Deporting Sharif may weaken Pakistan's President Musharraf

This is the "democracy" that our retarded president is spending billions of OUR dollars to keep propped up! Just another example of Bush's ignorance and miscalculation that is costing us too much money and making the U.S. LESS safe from terrorism. We all need to ask ourselves, on this anniversary of 9/11, if there is anything that this administration has done that has lead to greater security from terrorism? If you take the time to educate yourselves, you will find that the answer is a resounding 'NO'!!



Deporting Sharif may weaken Pakistan's President Musharraf

By Mian RidgeTue Sep 11, 5:00 AM ET

Only hours after he returned home Monday from seven years in exile, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was arrested and deported to Saudi Arabia. Mr. Sharif had returned intending to challenge Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's troubled, US-backed military rule ahead of national elections due before Jan. 15.

President Musharraf's handling of Sharif's return reveals the difficulty with which a key figure in the US war on terror must navigate the narrowing gap between keeping his tenuous hold on power and permitting a return to free elections.

Despite his overtures toward a power-sharing deal with another former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, it seems certain that Sharif's arrest and deportation will only further weaken Musharraf, whose popularity has been in free fall in recent months.

"It is remarkable how Sharif's return has completely unnerved Musharraf's government," says Talat Masood, a leading analyst and retired Army general. "The state of terrible insecurity it has been thrown into shows how very fragile the state has become."

"Sharif's arrest and deportation is a disastrous development and extremely bad for the future of Pakistan. It's a flagrant violation of the Supreme Court order and shows the state is simply not prepared to listen to the law. It invites anarchy in the country," says Mr. Masood, referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow Sharif to return from exile.

Since Musharraf tried, and failed, to sack Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry earlier this year, the military leader has faced mounting and unprecedented opposition within Pakistan: from the judiciary, from Islamic radicals and from the mainstream parties that have long argued that it is unconstitutional for the president to also be Army chief.

"In the short term Sharif's arrest may help Musharraf; in the long term it won't," says Hassan Askari Rizvi, an independent political analyst and former professor of Pakistan studies at Columbia University in New York.

"Sharif's supporters will go on building pressure. The opposition parties will go on agitating. Musharraf will face more criticism and his popularity will continue to decline. His problems are far from solved," says Dr. Rizvi.

Last week, the Supreme Court began hearing legal challenges, filed by Musharraf's opponents, to his dual role as president and Army chief.

Last month, the United States, which regards him as a key ally in the war against terrorism, forced him to back down from imposing a state of emergency.

His government is also under attack by militants who are believed to have masterminded last week's suicide bombings near the Army headquarters in the city of Rawalpindi that killed 25 people, including staff of the main intelligence agency.

Amid all this, by Oct. 15, Musharraf will try to get reelected by the national and provincial assemblies.

Nawaz Sharif: An unlikely heroSharif, who led Pakistan twice in the 1990s, was toppled in a bloodless coup by Musharraf in 1999 and sentenced to prison on charges of corruption that had long dogged his leadership. But his sentence was commuted in 2000 in a deal brokered by the Saudi royal family. On August 23, Pakistan's Supreme Court ruled that he could fly home.

Shortly after his plane touched down in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, after departing London on Sunday night, Sharif was arrested in the airport's VIP lounge over corruption and money laundering charges. A short while later, with tears in his eyes, he was unceremoniously plunked onto a plane to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Many believe Sharif's arrest and deportation will backfire on Musharraf.

"Sharif's popularity will surge now, because he will be seen as a symbol of resistance to Musharraf," says Rizvi.

Musharraf turned to Ms. Bhutto in the hope that a power-sharing deal would buy him some legitimacy and help him overcome constitutional hurdles to remaining in power.

As Bhutto entered talks with Musharraf, Sharif positioned himself as an independent defender of democracy who would never do business with a military leader. This, despite the fact that Sharif also rose to power with the support of a military ruler, General Zia ul-Huq.

Bhutto, meanwhile, needs Musharraf to drop the many pending corruption charges against her, allowing her to return and fight elections. She also wants Pakistani presidents stripped of the power to dismiss governments and for Musharraf to shed his Army uniform.

In return, her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) would help clear the way for him to run for reelection as president.

Such a deal has been strongly encouraged by the United States and other Western allies in the hope that it would bring stability to Pakistan and help in the fight against terrorism. But it is more likely, say analysts, that US support for talks between Bhutto and Musharraf will only bolster opposition to Musharraf.

This is partly due to amplified anti-American sentiments following Pakistan's cooperation with the US after 9/11. While Bhutto has courted American approval of a pact with Musharraf, Sharif has been cheered in Pakistan for his perceived independence.

'Out of the loop' under MusharrafMasood, the analyst and retired Army general, says that opposition to Musharraf has become a more potent force in Pakistan than anti-Americanism.

"There's been a feeling against Musharraf that has been getting stronger for some time," he says. "People here, whether they are poor or middle class, complain they have no sense of participation in politics, that they feel completely out of the loop."

There was also, he added, some of "the old anti-incumbency factor at play" behind Musharraf's deep unpopularity.

Musharraf's party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, or PML-Q, which was stitched together from remnants of Sharif's party in 1999, has already suffered a raft of defections, and analysts say Sharif's treatment will spark more.

Observers also warn that anti-Musharraf demonstrations are likely to be met with considerable force.

On Sunday, police reportedly detained at least 2,000 members of his party in Pakistan, including its chairman. They blocked all roads into the airport using large vehicles and barbed wire, apparently to prevent the large welcome of which Sharif's party had boasted before his departure. Elsewhere in the city, they fired tear gas at Sharif supporters.

"Worryingly," says Masood, "it seems likely that the government will continue to use force to trample the opposition, as was evident before Sharif's arrival."

Let us not forget....

