Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally is no longer laughing about his suggestion that he saved President Bush's life during a recent White House visit.
The No. 2 U.S. automaker has apologised after Mulally said his claim that he had intervened to prevent U.S.President George W. Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of an experimental Ford vehicle had been meant as a joke.
On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "The story wasn't accurate, and I'll just decline to comment further."
Ford said Mulally never expected the story he told journalists in New York last week would be taken seriously.
The CEO found himself in an embarrassing situation when the story was featured on blogs and even in mainstream media such as the Financial Times, which said, "he may have saved the incumbent of the Oval Office from blowing himself up."
Full Story: YAHOO NEWS (Reuters)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terror?
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”
After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Source: THE NEW YORKER
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”
After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Source: THE NEW YORKER
Internet radio dealt severe blow as Copyright Board rejects appeal
A panel of judges at the Copyright Royalty Board has denied a request from the NPR and a number of other webcasters to reconsider a March ruling that would force Internet radio services to pay crippling royalties. The panel's ruling reaffirmed the original CRB decision in every respect, with the exception of how the royalties will be calculated. Instead of charging a royalty for each time a song is heard by a listener online, Internet broadcasters will be able pay royalties based on average listening hours through the end of 2008.
The ruling is a huge blow to online broadcasters, and the new royalty structure could knock a large number of them off the 'Net entirely. Under the previous setup, radio stations would have to pay an annual fee plus 12 percent of their profits to the music industry's royalty collection organization, SoundExchange. It was a good setup for the webcasters, most of whom are either nonprofits or very small organizations.
National Public Radio spearheaded the appeal, arguing that the CRB's decision was an "abuse of discretion" and saying that the judges did not consider the ramifications of a new royalty structure. Under the new royalty schedule, NPR will see its costs skyrocket.
The judges were unmoved by the webcasters' arguments. "None of the moving parties have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision. "To the contrary... most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence that was presented during the proceeding."
Full Story: ARS TECHNICA
The ruling is a huge blow to online broadcasters, and the new royalty structure could knock a large number of them off the 'Net entirely. Under the previous setup, radio stations would have to pay an annual fee plus 12 percent of their profits to the music industry's royalty collection organization, SoundExchange. It was a good setup for the webcasters, most of whom are either nonprofits or very small organizations.
National Public Radio spearheaded the appeal, arguing that the CRB's decision was an "abuse of discretion" and saying that the judges did not consider the ramifications of a new royalty structure. Under the new royalty schedule, NPR will see its costs skyrocket.
The judges were unmoved by the webcasters' arguments. "None of the moving parties have made a sufficient showing of new evidence or clear error or manifest injustice that would warrant rehearing," wrote the CRB in its decision. "To the contrary... most of the parties' arguments in support of a rehearing or reconsideration merely restate arguments that were made or evidence that was presented during the proceeding."
Full Story: ARS TECHNICA
In a Filmdom Premiere, a Foe for Gore
The screening here on Thursday night had many elements of a classic film-world shindig. There were gift bags and television cameras, cold cocktails and hot popcorn. Ushers showed V.I.P.’s to their seats, and local politicos rubbed shoulders with the movie’s backers and flacks.
In fact, according to the movie’s star, Steven F. Hayward, there was only one thing missing from what could have otherwise been a typical Hollywood opening: liberals.
“I don’t know how much of the enemy we have here tonight,” said a smiling Mr. Hayward, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, based in Washington. “San Francisco is usually a target-rich environment.”
The occasion for the festivities was the world premiere of Mr. Hayward’s filmic debut, “An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction?” It is a point-by-PowerPoint rebuttal of former Vice President Al Gore’s global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which played last summer in nearly 600 theaters, won two Academy Awards (including the one for best documentary) and grossed nearly $50 million worldwide.
Mr. Hayward’s movie is aiming somewhat lower, with a handful of free screenings planned over the next month, including one next week at the offices of the Heritage Foundation, another conservative Washington research group, where the film was shot. Mr. Hayward said the point of his 50-minute movie — basically a lecture like “Inconvenient Truth,” though half as long — was to dispute Mr. Gore’s depiction of potentially devastating consequences of global warming.
