Kroger Ltd.: Typo on Ochocinco cereal sends callers to sex line

It's too bad the article didn't print the two phone numbers, I'd like to see if it was really a typo or if some ad designer at Kroger's was playing a game.

Either way, whoever is supposed to proofread ad copy should be fired.

Typo on Ochocinco cereal sends callers to sex line:
CINCINNATI -- Charity-minded callers are getting intercepted by a phone-sex line because of a typo on Chad Ochocinco's cereal boxes.

The phone number is supposed to connect callers to Feed the Children, which benefits from sales of the Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver's cereal. But the box has the wrong toll-free prefix, meaning callers get a seductive-sounding woman who makes risque suggestions and then asks for a credit card number.

Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. said Thursday it was pulling all Ochocinco cereal boxes from its grocery shelves because of the error. Some local stores had them on special display after the launch about a month ago.

Pittsburgh-based PLB Sports Inc., which specializes in limited-edition products featuring star athletes and their favorite charities, apologized for the error in a statement Thursday. The statement said the boxes will be re-issued with the correct toll-free number.

Ochocinco told WCPO-TV that the number was clearly a mistake and he's sure that the maker will fix the problem.

As of Thursday afternoon, he hadn't mentioned the error in any of his frequent messages on the Twitter social media site. On Wednesday, he had urged fans to go to his website to order the cereal and "Start your day with a lil suga!!!"

Various travel stupidities...

I don't know if these count as stupidities or just cheapness, but they are annoying nevertheless.

I'm driving my elderly, deaf, mobilility-challenged mother to Wyoming via Texas, so she can visit her sister who lives there. So this is not a picnic.

I'm currently driving through the state of Tennessee, on W40.

My mom wanted to stop at some souvenir shop to pick up a cup or something. I didn't want to do this in Nashville, which is a large city. I'm using Yahoo driving directions and I don't want to get too far off the beaten track. Too many one way streets and strange dead ends and traffic in big cities. So, I figured I'd get her one in a small city.

So we're driving along, and I see a sign for a particular city. There's also a blue sign that says "Tourist Info." So I'm thinking, well, I'll go to this "Tourist Info" place, and maybe they'll have cups and t-shirts on sale.

So, I get off the interstate and follow the signs. There's exactly one. Just as the exit road comes to the city road, there's a sign pointing to the right. So I turn, and expact to see a Tourist Info building on my right, within a mile or so. Not so. I'm driving, and I'm driving, and I don't see anything. Finally I figure out that it must be in the middle of the city - and frankly I don't have time to spend 15 minutes driving into a city to find a Tourist Info place that may or may not have what I want. Also, it's taking me further from the highway, and since I have a bad sense of direction, this makes me nervous. What if, as I get further into the city, there's yet more arrows pointing to yet more roads, until I'm thoroughly confused?

So I turned around while I had a chance and got back on the highway.

What they should have, on these tourist info signs, is the mileage of how far away the attraction or tourist info place is.

Why do I say attraction?

Well, a similar thing happened an hour or so later. I see a sign that says, Tennessee's largest independent book store, next exit. So I take that exit. And then, nothing. No more signs. And I'm driving past an outlet mall, but then, nothing but grass on either side of the road. So, is this road going to take me deep into a city to find this bookstore? How deep into the city? I wanted to spend 30 minutes browsing in a book store, I don't have 30 minutes to waste looking for the place, first.

If the mileage had been on the sign, I could have made my decision then, did I have time to go to it.

So that's pretty annoying. And of course it can't be changed -- that would cost money the state probably doesn't have. But you'd think they'd have put the mileage on these signs when they first did them.

Bait and Switch
Then, as I was driving down this road that had the outlet mall, I see a sign that says "Tourist Info." Now, when you see a sign like that, you think you're going to get a big building with a clerk who can give you touirst info. Or, if its inside a mall like this was supposed to be, you'd still get a clerk.

No so. What I saw were two small racks, one empty, one full of brochures. The one that was empty said "This space for rent." So soon, this "Tourist info" place will only have one rack!

But in any event, it was underwhelming. When you have two state-put-up blue signs saying "Tourist Info" you're expecting more than a single 5 X 5 rack of brochures.

What I'm thinking is that there was a large tourist info office in there, but that it closed and the two racks were put there so the city wouldn't have to take down the blue signs. But, it was underwhelming. And, there was no brochure for the Sherlock bookstore, so that establishment struck out again.