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

Osama bin Laden
Admitting responsibility for attacks on US on September 11, 2001, on videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004

'a long train of abuses and usurpations....'

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

- Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act

By Edith Honan

A provision of the Patriot Act that requires people who are formally contacted by the FBI for information to keep it a secret is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero sided with the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit and argued that an FBI letter requesting information -- called a National Security Letter -- is effectively a gag order but without the authorization of a judge.

The FBI tells people who receive the letters to keep them secret, but recipients can challenge the secrecy order in court under a 2006 congressional amendment to the NSL law.

The law says judges must defer to the FBI's view that secrecy is necessary, undermining the judiciary's check on the power of the executive branch, the ACLU said.

In a written ruling issued on Thursday, Marrero said the gag order violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and was unconstitutional.

Marrero based his ruling on the seriousness of the potential intrusion on privacy and on "the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association -- particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies."

The U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan is considering an appeal, a spokeswoman said.

Government lawyers had argued that the FBI's need to ensure that targets remained unaware of an investigation outweighed the free speech rights of NSL recipients.

The ACLU brought the lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet access company that received an NSL.

The company filed suit in April 2004. In September 2004 Marrero found the NSL gag violated free speech rights and struck it down as unconstitutional.

The government appealed the ruling, but Congress amended the NSL provision in its reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year before an appeals court could hear the case.

The revised NSL provision -- allowing the gag to be challenged in court -- was then sent back to Marrero.

APPEAL EXPECTED

The FBI dropped its demand for information from the Internet company a year ago, but the gag remained in place.

"The decision reaffirms that the courts have an important and constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer who argued the case.

Marrero prohibited the Justice Department and the FBI from issuing NSLs but delayed enforcement for 90 days pending an expected appeal by the government or congressional action.

The ACLU says more than 143,000 NSLs were issued between 2003 and 2005.

MySpace censorship

For the last 5 or 6 months I have had a series of photos on my MySpace profile showing 3 couples kissing - a gay male couple, a lesbian couple, and a heterosexual couple. When I checked my profile today I discovered that MySpace has replaced the photo of the gay male couple with one of their 'Terms of Service Violation' images. They did not, however, replace the heterosexual or lesbian couple images. None of these pictures show any 'nudity' and, from what I can read, do NOT violate MySpace policy. They are certainly not in the same league as some of the trashy shit you see on some people's profiles. The problem here is quite clearly that it was a picture of two MEN kissing.

I believe that this will be the final straw as far as my participation with MySpace. I will not tolerate this type of cowardly, homophobic censorship. I will be deleting my profile in the very near future. MySpace has been increasingly becoming a buggy, insecure tower of babel anyway, so it won't be hard to pull the plug on it.

Update: The censored picture has been returned to my profile and I will keep putting it back until MySpace deletes me. Fuck them and Rupert Murdoch!! I'll fight those bitches until they pull the plug on me!!! ;)

Johnny Rotten Interview

Johnny Rotten Praises Battling Bands, Trashes Internet Liars

By Eliot Van Buskirk 09.03.07 | 2:00 AM

John Lydon -- aka Johnny Rotten, the legendarily outrageous Sex Pistols singer -- is about to help judge Bodog Music Battle of the Bands, a hard-rocking older brother of American Idol that revises the talent show formula by featuring contestants who write music and play instruments.

During the show's upcoming live finale (Sept. 5 at 7 p.m. PST on Fuse TV), fans will text votes to pick a winner from three bands vying for the top prize -- a $1 million recording contract from the Bodog gambling site's music division.

Lydon recently spoke to Wired News about judging the show, the importance of live music, an apparent lack of innovation on the part of major labels, what went wrong with punk rock, and how the internet is full of liars. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity, but not profanity).

Wired News: What have you been looking for in these bands while judging the show?

John Lydon: Originality, humor and people that can actually cope with pressure. Not at all note-perfect musicality and perfection, but the ability to write a song and believe it and live it. In other words, genuine honesty, and isn't that a shock in the music business? There are three judges, and we all have very different opinions. A couple of bands were voted out very early that I felt shouldn't have been, even though they were young and possibly musically ill-equipped. That's exactly where I began, and I've never looked back.

WN: How do you think The Sex Pistols would have done in this contest?

Lydon: The Sex Pistols would never have turned up. We wouldn't have bothered with it in the first place. And ah, dude, you've got to look at the world differently then, it was a different time.... You'd get seen by playing live in pubs, clubs, bars or anywhere else you could scrounge a quick living. And guess what, we were underage. We weren't allowed to drink in these places, but we were certainly capable of having bottles thrown at us.

I grew up in a world of boo boys (soccer fans who boo games). No matter what we did, it wasn't good enough, and (we played to) generally an older crowd. We eventually brought our own crowd, and changed the world because of it. Generally, the hippie lot from the previous generation were a spiteful bunch of fuckers. They didn't want to share the world with us.

WN: These days, people seem to read only the news that applies to them, and culture is getting more fragmented. Do you think it's still possible for a band to come along and change the world the way the Sex Pistols did?

Lydon: It's a different world, but look: You have to do your part to try to introduce live music -- people who write their own songs being a bit above the rest, you know. Absolutely above the rest of it, because there ain't no Paris Hilton going on in any of this. So, if anyone sneers, or spears, at our little show here, they're doing it for all the wrong reasons. I've had to tolerate two examples this morning (of reporters) trying to compare this show with American Idol. The biggest, fucking most glaring difference is, look -- these people write their own songs. That's it, the end. Alright? It's not, like, clothes horses all trying to be Whitney Houston.

WN: An important distinction for sure. Why do you think people are so into live music these days? This contest is about live music, and last year, concert sales ...

Lydon: Look, if your culture means fuck all in this world, it has to be live!

