectives had been involved in any similar cases before -- and Oliver had never fired his weapon in the line of duty before.

Making a Killing From Hunger

by Amy Goodman

    For some time now the rising cost of food all over the world has taken households, governments and the media by storm. The price of wheat has gone up by 130% over the last year. Rice has doubled in price in Asia in the first three months of 2008 alone,and just last week it hit record highs on the Chicago futures market. For most of 2007 the spiralling cost of cooking oil, fruit and vegetables, as well as of dairy and meat, led to a fall in the consumption of these items. From Haiti to Cameroon to Bangladesh, people have been taking to the streets in anger at being unable to afford the food they need. In fear of political turmoil, world leaders have been calling for more food aid, as well as for more funds and technology to boost agricultural production. Cereal exporting countries, meanwhile, are closing their borders to protect their domestic markets, while other countries have been forced into panic buying. Is this a price blip? No. A food shortage? Not that either. We are in a structural meltdown, the direct result of three decades of neoliberal globalisation.

Farmers across the world produced a record 2.3 billion tons of grain in 2007, up 4% on the previous year. Since 1961 the world's cereal output has tripled, while the population has doubled. Stocks are at their lowest level in 30 years, it's true, but the bottom line is that there is enough food produced in the world to feed the population. The problem is that it doesn't get to all of those who need it. Less than half of the world's grain production is directly eaten by people. Most goes into animal feed and, increasingly, biofuels - massive inflexible industrial chains. In fact, once you look behind the cold curtain of statistics, you realise that something is fundamentally wrong with our food system. We have allowed food to be transformed from something that nourishes people and provides them with secure livelihoods into a commodity for speculation and bargaining. The perverse logic of this system has come to a head. Today it is staring us in the face that this system puts the profits of investors before the food needs of people.