Military (In)Justice - This Needs to Be Fixed

Not guilty, but stuck with big bills, damaged career
By Stan Godlewski for USA TODAY

Robert Morris, then a lieutenant colonel, was cleared on charges of conspiring to divert government medical gear for his non-profit. His mother, Lillian, 86, mortgaged her house to help him pay legal bills.

A judge had a warning for the Justice Department lawyers who accused Army Lt. Col. Robert Morris of conspiring to steal military supplies: The case could be "ill-advised." A nearly two-year Army probe had cleared him. And another U.S. attorney's office had declined to prosecute.
The cost of fighting federal charges could "take the guy's life savings away," the judge added.

Prosecutors went ahead, anyway. The judge's prediction was right — a jury needed only 45 minutes to find Morris not guilty. By then, though, his career had derailed. His parents had mortgaged their home to help with $250,000 in legal bills. He had drained his own savings.

The government he had served in uniform for decades could have compensated Morris for some of the losses. A 1997 law requires the Justice Department to repay the legal bills of defendants who win their cases and prove that federal prosecutors committed misconduct or other transgressions.


RARE VICTORY: Va. bankers beat government twice
VIDEO: One man's story of beating the government
EXPLORE CASES: Investigate the misconduct cases we ID'd
JUSTICE IN BALANCE: Prosecutors' conduct can tip the scales
FULL COVERAGE: Federal prosecutors series

But Morris didn't get anything from Washington. It took a gift from a Texas billionaire to help the Morris family pay off part of the debts.

The law, known as the Hyde Amendment, was intended to deter misconduct and compensate people who are harmed when federal prosecutors cross the line. A USA TODAY investigation found the law has left innocent people like Morris coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases.

USA TODAY documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet USA TODAY found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded.

The Hyde Amendment did nothing for Morris, whose claim was dismissed by a judge who nonetheless criticized prosecutors and said they had "lost sight of the objective — justice."

It did nothing for Daniel Chapman, a lawyer who lost his job and had to sell his house to pay $275,000 in legal bills fighting a securities fraud case a judge threw out for "flagrant" prosecutorial misconduct.

And it did nothing for Michael Zomber, an antiques dealer who spent two years in prison and paid more than $1 million in attorney fees before his fraud conviction was thrown out.

The Justice Department, which fought the Hyde Amendment from the day it was proposed, nearly always resists efforts to win compensation, no matter how egregious a prosecutor's conduct might have been. Defense lawyers contend that the scarcity of compensation wins, amid a rise in misconduct charges, shows the law's not working.

"The Hyde Amendment is practically a useless tool for dealing with prosecutorial misconduct," said Jon May, a Miami lawyer who co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' white-collar crime committee. For a defendant to win, "the standard is so high that a prosecutor practically has to know" in advance "that his case is so meritless that it is unlikely to get a conviction."

USA TODAY found the government is seldom forced to pay because:

• Many defendants don't apply. The wealthy and those so poor they had court-appointed lawyers don't qualify. Others hold back because they'd have to spend time and money in court and pursue a new civil action against the government after winning their criminal cases. The investigation identified just 92 Hyde Amendment compensation cases since the law's enactment.

• Some defendants are pressured by federal prosecutors to give up their right to seek repayment in exchange for lenient plea bargains or getting their cases thrown out.

• Even those who seek compensation face what an appeals court called the "daunting obstacle" of proving, sometimes in another trial, that prosecutors wronged them. Congress deliberately set a high legal standard to qualify for payment: To win, a defendant must prove a prosecution had been "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." But the House and the Senate never held committee hearings that could have defined that standard.

An anonymous tip

The case against Morris began in 1999 with an anonymous tip to a Department of Defense hot line. The caller said the infantry officer had diverted $7 million of surplus medical equipment from a Marine Corps base in Albany, Ga., just south of his own post at Fort Benning.

Morris, now 54, was a decorated combat veteran and logistics expert. Superiors often had praised his ability to work his way through complex military supply rules and get the job done. He played a role, for example, in ex-Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's 1990 surrender to U.S. troops. When commanders decided to use deafening music to force Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, Morris quickly found and set up a sound system.

Morris' defense team said the medical supplies were intended to help a charity he had founded open health clinics in Rwanda. The non-profit, Partners International Foundation, had been approved by Army brass and had never paid Morris.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division and the Defense Logistics Agency probed the charges and gave a report to Army Maj. Gen. John Le Moyne, the Fort Benning commander. Le Moyne issued a February 2001 decision that cleared Morris, finding that he didn't violate military law, hadn't lied and didn't misappropriate government property. "There was no theft," the decision stated.