WN: So it's a reaction to all the computer screens ...

Lydon: Which is utter nonsense. I mean, the genuine roots of culture is folk music. That means: Folk playing it, for folk, live. The so-called alleged "art" of the video -- well, the video has killed the radio star, but the video star killed the live musician, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If all of it, one way or another, is, hopefully, anything like a youth rebellion, believe me -- I'll be one of its major supporters. But there doesn't seem to be anything like that left. There just seems to be no general consensus of energy, of, "We've had enough, and here it is."

WN: Do you think there is anything punk rock about MP3s and digital music, or is it a totally different animal?

Lydon: It's a different animal, and it's a different world, but the two can get along. There's no need to say "no" to everything, but there's many a reason to say "yes" to most things. It's how you absorb them, and not the other way around.

WN: Here's a question from one of our readers, who said, "Nowadays, to express your feelings in public is common. It is crazy to be arrested (for criticizing) the queen."

Lydon: I like the royal family. I think it could be a fun institution. The trouble was, for a few years there, we had a Union Jack stolen from us. Nazism crept into Great Britain. We managed to kick that on its head, and the royal family made some stupid decisions about people like me. They turned their back on the working class, which, frankly, is their bread and butter. We're the true supporters of their institution, and were treated as though we didn't belong. Several statements were made to that end by the royal family, and it all ended a negative way.

In fact, to give you an example, I once did some charity work -- or tried to -- for the Prince Charles trust fund thingy, and the attitude I got off his people was revolting. They just looked down their noses at me. And I was really angry at a man whose work I've really loved and respected, John Cleese. Fawlty Towers was a masterpiece. But when he looked straight at me and had the nerve to ask some (inaudible) next to him, "What's that sort of person doing here?" That's when my stomach turns, do you know what I mean? Like, I'm not good enough even for charity. I've done no harm to no one. In fact, I think I've improved the world. I've opened things up into a lively open debate, which is what they should be, but oddly enough now it's taken me some 30 solid years of work to have to prove that open debate is not negative, it's actually a positive force. I'm misunderstood. I'm not criticizing just to be a cunt -- a vacant, at that. (Lydon sings, "We're so pretty....")

WN: In that spirit of open debate, another reader writes, "Johnny, don't you feel that the type of people who would enter a talent contest in the first place don't really have any talent? All they want is to be famous for fame's sake." What do you make of that?

Lydon: There was every possibility that that's the way this show would end up, in which case I'm the man to stop it! But no, some of these bands are genuinely enjoyable. You've got to be very wary of an audience out there that's jealous as fuck of any of them, of anyone who is on the TV for any reason at all. At least they entered a competition. What do the rest of these sad sacks who sit around criticizing at home do? When you can't join them, and you can't beat them, don't complain about them.

WN: Fair enough.

Lydon: You know what I mean? Be open-minded. Open up. Make room.

WN: I noticed that the battle of the bands site calls the entrants "the best indie bands in America."

Lydon: I wouldn't say these were the best indie bands in America; they're just the ones presented in this competition. The top prize is a million-dollar contract, but that could end up being a booby prize, because, as we know, all record company advances are immediately retractable. Alright? Whoever wins this competition is looking at a million-dollar debt within two seconds.

WN: Yeah, that is a booby prize.

Lydon: Here's how we'll tell if the winners have staying power or not: It's up to the audience. The final show is an audience decision. I'm trying to be as fair and as open as I possibly can, and I hope that is clearly understood. There is no vested interest coming from me at all.

WN: It strikes me that maybe Bodog Music could be a different sort of record company. I mean, they're trying crazy stuff like this ...

Lydon: They're trying, aren't they! For fucksake, who else is? I don't see Warner Bros. or the rest of them making any effort at all. They're just signing up endless rap bands, and we have heard that game, that malarkey. How many more rap acts do we need before we go, "Hang on, I've heard this before!"?

I'm not blowing my own trumpet here, but I made a rap song 20 years ago with Afrika Bambaataa. And I feel the same way about rock clichés or white reggae bands. I want to see a bit of originality. But at least within the confines of pop music, you can have a bit of fun. Pop music I have always loved best. But the more extreme, fascist-led examples of the music business, I tend to detest the most. Punk, when it started out -- we were open for everything from anyone all the time. It very, very quickly mellowed into this tragic misrepresentation of studded leather jackets and arseholes spitting left, right and center and being rude just for the sake of it. The wonderful world of Wallydom.

And yet at the moment, in this battle of the bands, we have this very fine punk band. They aren't the best players, but by god, unlike Green Day, this band actually really enjoy what they are doing.... That doesn't mean they're going to win or lose. But it kind of means they've won already, in their hearts and souls. Do you understand?

WN: Yes. I think I know which one you're talking about, is that Fall From Grace? They struck me as the one that really seems like a band, they cohere like a band.

Lydon: They do, don't they? I like that. But I've had to tear them down from time to time, because they chucked a song in there that really, really was half-hearted, and that's not to be tolerated. Like I said, I grew up in the school of hard knocks, and I had to get my wings, and no one gets to play the spoiled brat and squeak by on me.

WN: Fair enough.

Lydon: Unless there's serious bottom kissing.

WN: I can only imagine what you've had to put up with along those lines during this show.

Lydon: Anyone who's prepared to kiss my bum is well worth a million-dollar contract. I jest.

WN: What do you make of these MP3 blogs that are posting songs, sometimes without permission?

Lydon: I have one major problem with the internet: It's full of liars. There doesn't seem to be any way to answer to people lying about you. Some are good-natured -- mostly it isn't. Mostly it's vicious rumor, gossip and innuendo. I think that's a downscaling of humanity, and we're suffering because of it. It's a terrible thing to see your whole life altered before your very eyes on this stupid, ridiculous, electronic screen.

