S.C. motel guest trashes room to find trapped 'midget'

Amplify’d from www.msnbc.msn.com

Deputies: S.C. motel guest falls for phone prank, trashes room to find trapped 'midget'

SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C.  — In what was apparently a phone prank, a motel guest said someone called his room and told him to smash the things inside in order to free a "midget" trapped next door.

Spartanburg County sheriff's deputies told WXII sister station WYFF that they were called to a Motel 6 on Sunday night after a guest nearly punched through to the next room with a wrench.

A motel worker called deputies after she discovered the man had damaged the television, mirrors, and the wall between rooms, according to a police report.

When deputies arrived, 73-year-old Joseph Jones told them someone had called his room about 11 p.m. and said he was a manager at the motel. Jones said the male caller told him the previous guest had installed highly sophisticated cameras in his room. The caller told Jones not to bother looking for them and instead, the caller would instruct him on how to get rid of the cameras.

Jones said the caller asked him if the TV was on, and if it was to turn it off and unplug it. Jones said he did as he was told.

Next, he was told to remove the back toilet cover and to smash the TV with it. He did and the cover shattered without breaking the TV screen, so he was instructed to throw the TV outside. Jones did as he was instructed.

At some point, according to the report, Jones gave the caller his cell number so he did not have to keep running back to the room phone.

The instructions continued, Jones told deputies. The male caller told him cameras were also behind the mirrors in the room, and that he needed to smash the mirrors. Jones grabbed a wrench that he found in the room and smashed the mirrors, the report said.

Jones said the caller then said that a "midget" who was 4 feet 3 inches tall was barricaded in the room next to him and that he needed to help police get to him. With that, the report said, Jones took his wrench and began to break away the wallboard behind the room door. He broke through to the next room but then stopped due to complaints from other guests about the loud noises.

While Jones was telling deputies his story, he got another call on his cell phone from the male suspect. The report said Jones gave the phone to a deputy, who took the call.

According to the report, there was a man on the other line stating that he survived gunshots and was coming back to the Motel 6. The man was asking if all of the cameras were destroyed. The man on the phone then realized that he was speaking to someone other than the guest. He then said, "I have the wrong number," and disconnected. The number that the man called from was blocked. Before hanging up, the man made reference to a video game.

Deputies explained to the motel worker what happened, and she said she had recently received information from corporate about similar situations at other hotels. The deputy said that while he was in the lobby several other guests called the front desk to report that they had gotten a phone call similar to the one that went to room 107.

No charges were filed, but the manager did ask Jones to leave, according to the report.

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Motel 6’s parent company vice president of safety and security Victor Glover Sr., said: “This is an unfortunate situation that has been occurring in various forms for years throughout the hotel industry and around the country.

"We are grateful that, although the room and its contents suffered damage, none of our guests or team members were injured as a result of this incident.” Read more at www.msnbc.msn.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gle6

Moreno Valley: Tenants move into affordable apartment

Amplify’d from www.pe.com

Moreno Valley: Tenants move into affordable apartments

By LAURIE LUCAS The Press-Enterprise

When Leticia Burciaga first opened the door to her apartment, she burst into tears.

"I'm so grateful," she said, crying again at the memory. "Finally, something good."

Burciaga, 34, has lingered long in sorrow's kitchen. Since she and her husband split five years ago, she and her three children were squeezed into a cramped house with her mother and three others.

But since Nov. 3, Burciaga, her daughters, 13, and 12, and son, 5, have been living in comparative luxury at the new Oakwood Apartments in Moreno Valley that just opened for low-income, working families.

Burciaga, who works part-time at a dry cleaner, pays $588 for the three-bedroom apartment.

The gated complex features two pools, barbecues, playgrounds and access to cable television and high-speed internet.

Renters are primarily single parents working in service jobs, not welfare recipients, said Bernard Sandalow, a spokesman for Highridge Costa Housing Partners, which co-developed the project with the Sacramento-based nonprofit Housing Alternatives, Inc.

Despite accusations from the public that occasionally roil council meetings, city officials said they are not giving gang members and others from South Central Los Angeles vouchers to relocate to the 242-unit complex at 15170 Perris Boulevard.

"There is nothing to these rumors," said Barry Foster, Moreno Valley's economic development director.