Dissatisfied, the Defense Logistics Agency took its findings to the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, Ga., which declined to prosecute. The agency then turned to the U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. In March 2001, a grand jury there indicted Morris on a theft conspiracy charge.

U.S. District Court Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas voiced doubts about the case. He said it looked as if investigators had shopped it to prosecutors in several jurisdictions. Getting a guilty verdict from a Texas jury could be hard, he warned, and prosecuting Morris could be a mistake. The prosecutors went forward, and Kendall granted a defense motion to transfer the case to Georgia for trial.

Le Moyne also tried to head off the August 2002 trial. He reminded prosecutors the Army had exhaustively investigated Morris. In a letter to an Army officer panel, Le Moyne said he had met with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Candina Heath, and told her "she would lose … and be embarrassed in the process." In a separate memo sent to prosecutors before trial, Le Moyne wrote that Morris had made an "error in judgment" that "did not rise to the level of a criminal offense." It concluded: "Bob Morris is not a crook!"

During a nearly two-week trial, the prosecution called 38 witnesses. The defense called none. The jury acquitted Morris in 45 minutes, a "lightning fast" verdict that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land tied to the government's "woefully inadequate presentation."

The Dallas U.S. attorney's office and Heath declined to comment.

Legal bills from Morris' criminal case totaled $250,000.He said he faced at least $40,000 more in related expenses — and had exhausted his savings and life insurance benefits during the earlier Army investigation. So Morris' parents took two new mortgages on their Connecticut home, and also cashed life insurance policies, to help pay the lawyers.

Morris filed a Hyde Amendment application. Despite Judge Land's criticism of the prosecution, he dismissed the case in 2003. The decision to prosecute hadn't been totally baseless, he ruled, because Morris' logistics skill and signs that he'd skirted military rules provided "sufficient circumstantial evidence" to infer "criminal intent."

The judge did not rule that the prosecutors committed misconduct. For that reason, USA TODAY did not include the Morris case among 201 misconduct cases the newspaper found in an extensive search of federal court records since 1997.

The prosecutors, Land wrote, "will likely lick their wounds and fully recover. Because of the strict requirements for recovering fees and expenses, Lt. Col. Morris, an innocent (and now financially poorer) man, may not."

The case put a three-year hold on Morris' previously approved promotion to colonel. He got the promotion after the trial, but his military career plateaued and he ultimately retired Aug. 31. The case didn't leave him destitute, but there seemed little hope of repaying his parents anytime soon.

Then Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot and his charitable foundation stepped in. Grants totaling $210,000 to Morris and his father arrived in 2003 after the court denied Morris' compensation claim, the foundation's tax filings show. The organization, which often requires beneficiaries to sign confidentiality pacts, declined to comment.

Morris said the money helped his parents pay off their mortgages. It did not, though, cover thousands in other debts related to the investigations and trial. His widowed mother, Lillian, 86, is his dependent; he took over paying most of her bills.

Said Jack Zimmerman, a Houston lawyer who represented Morris: "If Congress really intended to compensate innocent people who were put upon by the government, they've got to revisit the Hyde Amendment standard. … Any court is loath to penalize the government … if it's a judgment call."

A compromise in Congress

Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde spoke bluntly when he rose on the House floor and introduced the law that bears his name. "This simply says to Uncle Sam, 'Look, if you are going to sue somebody … and the verdict is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the attorney's fees of the victim,' " Hyde said on Sept. 24, 1997.

As proposed, the legislation would have required the Justice Department to pay legal fees to vindicated defendants unless the government proved the prosecution had been "substantially justified." That provoked a veto threat from the Clinton White House.

Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder, the Justice Department's leader, said defendants such as John Gotti, the mobster who beat the rap at his first trials, might get "big taxpayer checks."

Asa Hutchinson, a former House member from Arkansas who led the opposition, said critics feared the law could have a "chilling effect," making prosecutors shy away from worthwhile but difficult cases.

Hyde compromised. He agreed to require defendants to prove they had been wrongly charged. And to win, they would have to show not just that they were innocent, but that prosecutors had acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.

Congress approved the measure, which Hyde had attached to an appropriations bill, without defining those terms. As a result, federal trial and appeals courts in different parts of the country have issued conflicting and often confusing rules about when the Justice Department must pay.