Swiss deportation policy draws criticism

Print Story: Swiss deportation policy draws criticism on Yahoo! News


Swiss deportation policy draws criticism

By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writer

The campaign poster was blatant in its xenophobic symbolism: Three white sheep kicking out a black sheep over a caption that read "for more security." The message was not from a fringe force in Switzerland's political scene but from its largest party.

The nationalist Swiss People's Party is proposing a deportation policy that anti-racism campaigners say evokes Nazi-era practices. Under the plan, entire families would be expelled if their children are convicted of a violent crime, drug offenses or benefits fraud.

The party is trying to collect the 100,000 signatures needed to force a referendum on the issue. If approved in a referendum, the law would be the only one of its kind in Europe.

"We believe that parents are responsible for bringing up their children. If they can't do it properly, they will have to bear the consequences," Ueli Maurer, president of the People's Party, told The Associated Press.

Ronnie Bernheim of the Swiss Foundation against Racism and Anti-Semitism said the proposal was similar to the Nazi practice of "Sippenhaft" — or kin liability — whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for his or her crimes and punished equally.

Similar practices occurred during Stalin's purges in the early days of the Soviet Union and the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution in China, when millions were persecuted for their alleged ideological failings.

"As soon as the first 10 families and their children have been expelled from the country, then things will get better at a stroke," said Maurer, whose party controls the Justice Ministry and shares power in an unwieldy coalition that includes all major parties.

He explained that his party has long campaigned to make deportation compulsory for convicted immigrants rather than an optional and rarely applied punishment.

The party claims foreigners — who make up about 20 percent of the population — are four times more likely to commit crimes than Swiss nationals.

Bernheim said the vast majority of Switzerland's immigrants are law-abiding and warned against generalizations.

"If you don't treat a complicated issue with the necessary nuance and care, then you won't do it justice," he said.

Commentators have expressed horror over the symbolism used by the People's Party to make its point.

"This way of thinking shows an obvious blood-and-soil mentality," read one editorial in the Zurich daily Tages-Anzeiger, calling for a broader public reaction against the campaign.

So far, however, there has been little popular backlash against the posters.

"We haven't had any complaints," said Maurer.

The city of Geneva — home to Switzerland's humanitarian traditions as well as the European headquarters of the United Nations and the U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR — said the campaign was likely to stir up intolerance.

The UNHCR said the law would run contrary to the U.N. refugee convention, of which Switzerland is a signatory.

But observers say the People's Party's hardline stance on immigration could help it in the Oct. 21 national elections. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports.

"It's certainly no coincidence that the People's Party launched this initiative before the elections," said Oliver Geden, a political scientist at the Berlin Institute for International and Security Affairs.

He said provocative campaigns such as this had worked well for the party in the past.

"The symbol of the black sheep was clearly intended to have a double meaning. On the one hand there's the familiar idea of the black sheep, but a lot of voters are also going to associate it with the notion of dark-skinned drug dealers," said Geden.

The party also has put forward a proposal to ban the building of minaret towers alongside mosques. And one of its leading figures, Justice Minister Christoph Blocher, said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech.

More than 1,800 Iraqis killed in August

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

Civilian deaths rose in August to their second-highest monthly level this year, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press. That raises questions about whether U.S. strategy is working days before Congress receives landmark reports that will decide the course of the war.

At least 81 American service members also died in Iraq during August — an increase of two over the previous month but well below the year's monthly high of 126 in May. American deaths surpassed the 80 mark during only two months of 2006.

U.S. military officials have insisted that the security plan launched early this year have brought a decrease in attacks on civilians and sectarian killings, especially in the Baghdad area, which was the focus of the new strategy.

The top American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, is expected to cite security improvements when he and Ambassador Ryan Crocker submit reports on progress toward stability and national reconciliation to Congress during the week of Sept. 10.

However, figures compiled by the AP from police reports nationwide show that at least 1,809 civilians were killed across the country last month compared with 1,760 in July. That brings to 27,564 the number of Iraqi civilians killed since AP began collecting data on April 28, 2005.

According to the AP count, civilian deaths reached a high point during the wave of sectarian bombings, kidnappings and killings at the end of last year — 2,172 in December and 1,967 in the previous month.

Crocker predicted Saturday there will be no "fundamental or quick change" in the American policy on Iraq and appealed for patience as Congress prepares to receive the reports.

Speaking in Arabic on Iraqi state television, he said the U.S. administration believes Iraqis have made tangible progress — which Congress has demanded as a condition for continued U.S. support.

"Since 2003, there has been a stable policy by the American administration and I don't think there will be a fundamental or quick change in the American policy or stand on Iraq," he said.

Crocker also said Iraqis "and the friends of Iraq" should show patience as the country grapples with its political and security crisis.

"After 35 years of injustice under Saddam Hussein, there are some problems since liberation and the problems of 40 years cannot be solved in a year or two. What is important is that there is progress," he said.

President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, and monthly death tolls began to decline after the new security plan was launched Feb. 14. But civilian death tolls have been creeping back toward levels approaching those during the worst of the sectarian slaughter.

AP figures show May was the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians this year, with 1,901 people killed in political or sectarian violence.

The August total included 520 people killed in quadruple suicide bombings on communities of Yazidis, a Kurdish-speaking religious minority, near the Syrian border. The horrific attacks made Aug. 14 the deadliest day since the war began in March 2003.

Despite the high nationwide totals, Petraeus was quoted Friday as saying the troop increase has sharply reduced sectarian killings in Baghdad, which accounted for most of the deaths during the wave of Sunni-Shiite slaughter at the end of last year.

"If you look at Baghdad, which is hugely important because it is the center of everything in Iraq, you can see the density plot on ethno-sectarian deaths," Petraeus was quoted by The Australian newspaper.