"The city doesn't have any vouchers. (The federal) HUD has vouchers. It makes no sense that it would hand them to someone who lives in Los Angeles to live in Moreno Valley. There are enough people in the Inland Empire who qualify."

He said that the city has had no problem with residents in its half-dozen affordable housing projects. "These are much-respected mainstream developers who own properties all over the country," he said.

"There are extensive criminal, background and income checks on prospective tenants."

Sandalow said that so far, all but a couple of Oakwood's residents have come from within a 5-mile radius of Moreno Valley.

One of them is Shan'e Wesley, 25, a divorced mother of two young children. "I can see the playground from every window," she said. "I can sit on my patio and watch the children."

She was on a waiting list for 13 months until moving into Oakwood on Nov. 5.

Working at Jack in the Box in San Bernardino helps pay her $512 monthly rent for the two-bedroom apartment.

Under construction since 2007, Oakwood was designed provide quality housing for working families earning 30 to 60 percent of the median income for Riverside County.

Monthly rents at Oakwood start at $390 per month and top out at $1,068, depending on household income -- well below market-rate rents for apartments.

In order to qualify, households must include at least one working adult.

Funding for Oakwood is from several sources, including $19.4 million in federal low income housing tax credits; a $3 million loan from the City of Moreno Valley Redevelopment Agency, to be repaid through money generated by the project; a $12.6 million loan from Citibank and $10 million from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The total cost of the project was $57.6 million. Read more at www.pe.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gld5

Amplify’d from www.thedailybeast.com

The Next Korean War?

North Korea's attack on a South Korean island likely won't escalate into a full-blown battle. But the Hermit Kingdom is pushing its neighbor—and the U.S.—toward danger.

This may be the most dangerous moment on the Korean Peninsula since the truce ending the Korean War in 1953. North Korea’s artillery attack on a densely populated South Korean island, harming civilians, represents a whole new level of escalation. Notably, the South Koreans fired back—which sent a good strong message. The Pyongyang crazies never attacked civilians this way before. But they torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel in March, killing 46 sailors, and they hadn’t done anything that provocative before either. Not to be forgotten, they just took American scientists to view their new uranium enrichment facility, which could add to North Korea’s stockpile of eight to 12 nuclear weapons. Is war looming on the peninsula once again? Why has Pyongyang taken these alarming military actions? What can South Korea and the United States do now?

This picture taken on November 23, 2010 by a South Korean tourist shows huge plumes of smoke rising from Yeonpyeong island in the disputed waters of the Yellow Sea on November 23, 2010 (Getty Images). From top: South Korean President Lee Myung-bak & North The short answers are:

First, North and South Korea have never been closer to war since 1953, but close is actually not too close because of the terrible consequences of war for both sides.

Second, Pyongyang wouldn’t be sticking its finger so brazenly in South Korean and American eyes if the regime didn’t want something. And this something, interestingly, might be its desire for new negotiations—or it might be something to do with Pyongyang’s Byzantine succession dance now under way.

Third, Seoul and Washington don’t have very good options, as usual, but they can’t just do nothing. In the face of these two North Korean attacks, alliance credibility is flatly on the line.

North Koreans have done crazy and dangerous things before, but never so blatantly as now. On the other side, the new South Korean President, Lee Myung-bak, has stated many times that he wouldn’t put up with such provocations and was going to be tougher than his predecessors. On top of this, relations between China and North Korea have been “warming,” says Evans Revere, one of America’s leading experts on the region. This warming certainly emboldens Pyongyang further. And the Obama administration has recently dispatched the U.S. Navy to Asian waters to send Beijing a message about its muscle-flexing. This all adds up to a combustible situation.

War would destroy both sides, and neither side can afford war. Thus, war is closer than in decades, but not really on the horizon.

But the underlying reality on the peninsula is that war makes no sense. Both sides know it beyond dispute. Here’s what happens if war breaks out: half of South Korea’s population is within 50 miles of North Korea’s arsenal of almost 12,000 artillery guns and rockets. Those weapons are more than sufficient to destroy much of what South Korea has created in over half a century. As for North Korea, a U.S. air and missile attack would destroy what’s left of that country and leave its dictatorship in want of a home. Thus, war would destroy both sides, and neither side can afford war. Thus, war is closer than in decades, but not really on the horizon. American political leaders wanting to look tough will undoubtedly propose some unspecified U.S. military actions, but fortunately, they won't get their way. Any game of chicken will have to be up to our South Korean allies.