A U.S. district court in Virginia in 1999 ruled the standard for vexatiousness should be whether a "reasonable prosecutor should have concluded" that evidence was "insufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco explicitly rejected the standard used in Virginia. It adopted a two-step rule: To win, a defendant must prove that the case was "deficient or without merit" and the prosecutor "acted maliciously or with an intent to harass."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta used different language. It said defendants must show a prosecutor's "state of mind (was) affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will."

The U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves conflicting lower-court rulings, has not yet accepted any Hyde Amendment cases.

The legal threshold is so high that Joseph McKay, a Montana lawyer who won nearly $17,000 in a 1999 Hyde Amendment repayment, says the legal standard has become "un-meetable" since his win.

Law not a deterrent

Hyde Amendment awards are so infrequent and so small that the law "hasn't been a major remedy for bad prosecutions," said Bennett Gershman, a Pace Law School professor who examined the misconduct cases USA TODAY identified. "It's a very minuscule deterrent" to prosecutors.

Even courts that have ruled that prosecutors violated defendants' constitutional rights find their hands tied. That's what happened when the government brought securities fraud charges against Las Vegas lawyer Daniel Chapman. The case collapsed in 2006 because prosecutors failed to turn over more than 650 pages of records his lawyers could have used to discredit prosecution witnesses.

A series of judges berated prosecutors for violating Chapman's rights. U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who presided over the trial, said it was "not some slight oversight, but it strikes at the very heart of the government's obligation." He said prosecutors had offered no proof that Chapman broke the law and then dismissed the case.

An appeals court was even tougher, ruling that prosecutors had committed "misconduct in its highest form" and "conduct in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution."

Chapman, now 57, has spent four years seeking repayment of his legal bills. That effort has so far failed, because the Hyde Amendment only allows payment to a "prevailing party." Courts ruled the dismissal Chapman won didn't qualify because it didn't decide his innocence or guilt.

He's now pursuing another long-shot appeal. Chapman said his continued battle is about vindication and discouraging government misconduct as much as a desire for repayment. Without a strong deterrent, Chapman said, federal prosecutors will "do this over and over again."

Defendants who win Hyde cases also say they doubt that repayment awards have any impact on the Justice Department.

Ali Shaygan, a Miami doctor, was charged in 2008 with 141 counts of illegally administering prescription drugs. Acquitted in 2009, he sought Hyde Amendment payment because the government had engaged in what the trial judge called "win-at-all-costs" conduct. Shaygan won compensation of $601,795; the government is appealing.

Even if he wins again on appeal, Shaygan said the money would amount to "a drop in the bucket" that wouldn't change prosecutors' "habits."

Payments in all the winning Hyde Amendment cases ranged from $8,722 to nearly $1.5 million, USA TODAY found, less than some of the defendants' total legal costs. The 13-year payout total was just under $5.3 million.

A bargaining chip

Michael Zomber already had served his two-year sentence when prosecutors agreed to throw out his conviction stemming from a 2003 conspiracy indictment. There was just one catch: He had to give up give up his right to seek government repayment of his $1 million legal bills.

Before agreeing to a dismissal, federal prosecutors used Zomber's right to seek government repayment as a bargaining chip.

A federal jury in Pennsylvania had convicted Zomber of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud for the sale of four antique Colt pistols to businessman Joseph Murphy. Prosecutors said the weapons were worth half of what Murphy paid for them, and that Zomber lied to increase the price.

Zomber, now 60, spent almost two years in a federal prison camp before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit threw out his conviction. It found that the prosecutor, Robert Goldman, had failed to give Zomber's defense the letters Murphy wrote to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates offering to resell the pistols "at cost" — the same price Murphy paid.

Goldman said he did nothing wrong and warned USA TODAY that he would have any article about Zomber's case "reviewed by counsel for potential litigation." He said he regrets only that Zomber's conviction was overturned because of "an insignificant document." But the Appeals Court ruled the letters could have given jurors "reasonable doubt" about whether Zomber overcharged Murphy.

The court's decision meant Zomber faced the prospect of another costly trial. He was unlikely to go back to prison. But he could have been ordered to pay $1 million or more in restitution.

Instead, defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt reached a deal in which prosecutors ended the case.