"It's a bit macabre but some areas were literally on fire with hundreds of bodies every week and a total of 2,100 in the month of December '06, Iraq-wide. It is still much too high but we think in August in Baghdad it will be as little as one quarter of what it was," the newspaper quoted Petraeus as saying.

Petraeus gave no figures. An AP partial count of Baghdad deaths between Aug. 1 and Aug. 21 showed at least 508 civilians had been killed in the capital — compared with at least 1,772 civilians slain here during December.

Deaths went down in Baghdad during August in part due to a strict vehicle ban imposed on the city during a major Shiite religious ceremony. Violence dropped dramatically during the Aug. 8-12 ban.

Although American forces have been successful in curbing major suicide bombings, stopping small scale atrocities has proven more challenging.

On Saturday, gunmen stormed a house in the Dora district, seizing three women and a man. The gunmen killed two of the women about yards away and fled with the two other victims, a policeman said on condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to release the information.

The U.S. command expressed hope Saturday that an order by powerful Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr stand down his Mahdi Army fighters for up to six months would curb attacks on civilians and allow American troops to step up the fight against al-Qaida.

"If implemented, al-Sadr's order holds the prospect of allowing coalition and Iraqi security forces to intensify their focus on al-Qaida in Iraq and on protecting the Iraqi population," the U.S. command said in a statement.

Sunni Arab leaders have accused the Mahdi Army for massacring thousands of Sunnis during the last three years and driving tens of thousands of others from their homes.

Many Shiites see the militia as their best protection against Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida, which have carried out similar attacks on Shiites.

However, Mahdi's credibility has been shaken by allegations of extortion, murder, robbery and other crimes committed by members who appear to be beyond the control of the youthful al-Sadr, who said he would use the six-month hiatus to restructure the force "in a way that helps honor the principles for which it was formed."

The U.S. maintains that some of the breakaway factions, which the Americans refer to as the "special groups," are receiving weapons, training and money from Iran, a charge the Iranians deny.

American troops have been stepping up operations against Shiite "special groups" in the Baghdad area, even though the command insists that al-Qaida, a Sunni group, remains the top priority in Iraq.

Leaflets scattered around Sadr City urged people to report on Shiite militants who are cooperating with the Iranians, providing a cell phone number and an e-mail address for people to make anonymous tips.

"The criminal Iraqis who work with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are toys under Persian control," read one of the leaflets, which pictured a puppet dancing on strings. "Iranian Revolutionary Guards are interfering in Iraq's affairs while Iraqis are dying."

IBM Stores Data on Single Atoms

New nanotech breakthroughs have enabled IBM to measure magnetic fields at an atomic level and to build transistor-like switches from a single molecule.

Ben Ames, IDG News Service

Friday, August 31, 2007 12:00 PM PDT

IBM Corp. has demonstrated how to perform certain computer functions on single atoms and molecules, a discovery that could someday lead to processors the size of a speck of dust, the company said Thursday.

Researchers at IBM's Almaden Research Center in California developed a technique for measuring magnetic anisotropy, a property of the magnetic field that gives it the ability to maintain a particular direction. Being able to measure magnetic anisotropy at the atomic level is a crucial step toward the magnet representing the ones or the zeroes used to store data in binary computer language.

In a second report, researchers at IBM's lab in Zurich, Switzerland, said they had used an individual molecule as an electric switch that could potentially replace the transistors used in modern chips. The company published both research reports in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The new technologies are at least 10 years from being used for components in commercial products, but the discoveries will allow scientists to take a large step forward in their quest to replace silicon, said IBM spokesman Matthew McMahon.

To build faster, smaller chips, IBM and other chip vendors like Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. have shrunk the dimensions of chip features from 90 nanometers to 65nm in the current generation of chips and plan to continue to 45nm and 32nm in coming years. The problem is that wires built from silicon tend to leak more electricity at each step on that scale, and will eventually reach a limit where they are no longer useful.

"Across all our areas of nanotechnology research, we're trying to determine the new kinds of materials we can use in computing when silicon reaches its fundamental limits. The ultimate goal is molecular-level computers, but the interim products will probably be hybrids with current technology, using things like carbon nanotubes," McMahon said.

IBM defines nanotechnology as work done at a scale of 100nm or smaller. At that scale, scientists must use a tool called the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to photograph and manipulate individual atoms, as they did in their latest research. Their next challenge is to find a way to make these laboratory demonstrations work at room temperature, he said.

Having measured the magnetic anisotropy of a single atom, "their next step is finding atoms that can do it at stable temperatures that are suitable for storage devices. If they can find that, it's still a decade out from commercialization," he said.

The Zurich researchers also developed a technique for using a molecule containing two hydrogen atoms as a switch, either on its own or with an adjacent molecule. They are now looking to apply the method to many other molecules, enabling the system to work as a collection of logic gates, the building blocks of microprocessors.

Even if the teams reach those goals, they must find a way to manufacture the systems on a large scale, instead of moving single atoms with the STM. One possibility is to use the process of self-assembly, where atoms under certain conditions will naturally form the desired shapes. In May, IBM said it had used that approach to insulate the wires on a chip by creating trillions of tiny, vacuum-filled holes around each one.

Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims

Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims - New York Times

August 31, 2007


Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed Thursday that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”

The disclosure, by Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales was under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony. The committee’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, had requested the inquiry this month.

For weeks, lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether Mr. Gonzales told the truth in sworn statements to Congress on a number of issues, including his involvement in efforts to preserve the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without warrants, as well as his role in last year’s dismissals of several United States attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons.

It was not clear if the investigation by the inspector general was tied to Mr. Gonzales’s announcement on Monday that he was resigning from the Justice Department, effective next month. He has offered no details for the reasoning behind his resignation or its timing, and his announcement caught top aides by surprise.

A spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, Erik Ablin, said Thursday that the attorney general had no immediate comment on the inquiry. Nor would Mr. Ablin address the specific accusations of possible false statements by Mr. Gonzales that have been cited by Senator Leahy and other Democrats.

Mr. Gonzales has insisted that he has always tried to be truthful in his Congressional testimony. After his honesty was repeatedly challenged at a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Mr. Gonzales declared, “The attorney general of the United States should try to meet the highest standard, and I have tried to meet that standard.”

Mr. Fine’s letter gives no suggestion that he has evidence to show that Mr. Gonzales has made false statements. It does show that Mr. Fine, who has broad discretion to choose what issues to investigate, does not reject the questions about the attorney general’s truthfulness out of hand and will continue to look into them after Mr. Gonzales leaves the department.

Congressional officials said it would have been unusual for Mr. Fine to refuse to investigate, given the interest of Senator Leahy and other powerful lawmakers.

Mr. Gonzales was already known to be a focus of investigations by Mr. Fine into the propriety of the Justice Department’s involvement in the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and the firing of United States attorneys last year.

The inspector general’s office does not have the ability to bring criminal charges. If Mr. Fine finds credible evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing by Mr. Gonzales or his senior aides, precedent indicates that he will refer the information to criminal prosecutors, possibly at the quasi-independent public integrity division of the Justice Department.

The White House said Thursday that it was continuing to weigh candidates to succeed Mr. Gonzales and was unlikely to announce a nominee until after President Bush travels to Australia for a meeting next week with government leaders from Asia and the Pacific. He is scheduled to return on Sept. 9.

In a letter to Mr. Fine on Aug. 16, Senator Leahy formally requested that the inspector general’s office open an investigation of possible perjury by Mr. Gonzales.

In his letter on Thursday responding to the senator, Mr. Fine wrote that he had “ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified” and that “we believe that through those investigations and other O.I.G. reviews, we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise.”

Mr. Fine noted that Senator Leahy had requested an inquiry into whether “statements made by the attorney general were intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.” The inspector general offered no timeline for the inquiry.

Mr. Leahy said in a statement he welcomed Mr. Fine’s decision to investigate. “It is appropriate that the inspector general will determine whether the attorney general was honest with this and other Congressional committees,” he said.

Several other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made a separate request this summer to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to appoint an independent prosecutor to review perjury accusations against the attorney general.

Mr. Clement has not publicly replied to their request, and he may now be able to cite the newly disclosed inspector general’s investigation in arguing against the need for an independent counsel for now. The White House announced this week that after Mr. Gonzales’s departure, Mr. Clement will serve as acting attorney general until a new one is confirmed by the Senate.

Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

Print Story: Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa on Yahoo! News


Judge: Same-sex couples can wed in Iowa

By DAVID PITT, Associated Press Writer

A county judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson's ruling.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.

Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom on the form and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride.

"I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon and expected a rush of applications Friday.

County attorney John Sarcone said the county will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and immediately sought a stay from Hanson that would prevent gay couples from seeking a marriage license until the appeal is resolved. The Supreme Court could refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear it.

A hearing is likely to be held on the stay motion next week, said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.

Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, though nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dennis Johnson, the lawyer for the six gay couples who sued in 2005 after they were denied marriage licenses, had argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

On the Road at 50

Commentary by Tony Long

Culture : Lifestyle

On the Road at 50 Remains an Anthem for the 'Crazy Ones'

Sal Paradise knew what it meant to be young, with no money in your pockets but no obligations either, completely at loose ends. It meant you were free. Even if you were also a bit lost.

Paradise is the autobiographical protagonist in On the Road, Jack Kerouac's exuberant, stream-of-consciousness novel that celebrates its 50th anniversary next week. With shiftless soulmate Dean Moriarty (based on Kerouac's own real-life pal Neal Cassady) leading the way, Paradise crisscrosses America on the ultimate road trip, a pursuit of enlightenment and kicks splashed across a canvas of easy sex and dago red nights with some poetry and bennies thrown in and a cool solo saxophone playing in the background.

On the Road has spoken to every generation since it appeared, and it's still got plenty to say in a society where consumer conformity is sold as rebellion by savvy marketers and the tyranny of the pop-culture machine smothers any truly iconoclastic voice.

Although not published until 1957, the book was set in the late '40s and written in the early '50s -- then, as now, troubled, conflicted times in the United States. On the one hand, this country had emerged from World War II as its clearest winner. We were, by far, the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

But then the Russians got the bomb, and we all got scared. All those backyard bomb shelters aside, though, we had plenty of our own demons to deal with right here. The war may have established American hegemony, but it also shook the country's social structure to its core.

Women who had tasted the workplace for the first time were now sent home, as the men came back to reclaim their jobs. A lot of those gals didn't want to go, and a lot of the boys coming home decided that "home" wasn't necessarily where they wanted to be: Soldiers and sailors had discovered that an entire world existed outside the confines of their hometowns. Blacks who had left the largely rural South during the war, looking for work in northern factories and shipyards, found themselves marooned in urban ghettos, feared and despised.

A largely static, stifled prewar population had scattered to the four winds.

The '50s, to a large extent, were about the establishment trying to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube. In the end, it couldn't be done. The result was a creeping estrangement between the old order and a growing number of Americans who felt alienated in their own country.

The Beat movement was a conspicuous manifestation of this alienation, and if Allen Ginsberg was its literary heart, Kerouac was its soul. On the Road was -- and remains today -- an eloquent, if unpolished, anthem for the dispossessed, the outsider, the one who doesn't quite fit in.