• Jamie McIntyre: The Last Korean MeltdownBeyond question, Pyongyang knows all this. So when they ratchet up the danger level, they’re doing it for some other reason. Explanation No. 1 is that the shooting is part of Pyongyang’s succession problems. The Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Il is in poor health and fading. It appears that he has jumped over his second son and intends to empower his third son instead. This third son, Kim Jong-Un, has some exalted military title and he may be ordering the high-wire military actions to show how tough he is. But there may be an additional explanation. Asia experts think that Pyongyang is taking these actions as the only way it knows of getting our full attention. And what they think Pyongyang wants is to resume the usual negotiations—our concerns regarding their nuclear program and their desires to have more economic assistance. In fact, that has been the message the North Koreans have provided quietly during several recent visits by private American groups. Read more at www.thedailybeast.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gl6h

This is very important for our world. And its only important because of our addiction to oil. Don't get me wrong--it'd be somewhat important with no oil. But with our dependency the powers that be are probably watching this very closely indeed.

Amplify’d from www.thedailybeast.com

Who Will Rule Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia's ailing king just arrived in the U.S. for medical treatment. Bruce Riedel reports on the succession jitters inside the kingdom.

As Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah undergoes critical medical treatment in the U.S., America’s key ally in the Middle East is beginning a very complex and uncertain royal succession process that may take months or even years to fully play out. Both the king and the crown prince suffer from illness and age, the succession after them is unclear and the process has become more complicated by the king’s efforts to introduce more order into what traditionally has been a very opaque process. The kingdom is America’s most critical ally in the Arab world and its stability is vital to American national and global economic security, so the stakes are huge for Americans.

King Abdullah, 86, has ruled since his brother Fahd had a stroke in 1995. For the first few years after the stroke, foreign visitors to the royal palace were still required to call on the only partly lucid Fahd for a cup of tea before walking across the immense green marbled building to the crown prince’s office on its other side to conduct real business. Abdullah would always begin his conversation by reaffirming his loyalty to his brother’s wishes. Fahd died in 2005. The charade was maintained because the stakes in a Saudi royal succession are enormous for the princes involved and because the kingdom prides itself on order, family harmony, and stability.

Now Abdullah has given up one of the key components of his own personal power base, command of the kingdom’s praetorian guards, the National Guard, to his son, Mitab, and flown to the U.S. to check into a hospital. Abdullah has commanded the Guard since 1962. Its forces are the only military allowed near the capital, Riyadh, and the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

“The idea that the entire length and breadth of the land is ruled in the name of a king, who for a decade has no longer known what is going on, is incredible.” – Osama bin Laden

Crown Prince Sultan returned last weekend to the kingdom from almost a year spent recovering from his medical ailments at his palace in Morocco to symbolically step in for the king. Sultan, 85, has been minister of defense and aviation since 1962, but he is said to be in very poor health and can perform only limited duties. He commands the regular army and air force. The symbolic handoff of responsibility takes place during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj, one of the most sensitive times in the country’s annual calendar. This timing suggests the king’s illness is serious.

In 2006, Abdullah created a new institution called the Allegiance Commission to decide the line of succession after Sultan. It is composed of the 35 surviving male heirs, sons and grandsons, of the modern kingdom’s founder, Abd al Aziz al Saud, who will collectively decide future succession.

The kingdom has been ruled since Abd al Aziz’s death in 1953 by his sons. The number of capable and qualified princes is dwindling with time. Three are still widely regarded as potential heirs after Abdullah and Sultan pass away. Minister of Interior Nayif, 77, already holds the position of second deputy prime minister, traditionally the third spot. Nayif and his son Muhammad have overseen the kingdom’s very successful crackdown on al Qaeda internally. The governor of Riyadh, Prince Salman, 71, is probably next in line. He has supervised the growth of the capital from a remote desert town into a major city in the last four decades. The youngest of Abd al Aziz’s sons, Prince Muqrin, 65, is the head of the Saudi intelligence service and the kingdom’s diplomatic trouble shooter. Read more at www.thedailybeast.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gkzc

This is hardly good news.

Amplify’d from www.wallstreetjournal.com

Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices

Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies

An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.

Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald's Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they'll try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.