Full Story: NY TIMES
In fact, according to the movie’s star, Steven F. Hayward, there was only one thing missing from what could have otherwise been a typical Hollywood opening: liberals.
“I don’t know how much of the enemy we have here tonight,” said a smiling Mr. Hayward, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, based in Washington. “San Francisco is usually a target-rich environment.”
The occasion for the festivities was the world premiere of Mr. Hayward’s filmic debut, “An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction?” It is a point-by-PowerPoint rebuttal of former Vice President Al Gore’s global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which played last summer in nearly 600 theaters, won two Academy Awards (including the one for best documentary) and grossed nearly $50 million worldwide.
Mr. Hayward’s movie is aiming somewhat lower, with a handful of free screenings planned over the next month, including one next week at the offices of the Heritage Foundation, another conservative Washington research group, where the film was shot. Mr. Hayward said the point of his 50-minute movie — basically a lecture like “Inconvenient Truth,” though half as long — was to dispute Mr. Gore’s depiction of potentially devastating consequences of global warming.
Full Story: NY TIMES
The Yuri Dolgoruki sets sail
Russia`s Deputy Prime Minister has announced the launch of a new strategic nuclear submarine, it would be the first launch since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
"This is the first time in 17 years that we are building such a submarine. Another year will be needed to technically equip it in water and to arm it," Ivanov was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.
The nuclear submarine, named Yuri Dolgoruki, will carry Russia’s latest inter-continental missiles, the Bulava-M, which went into production last year.
The naval Bulava ballistic missiles are equipped with 10 nuclear warheads that have a reach of 4,970 miles.
Full Story: Rusnet.nl
"This is the first time in 17 years that we are building such a submarine. Another year will be needed to technically equip it in water and to arm it," Ivanov was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.
The nuclear submarine, named Yuri Dolgoruki, will carry Russia’s latest inter-continental missiles, the Bulava-M, which went into production last year.
The naval Bulava ballistic missiles are equipped with 10 nuclear warheads that have a reach of 4,970 miles.
Full Story: Rusnet.nl
Fight over fatally ill US toddler
A Texas mother is going to court in one last attempt to stop a hospital from turning off her child's life support. Seventeen-month-old Emilio Gonzales suffers from a terminal neurological disease and cannot breathe on his own.
His doctors consider further treatment to be futile and potentially painful. Last week they gave his family 10 days to find another hospital for the boy.
But a nationwide search for a new facility has failed, and his mother Catarina wants a judge to intervene.
If the court refuses to prevent the hospital ending Emilio's treatment, his support is likely to be switched off on Wednesday.
Full Story: BBC
His doctors consider further treatment to be futile and potentially painful. Last week they gave his family 10 days to find another hospital for the boy.
But a nationwide search for a new facility has failed, and his mother Catarina wants a judge to intervene.
If the court refuses to prevent the hospital ending Emilio's treatment, his support is likely to be switched off on Wednesday.
Full Story: BBC
Depressed? Go Play in the Dirt
Exposure to friendly soil bacteria could improve mood by boosting the immune system just as effectively as antidepressant drugs, a new study suggests.
Researchers exposed mice to a harmless soil microbe called Mycobacterium vaccae and had the rodents perform a behavioral task commonly used to test the efficacy of antidepressant drugs.
The mice were placed in a large beaker of water for five minutes and watched to see how long they continued swimming and searching for an exit before giving up. The researchers found that the bacteria-exposed mice continued paddling around much longer than the control mice.
“At the risk of anthropomorphizing, you could say the [bacteria-exposed] mice had a more active coping style,” said study leader Chris Lowry of the University of Bristol in England.
Full Story: Live Science.com
Researchers exposed mice to a harmless soil microbe called Mycobacterium vaccae and had the rodents perform a behavioral task commonly used to test the efficacy of antidepressant drugs.
The mice were placed in a large beaker of water for five minutes and watched to see how long they continued swimming and searching for an exit before giving up. The researchers found that the bacteria-exposed mice continued paddling around much longer than the control mice.
“At the risk of anthropomorphizing, you could say the [bacteria-exposed] mice had a more active coping style,” said study leader Chris Lowry of the University of Bristol in England.
Full Story: Live Science.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