Kerouac himself never fit in, although he spent a good part of his life trying to. He died young and unhappy, but to measure On the Road against the bitterness of its author's life is to miss the point. The novel is about the yearning for freedom. What you do with that freedom once you've attained it ... well, that's up to you. It was then. It is now.

Whether Kerouac was a "great" writer is certainly debatable (define "great," for starters); that he was one of America's most influential writers is beyond dispute. On the Road, at 50, sells more copies in a given year than most new fiction does, so it evidently still strikes a chord somewhere.

Kerouac gets kicked around pretty good in academia and by other writers, mostly East Coast snoots who wrinkle their noses at the idea of automatic writing. It was Truman Capote, remember, who dismissed Kerouac with one of the bitchiest literary putdowns of all time: "That's not writing, that's typing."

Without a doubt, writing on a scroll in a nonstop, three-week frenzy of Benzedrine-fueled inspiration doesn't represent the height of literary craft. But On the Road is a banshee cry for freedom, not pop literature, so in this case Kerouac's improvisation thoroughly guts Capote's measured prose.

While you're digesting that morsel, try this one: On the Road is as deserving of a place in the geek's literary canon as anything penned by Tolkien, Gibson or Dick. Kerouac didn't invent alien civilizations or futuristic worlds, but he helped break down the walls of convention in the real one. If the modern geek is the maverick he often claims to be, then he owes at least a cursory nod backward to a genuine maverick, one who helped pave the way while on a hopeless struggle to find himself.

Fifty years along, On the Road still resonates for those of us possessed of a restless spirit, who see gray conformity as spiritual death, who place the value of the individual above the mere possession of things. For us, Sal Paradise's odyssey stands as the antidote -- and as a warning to keep a close watch on our souls.

"sigh...can you hear me now?"

I am reposting this blog from one of the people on my MySpace friends list because I think it is very good and brings up some points which I also feel strongly about. I would highly recommend checking out this person's blogs. Her MySpace profile is here - http://www.myspace.com/danielleabreu


sigh...can you hear me now?

I guess the trailer park disease is spreading in the country faster then we expected. Last night I heard one of the most disturbing facts ever, followed by a even more disturbing comment by a busty "Britney Spears" type imbecile masked as a Miss Teen USA wanna be. During last week's pageant, Miss South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton was asked why one-fifth of Americans couldn't find USA on a map.

"I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps," she said tentatively. ( or brains for that matter)

She also made random references to South Africa, "Asian countries" and "the Iraq", and said they needed support from the American educational system. (yeah, Im sure people in "the Iraq"...so many comments so little space. Think of this one as an ad lib)

I don't know where to even begin on what's wrong with that statement. Let me just vent one comment though, she came in 4th place. This moron was placed in consideration as an option to lead other upcoming trailer park hopefuls. No wonder darwinistic ideology never catches on in certain parts of the country. Their completely content with their elected leaders in all fields scrapping by with the bare minimum. It's encouraged. If i ever hear one defensive comment that pageants winners are doing it for scholarships, and their Mother Teresa type mission charities etc. so help me god, and I'm not even that religious. Anyways, this morning while reading an article in The Star Ledger of the latest U.S made disaster in Iraq, things made sense. How in world is this uneducated blond Koolaid suppose to speak sense and understanding, when degree carrying "journalists" can't decipher the difference between civilians and insurgents. Do they even know what insurgency means. Here's a tidbit of the article:

..." Some 30 masked Insurgents attacked a U.S. outpost Sunday, triggering the gun battles that ended when a U.S. Jet bombed a house where a gunmen had taken refuge. In addition to the dead, 14 insurgents were captured, the military said.

Iraqi officials said eight people were killed in the house bombing. Police and hospital officials identified the dead as Mohammed Adbul-Wahab, his mother, wife, and five of his young children. U.S. Military spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly told the associated Press he had reports of two civilian casualties, a male and a female who were in a taxi during the initial fire-fight.

"Any civilian casualties are truly regrettable, but it is important to understand that our forces are there to secure the people of Samarra and bring then peace, not bring them harm like the insurgents did," Donnelly said."...

I better see a proper detraction on this. Where do I even begin. They start the article saying that the "insurgents" attacked specifically U.S troops at an american outpost not civilians in the area, and the americans in self defense (obviously) attack back, and kill a family of 8 because 1 gunman was hiding out on their property, and all this is for civilian protection interests. I don't know about you, but doesn't common sense tell you that if the american troops weren't there, these so called insurgence might not have been in attack mode, and maybe these poor civilians would have had a chance. And I don't know about you, but I've seen cops before, and when one of those felons go running into someone's yard or house they don't bomb the whole house. They usually tend to go in their guns drawn and mortal combat that shit, for lack of a better reference.

But this is just another problem of these young products of the No Child Left Behind Generation. To them All Iraqis are the enemies. And to kill 8 civilians and children because of 1 person seems to not even get a one breath hesitation. And for the "journalist" who wrote this not to concentrate on what's written between the lines and not question actions and statements that are unjust is just as appalling and dangerous to the world as the actions from the actual perpetrator. Keeping the ignorance factor a float seems like the new journalistic theme of this century.

And side note... if i hear one more michael vic story.....yes it's a sad tragedy what he did to dogs. I have two furry daughters and i can't imagine my world without them. But to bring more attention to this then to human civilian lives, or the lack of progress in the Gulf coast, or the horrible flooding in India where people are trapped in flood made island situations without access to food or water, just proves my 'America Has Lost Common Sense Theory'. At this point its past a theory or hypothesis, I am pretty much sure the book on this is in. The jig is up.

Today is the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings famous "I have a dream speech." He's probably rolling in his grave as I write this. But here is a small excerpt that i've always liked.

'We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.'

New misgivings on wiretap law

Some Democrats regret updating FISA to expand the NSA's ability to tap American calls.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

The administration's warrantless wiretapping program looks set to be the subject of renewed and bitter wrangling between Congress and the White House when lawmakers return to Washington in September.