For food executives, how quickly to pass along higher costs presents difficult choices. Missteps could be costly when the economy remains weak. Many Americans, nervous about high unemployment, have pledged allegiance to their pennies and are willing to trade down on brands, switch supermarkets, opt for Burger King over Applebee's, or stop dining out altogether to save money.

"The big challenge will be, how much can we swallow and how much can we pass along?" said Jack Brown, chief executive of Stater Bros. Markets, a 167-store grocery chain in southern California.

Stater Bros. has seen the prices it pays for cereal rise 5% in recent months. The chain has passed about half the increase on to consumers while making up for the rest by trimming other expenses, such as what it spends on cell phones and delivery truck tires.

Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp. and General Mills Inc. already have said they'll raise prices on certain items. Starbucks Corp. backtracked on an August announcement that it would hold coffee prices steady, saying in September it would boost prices of larger and hard-to-make drinks. This week, cereal maker Kellogg hinted that it will be raising prices, without disclosing specifics.

Grocery chains Safeway Inc. and Kroger have said they'll pass supplier increases along to consumers.

Domino's Pizza Inc. is letting consumers decide whether they're willing to pay more. The company is offering two medium, two-topping pizzas for $5.99 each but has recently offered the option of converting one of them to a premium pizza, with more toppings, for an extra $2—a price increase, in effect.

Costs are being driven by growing demand for meat in China, India and other emerging markets. That's driven up grain prices, which in turn boost the cost of chicken, steak, bread and pasta. Grain prices also have been nudged higher by drought in Russia, planting problems around the world and speculative trading.

Food prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The consumer price index for all items minus food and energy rose 0.8% over the year to September, the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The food index rose 1.4%, however. The U.S. Agricultural Department is predicting overall food inflation of about 2% to 3% next year.

The current pressure is nothing like it was in October 2008, when food prices were rising at an annual rate of 6.3% and some hard lessons were learned when producers passed along those costs: Shoppers switched to private-label products.

For now, Weis Markets Inc., a 164-store grocery chain based in Sunbury, Pa., is holding firm. For the past two years Weis has maintained a "price freeze" on 1,500 staple items. "If we can hold on to the lower prices until the end, and be the last to move up, it's worth being patient," said chief executive David J. Hepfinger.

Kevin Srigley, a senior vice president at grocer Giant Eagle Inc., says, "There is a much stronger sensitivity to price than we've ever experienced, but there are some areas you can't afford not to pass on those costs." Giant Eagle, for instance, has marked up its beef prices to reflect its higher costs.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. executives told investors last month that they expect "very moderate" inflation next year. For now, Jack Sinclair, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of grocery merchandise, said it would be "difficult" to hike retail prices because demand remains weak.

McDonald's chief financial officer Pete Bensen recently told investors he expects costs to rise 2% in the U.S. and 3% in Europe next year.

"The question will be exactly at what point will we be able to take some of that pricing," he said, adding that the burger chain is likely to raise menu prices sometime next year. The last time McDonald's raised menu prices in the U.S. was in the fourth quarter of 2009, with a 1% increase over the year-earlier period.

Worries aren't all on the low-end. Gibsons Bar & Steakhouse, a three-unit chain in the Chicago area, said that in the last four months, the price it pays for a New York Strip steak rose to $23 per pound from $19 per pound. It's reluctant to pass that cost along. "I think there's a ceiling on how much people are willing to pay for a meal and for an individual piece of steak," said Gregg Horan, Gibsons' director of operations.

Others see more wiggle room. Morton's Restaurant Group Inc., which has seen an uptick in business since last year thanks to an increase in business travel, raised menu prices 2% in July. "We believe we have pricing power...and we believe that our guests are flexible and we have the capacity to do that," Morton's CFO Ron DiNella told investors in September.

Ken Harris, a consumer foods-marketing consultant with Kantar Retail, said some food makers are targeting specific, low price points at retail—such as $1—and reconfiguring package sizes and products to fit the price.

That can backfire when commodity costs rise swiftly. Early this year, Ben Tabatchnick, founder of Tabatchnick Fine Foods Inc., a maker of high-end frozen soups, decided to release a new line designed with a suggested retail price lower than his other products. The 11.5-ounce soups, which started appearing in stores nationwide in October, are smaller than his typical 15-ounce Tabatchnick-brand products and carry a price tag of $1.99.

But in the last two months, Mr. Tabatchnick says his costs for vegetable oils, sugar, dried beans and other ingredients jumped 20% to 30%. "It's going to reduce the [profit] margin dramatically on the product," he says. "We're stuck."

Until spring, that is, when his promotional programs with retailers expire and he says he plans to try to push through price increases.

Corrections & Amplifications BJ's Restaurants has been steadily raising prices this year so that by early next year they will be 2.5% higher. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that BJ's planned to increase prices early next year by about 2.5%. Read more at www.wallstreetjournal.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gkyd

This is an awesome article. I want that book.

Amplify’d from www.cnn.com

Is America on the path to 'permanent war'?

Critics says U.S. troops, such as this patrol in Afghanistan, cannot afford to keep fighting perpetual wars around the globe.

CNN -- When the president decided to send more troops to a distant country during an unpopular war, one powerful senator had enough.

He warned that the U.S. military could not create stability in a country "where there is chaos ... democracy where there is no tradition of it, and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life."

"It's unnatural and unhealthy for a nation to be engaged in global crusades for some principle or idea while neglecting the needs of its own people," said Sen. J. William Fulbright, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in 1966 as the Vietnam War escalated.

Fulbright's warning is being applied by some to Afghanistan today. The U.S. is still fighting dubious wars abroad while ignoring needs at home, says Andrew J. Bacevich, who tells Fulbright's story in his new book, "Washington Rules: America's Path To Permanent War."

As the Afghanistan war enters its ninth year, Bacevich and other commentators are asking: When does it end? They say the nation's national security leaders have put the U.S. on an unsustainable path to perpetual war and that President Obama is doing little to stop them.

Bacevich has become a leading voice among anti-war critics. He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army, a former West Point instructor and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

He's also a Boston University international relations professor who offers a historical perspective with his criticism. He says Obama has been ensnared by the "Washington Rules," a set of assumptions that have guided presidents since Harry Truman.

The rules say that the U.S. should act as a global policeman. "Fixing Iraq or Afghanistan ends up taking precedence over fixing Cleveland or Detroit," Bacevich writes.

His solution: The U.S. should stop deploying a "global occupation force" and focus on nation-building at home.

"The job is too big," he says of the U.S. global military presence. "We don't have enough money. We don't have enough troops. There's a growing recognition that the amount of red ink we're spilling is unsustainable."

Thomas Cushman, author of "A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Argument for War in Iraq," says Bacevich is mimicking isolationists who argued before World War II that the U.S. couldn't afford to get involved in other country's affairs.

"No one wants a permanent war, and nobody would argue that our resources could be better spent at home," Cushman says. "But the people we're fighting against have already declared permanent war against us."

Does Obama buy into the "Washington Rules"?

The questions about the Afghanistan War come at a pivotal moment. The Obama administration plans to review its Afghanistan strategy next month.

The president had pledged to start withdrawing some U.S. troops next July. Obama and NATO allies in Afghanistan recently announced that combat operations will now last until 2014.

Those dates matter little to Bacevich.

"Obama will not make a dent in the American penchant for permanent war," he says. "After he made the 2009 decision to escalate and prolong the war, it indicated quite clearly that he was either unwilling or unable to attempt a large-scale change."

Bacevich says the notion that the U.S. military has to stay in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda a sanctuary doesn't "pass the laugh test."

"If you could assure me that staying in Afghanistan as long as it takes will deny al Qaeda a sanctuary anywhere in the world, then it might be worth our interests," he says. "Pakistan can provide a sanctuary. Yemen can provide a sanctuary. Hamburg [Germany] can provide a sanctuary. ''

John Cioffi, a political science professor at University of California, Riverside, says the nation's "increasingly unhinged ideological politics" makes it difficult for the country to extract itself from battles in Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia.

"The U.S. is not on the path to permanent war; it is in the midst of a permanent war," Cioffi says.

Permanent war is made possible by massive defense spending that has been viewed as untouchable. But that may change with the recent financial crisis and the decline of the nation's industry, Cioffi says.

More ordinary Americans might conclude that they can't have a vibrant domestic economy and unquestioned military spending, Cioffi says.

"All this points to a time in the future when the government will no longer have the resources or popular support to maintain what amounts to an imperial military presence around the world," he says.