And this upcoming battle promises to be far more complex than a run-of-the-mill dispute over an agriculture bill, say, or tax legislation. The law in this area is unusually dense and difficult. The underlying activity is classified. One of the key administration figures dealing with the issue is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, an official in whom many in Congress have little trust.

"Essentially, it's a difficult situation to have a rational conversation on the merits," says Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The expanded snooping powers of the National Security Agency (NSA) have been controversial ever since they became public in 2006. To critics, the program opens the door to the possibility of dangerous infringement on the civil liberties of US citizens. To supporters, they're a necessary tool against terrorism in an era of cellphones and Internet communications.

At issue now is the temporary update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed earlier this month, just before Congress fled Capitol Hill for its summer break. This update was made necessary when the secretive judicial body that oversees the wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, banned eavesdropping on foreigners whose communications were being routed through the United States.

The legal update, which expires in six months, allows the NSA to resume siphoning such communications. In one of its key changes, US intelligence no longer needs to know that at least one of the parties to a communication is abroad prior to eavesdropping. It needs only to "reasonably believe" that one person is off US soil.

In the weeks since this bill's passage some Democrats have begun to regret the manner in which it was approved. They feel the vote was held in haste, with summer break looming. And they've started to worry that by changing just a few words in a massive piece of law they've opened the door to practices they did not intend.

Some civil liberties experts believe that the US may now be able to gather a wide range of information from US citizens on home soil without a warrant as long as it bears upon the monitoring of a person thought to be overseas.

Nor do many lawmakers like the fact that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is one of the key officials who will determine how the new rule is put into practice.

The bottom line: The vote will likely be revisited.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D) of Michigan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) of California wrote that "Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six-month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken."

In addition, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Aug. 20 threatened to pursue contempt charges against the administration over its reluctance to produce documents outlining the eavesdropping's legal foundation.

Senator Leahy subpoenaed the NSA, the National Security Council, and the offices of the president and vice president for these papers in late June. They are necessary, he says, so that the Senate can understand better exactly what it's voting for in regard to warrantless wiretapping.

White House counsel Fred Fielding has asked for more time to respond. In an Aug. 20 letter to Leahy, however, he noted that the White House had identified a "core set" of these papers that it would likely withhold under a claim of executive privilege.

Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, indicated that they had found more than 40 "Top Secret/Codeword Presidential authorizations" and memoranda dealing with the issue.

"When the Senate comes back in session, I'll bring it up before the committee," Leahy said at a press conference. "I prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there's no question that they are in contempt of a valid order of the Congress."

In regard to the subpoenaed documents, both sides have strong arguments for their positions, notes one legal expert.

Congress is directly legislating on the subject. In fact, eavesdropping legislation "is a critically important item on the congressional agenda," notes Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Yet courts have generally favored claims of executive privilege when they deal with issues of national security. And any move to hold the White House in contempt of Congress over the withheld documents would be slow going.

"It's hard to see that moving very far even this year," says Mr. Tobias.

Lindsay Lohan Reaches Plea Deal

This really pisses me off! I know far better people than this ignorant, arrogant little tramp whose lives have been ruined for lesser charges than she faced. And we collectively wring our hands and wonder why we have a drug problem in this country, when we give a free pass to one of the reigning princess' of the current 'brat pack'?! For some completely incomprehensable reason this woman is apparently a 'role model' to many young girls and this is the message we send them?!


Lindsay Lohan Reaches Plea Deal, Will Serve One Day In Jail; 'I Relapsed,' Actress Says

August 27, 2007

Lindsay Lohan reached a plea deal Thursday (August 23) on misdemeanor DUI and drug charges that will find her spending one day in jail, serving 10 days of community service and completing a drug-treatment program, according to The Associated Press. She will not stand trial.

Through her lawyer, Lohan pleaded guilty to two counts of being under the influence of a controlled substance (cocaine), and no contest to two counts of driving with a blood-alcohol level above .08 percent and one count of reckless driving. Two DUI counts were dropped, and all the charges are misdemeanors -- a lucky break for the actress, as felony charges could have landed her in jail for more than a year.

Lohan was placed on 36 months probation and will be required to complete an 18-month alcohol-education program and pay hundreds of dollars in fines. She must also finish a three-day county coroner program that will require her to visit a morgue and talk to victims of drunken drivers.

"It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs," Lohan wrote in a statement released to MTV News. "Recently, I relapsed and did things for which I am ashamed. I broke the law, and today I took responsibility by pleading guilty to charges in my case.

"No matter what I said when I was under the influence on the day I was arrested, I am not blaming anyone else for my conduct other than myself," the statement continues. "I thank God I did not injure others. I easily could have. I very much want to be healthy and gain control of my life and career and have asked for medical help in doing so. I am taking these steps to improve my life. Luckily, I am not alone in my daily struggle and I know that people like me have succeeded. Maybe with time it will become easier. I hope so."

Lohan's cocaine charges stem from a small packet of cocaine police discovered in her jeans when she was arrested on July 24 in Santa Monica, California. According to prosecutors, the amount of cocaine found tested below the .05 grams required to qualify for a felony filing. After a May 26 crash — in which Lohan is alleged to have lost control of her Mercedes and crashed into a tree on Sunset Boulevard at 5:26 a.m. — tests on a substance found in Lohan's purse came up as .04 grams of cocaine powder, according to a press release on the charges from the DA's office.

During her second arrest — for allegedly chasing another car driven by the mother of a former assistant — officers found a container on Lohan that tested positive for .02 grams of cocaine, according to the DA office press release.

Lohan is currently at the Cirque Lodge treatment center in Sundance, Utah, where she has been ordered to stay indefinitely.