Yet leaders in the nation's largest political parties may still ignore popular will, says Michael Boyle, a political science professor at La Salle University in Pennsylvania.

"While the public tends to be much more concerned with domestic issues, both the Democratic and Republican foreign policy establishments tend to be more internationalist and outward-looking," Boyle says. "This makes them far more willing to conclude that nation-building missions in Afghanistan are essential to national security."

Birth of the 'Washington Rules'

The debate over permanent war may sound academic, but it's also personal for Bacevich.

His son, a U.S. Army officer, was killed in Iraq, a war he opposes. And Bacevich has written several other books on the limits of American military power, including "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

Bacevich says the Washington Rules emerged when America was exceptional -- right after World War II when a newly empowered U.S. deployed a global military presence to contain communism and spread democracy.

Communism's threat has disappeared, but U.S. leaders continue to identify existential threats to justify the nation's global military empire, Bacevich says.

The cost of that military empire is immense: The U.S. now spends $700 billion annually on its military, as much money as the defense budgets of rest of the world combined, he says.

Bacevich says the Founding Fathers would be aghast. They thought that "self-mastery should take precedence over mastering others."

"It's not that the Founding Fathers were isolationists or oblivious to the world beyond our shores," Bacevich says. "Their reading of history led them to believe that empire was incompatible with republican forms of government and a large standing army posed a threat to liberty."

What Bacevich's critics say

William C. Martel, author of "Victory in War," says the U.S. didn't build a global military presence after World War II out of hubris but because of necessity. Much of the world had been destroyed in 1945.

"We had no option but to be engaged as a global leader," he says. "If we did not stand up to totalitarianism, the world would have been a much worse place."

Martel, an associate professor of international security studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts, says the U.S. must have a global military presence to confront radical groups that seek weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. military may fight in Afghanistan "for years." But it's also been in Germany and Japan for decades, Martel says.

"We have a $14 trillion a year economy," Martel says. "We're spending roughly 4 percent of our GDP on defense. That's historically where we've been for decades. I don't see that as unaffordable."

Permanent war can, perversely, boost the nation's economy, says Jerald Podair, a history professor at Lawrence University in Wisconsin.

After World War II, most observers predicted a return to the Depression, Podair says. But Cold War military spending drove the nation's economy to its longest period of sustained economic expansion in history.

Transferring military money to domestic needs will not stimulate the American economy the same way war spending will, Podair says.

"It is sad to say that 'war is the health of the state,' but during the last 70 years, that has generally proved to be true," Podair says. "Unfortunately, the United States may have to 'fight' its way out of recession, just as it did during World War II and the Cold War."

Obama, though, might fight his way to a presidential defeat in the 2012 election if he doesn't find a way to pull the U.S. off the path to permanent war, Bacevich says.

If Obama is still waging war in Afghanistan in 2012, he'll be in trouble, he says.

"That's going to pose difficulty for him in running for re-election because many of the people who voted for him in 2008 did so because they were convinced that he was going to bring about change in Washington," Bacevich says. "But the perpetuation of war wouldn't amount to change." Read more at www.cnn.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gjr3

The True Story Of Thanksgiving

While the myth of Thanksgiving is a positive way for us American's to realize how privileged we are I believe knowing the origins to this ritual is very important. I believe there is more to it than what this writer wrote--but he still made a good point and maybe for his purposes didn't need to go any deeper. Be thankful for what you have.

Amplify’d from www.huffingtonpost.com

The idea of the American Thanksgiving feast is a fairly recent fiction. The idyllic partnership of 17th Century European Pilgrims and New England Indians sharing a celebratory meal appears to be less than 120 years-old. And it was only after the First World War that a version of such a Puritan-Indian partnership took hold in elementary schools across the American landscape. We can thank the invention of textbooks and their mass purchase by public schools for embedding this "Thanksgiving" image in our modern minds. It was, of course, a complete invention, a cleverly created slice of cultural propaganda, just another in a long line of inspired nationalistic myths.

The first Thanksgiving Day did occur in the year 1637, but it was nothing like our Thanksgiving today. On that day the Massachusetts Colony Governor, John Winthrop, proclaimed such a "Thanksgiving" to celebrate the safe return of a band of heavily armed hunters, all colonial volunteers. They had just returned from their journey to what is now Mystic, Connecticut where they massacred 700 Pequot Indians. Seven hundred Indians - men, women and children - all murdered.

This day is still remembered today, 373 years later. No, it's been long forgotten by white people, by European Christians. But it is still fresh in the mind of many Indians. A group calling themselves the United American Indians of New England meet each year at Plymouth Rock on Cole's Hill for what they say is a Day of Mourning. They gather at the feet of a stature of Chief Massasoit of the Wampanoag to remember the long gone Pequot. They do not call it Thanksgiving. There is no football game afterward.

How then did our modern, festive Thanksgiving come to be? It began with the greatest of misunderstandings, a true clash of cultural values and fundamental principles. What are we thankful for if not - being here, living on this land, surviving and prospering? But in our thankfulness might we have overlooked something? Look what happened to the original residents who lived in the area of New York we have come to call Brooklyn. A group of them called Canarsees obligingly, perhaps even eagerly, accepted various pieces of pretty colored junk from the Dutchman Peter Minuet in 1626. These trinkets have long since been estimated to be worth no more than 60 Dutch guilders at the time - $24 dollars in modern American money. In exchange, the Canarsees "gave" Peter Minuet the island of Manhattan. What did they care? They were living in Brooklyn.

Of course, all things - especially commercial transactions - need to be viewed in perspective. The nearly two-dozen tribes of Native Americans living in the New York area in those days had a distinctly non-European concept of territorial rights. They were strangers to the idea of "real property." It was common for one tribe to grant permission to another to hunt and fish nearby themselves on a regular basis. Fences, real and imagined, were not a part of their culture. Naturally, it was polite to ask before setting up operations too close to where others lived, but refusal in matters of this sort was considered rude. As a sign of gratitude, small trinkets were usually offered by the tribe seeking temporary admission and cheerfully accepted by those already there. It was clearly understood to be a sort of short-term rental arrangement. Sad to say, the unfortunate Canarsees apparently had no idea the Dutch meant to settle in. Worse yet for them, it must have been unthinkable that they would also be unwelcome in Manhattan after their deal. One thing we can be sure of. Their equivalent of today's buyer's remorse brought the Canarsees nothing but grief, humiliation and violence.

Many Indians lived on Long Island in those days. Another Dutchman, Adrian Block, was the first European to come upon them in 1619. Block was also eager to introduce European commercialism and the Christian concept of "real estate" to these unfortunate innocents. Without exception, these Indians too came out on the short end in their dealings with the Dutch.

The market savvy unleashed by the Europeans upon the Indians constituted the first land use policies in the New World. In the 17th Century it was not urban but rather rural renewal. The result was of course the same. People of color with no money to speak of got booted out and the neighborhood which was subsequently gentrified and overrun by white people.

Not far from Manhattan, one tribe of about 10,000 Indians lived peacefully in a lovely spot on a peninsula directly along the ocean. There they fished in the open sea and inland bay. They hunted across the pristine shoreline and they were quite happy until they met a man - another Dutchman - named Willem Kieft. He was the Governor of New Netherland in 1639. These poor bastards were called the Rechaweygh (pronounced Rockaway). Soon after meeting Governor Kieft, they became the very first of New York's homeless.

The people of New Netherland had a lot in common with the people of Plymouth Colony. At least it appears so from the way both of these groups of displaced and dissatisfied Europeans interacted with the local Indians. The Pilgrims in Plymouth had a hard time for the first couple of years. While nature was no friend, their troubles were mostly their own doing. Poor planning was their downfall. These mostly city dwelling Europeans failed to include among them persons with the skills needed in settling the North American wilderness. Having reached the forests and fields of Massachusetts they turned out to be pathetic hunters and incompetent butchers. With game everywhere, they went hungry. First, they couldn't catch and kill it. Then they couldn't cut it up, prepare it, preserve it and create a storehouse for those days when fresh supplies would run low. To compensate for their shortage of essential protein they turned to their European ways and their Christian culture. They instituted a series of religious observances. They could not hunt or farm well, but they seemed skilled at praying.

They developed a taste for something both religious and useful. They called it a Day of Fasting. Without food it seemed like a good idea. From necessity, that single Day became multiple Days. As food supplies dwindled the Days of Fasting came in bunches. Each of these episodes was eventually and thankfully followed by a meal. Appropriately enough, the Puritans credited God for this good fortune. They referred to the fact they were allowed to eat again as a "Thanksgiving." And they wrote it down. Thus, the first mention of the word - "Thanksgiving." Let there be no mistake here. On that first Thanksgiving there was no turkey, no corn, no cranberries, no stuffing. And no dessert. Those fortunate Pilgrims were lucky to get a piece of fish and a potato. All things considered, it was a Thanksgiving feast.

Did the Pilgrims share their Thanksgiving meal with the local Indians, the Wampanoag and Pequot? No. That never happened. That is, until its inclusion in the "Thanksgiving Story" in 1890.

Let the Wampanoag be a lesson to us especially in these troubled economic times. These particular Indians, with a bent for colorful jewelry, had their tribal name altered slightly by the Dutch, who then used it as a reference for all Indian payments. Hence, wampum. Contrary to what we've been shown in our Western movies, this word - wampum - and its economic meaning never made it out of New England.

Unlike wampum, Thanksgiving Day has indeed spread across the continent. It would serve us well to remember that it wasn't until the victorious colonial militia returned from their slaughter of the Pequot that the New Americans began their now time-honored and cherished Thanksgiving.

Enjoy your turkey. Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gg4i

Interesting......

Amplify’d from www.disinfo.com

New Clues In Race To Decode CIA ‘Kryptos’

Jim Sanborn, the artist who created the famous Kryptos sculpture for the CIA, is fed up with people trying — and failing — to decode its encrypted messages. He decided to speed up the process by giving the New York Times some of the answers:

It is perhaps one of the C.I.A.’s most mischievous secrets.

“Kryptos,” the sculpture nestled in a courtyard of the agency’s Virginia headquarters since 1990, is a work of art with a secret code embedded in the letters that are punched into its four panels of curving copper.

“Our work is about discovery — discovering secrets,” said Toni Hiley, director of the C.I.A. Museum. “And this sculpture is full of them, and it still hasn’t given up the last of its secrets.”

Not for lack of trying. For many thousands of would-be code crackers worldwide, “Kryptos” has become an object of obsession. Dan Brown has even referred to it in his novels.

The code breakers have had some success. Three of the puzzles, 768 characters long, were solved by 1999, revealing passages — one lyrical, one obscure and one taken from history. But the fourth message of “Kryptos” — the name, in Greek, means “hidden” — has resisted the best efforts of brains and computers.

And Jim Sanborn, the sculptor who created “Kryptos” and its puzzles, is getting a bit frustrated by the wait. “I assumed the code would be cracked in a fairly short time,” he said, adding that the intrusions on his life from people who think they have solved his fourth puzzle are more than he expected.

So now, after 20 years, Mr. Sanborn is nudging the process along. He has provided The New York Times with the answers to six letters in the sculpture’s final passage. The characters that are the 64th through 69th in the final series on the sculpture read NYPVTT. When deciphered, they read BERLIN.

But there are many steps to cracking the code, and the other 91 characters and their proper order are yet to be determined.

“Having some letters where we know what they are supposed to be could be extremely valuable,” said Elonka Dunin, a computer game designer who runs the most popular “Kryptos” Web page.

None of this was really envisioned when the Central Intelligence Agency planned the expansion known as the New Headquarters Building in the 1980s and asked artists to submit proposals to create a work of art for the courtyard. The broad principles it provided for the $250,000 commission included the notion that it should “engender feelings of well-being, hope.”

The winner was Mr. Sanborn, and the agency introduced him to Edward Scheidt, a retiring C.I.A. cryptographer, who gave him a crash course in the arts of concealing text and helped devise the codes used in the sculpture… Read more at www.disinfo.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/fwho

Oppose the racist English Defence League in Preston

Amplify’d from uaf.org.uk

Oppose the racist English Defence League in Preston

a “protest” in the centre of Preston.

On Saturday 27 November the racist English Defence League intends to hold a “protest” in the centre of Preston.

Where the EDL march and assemble unopposed they have launched attacks on minority and Muslim communities.

In Dudley, Nuneaton and Stoke their presence led to vicious assaults on people because of the colour of their skin. We cannot let this happen in Preston.

Preston UAF and Preston Trades Council are calling on all antiracists and antifascists to join us in the centre of Preston to celebrate our multicultural city, to assert our commitment to antiracism and to let the EDL know they are not welcome here. Read more at uaf.org.uk

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/fwdd