"They weren't going to consider dismissing" it "unless we agreed not to pursue a Hyde Amendment application," he said. Lefcourt, Hutchinson and other lawyers say prosecutors now automatically include such waivers in many plea agreements.

Zomber said he had little choice but to go along with the agreement, because prosecutors are "always going to make you sign a Hyde Amendment" waiver. Battling for repayment, he said, was "just not worth it."

What Would You Do To Own an Emerald Worth $3 Million?

I don't know if the people involved in this lawsuit are all stupid, but I do know this. By the time the dust settles, none of them will have any money. It will all have been paid to their lawyers.

Los Angeles TImes, Sept 25: Trial begins in tussle over giant emerald
The 840-pound emerald became his, Anthony Thomas says, when he forked over $60,000 to a pair of Brazilian miners back in 2001.

He may never have physically received the behemoth, but the proof was on a piece of paper filled out at a hotel party, since destroyed in a house fire. He didn't bother notarizing documents or memorializing agreements, the San Jose businessman says — that's just the way the Brazilians did business.

Nine years later, Thomas stands among at least half a dozen men claiming ownership of the giant stone, known as the Bahia Emerald. Thomas took the stand Friday in the first day of a trial in the legal dispute over the gem, one of the largest of its kind, valued at one point at $372 million.

"Mr. Thomas is the only person who has ever paid a cent for the Bahia Emerald," his attorney, Jeffrey Baruh, told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Kronstadt. The terms under which his client bought the stone were "very straightforward," he argued.

Attorneys for the others claiming ownership of the emerald contended that Thomas' story was ludicrous and inconsistent.

"His story is inherently unbelievable," attorney Steven Haney told the judge, saying that Thomas was simply trying to "throw his hat in the ring." Haney represents a man who footed the bill for the emerald to be shipped to the United States.

Attorney Browne Greene, who represents a group of investors who say the stone became theirs through business deals, said Thomas' credibility had been "significantly impeached" in deposition testimony. He questioned Thomas' contention that the bill of sale was "mysteriously lost in a mysterious fire."

Thomas' is the first claim Kronstadt will weigh. After deciding whether Thomas has rights to the emerald, he will hear evidence from other parties claiming ownership. In the meantime, the giant gem sits in an evidence locker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which took possession of it after it was reported stolen in late 2008.

Thomas, who made his money in the construction business, said in a deposition that he first heard of the emerald on a trip to Brazil, where he was buying a different emerald, one about 50 pounds. At the time, he thought that emerald was the largest in the world, he said.

But when he got there, the Brazilians told him they had something even bigger. They took him to see it at a carport somewhere in Sao Paolo, where he took photos with his arms around the stone. Thomas said he agreed to pay $60,000 for it.

"There was no bartering back and forth on what the price was," he said. "They said this is what they wanted for it, and I agreed to it and that was it."

After he returned to the United States, he wired the money to a bank in Florida, then went back to Brazil, where he signed a document labeled "bill of sale" with the Brazilians. The emerald was to be shipped to him in San Jose, but the people who were supposed to arrange it told him it was stolen, Thomas testified.

He also testified that he told the Santa Clara County district attorney's office about the emerald, but was told there was nothing it could do because the gem was outside its jurisdiction.

Attorneys seized on the years that passed between Thomas' alleged purchase and his involvement in the Los Angeles lawsuit.

"From 2001 to 2009, he essentially sits on his sofa and hopes the emerald appears," Haney said.

Outside court, one of the investors claiming ownership accused Thomas of "clouding up" the title to the stone.

"We needed to put it through laundry," Idaho-based businessman Kit Morrison said. "Unfortunately, this court is the laundry."

The trial is expected to resume next month.

China's the richest country in the world - it still gets foreign aid

And the people who give them that aid are stupid!

SFGate: China rises and rises, yet still gets foreign aid

China spent tens of billions of dollars on a dazzling 2008 Olympics. It has sent astronauts into space. It recently became the world's second largest economy. Yet it gets more than $2.5 billion a year in foreign government aid — and taxpayers and lawmakers in donor countries are increasingly asking why.

With the global economic slowdown crimping government budgets, many countries are finding such generosity politically and economically untenable. China says it's still a developing country in need of aid, while some critics argue that the money should go to poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere.

Germany and Britain have moved in recent months to reduce or phase out aid. Japan, long China's biggest donor, halted new low-interest loans in 2008.

"People in the U.K. or people in the West see the kind of flawless expenditure on the Olympics and the (Shanghai) Expo and it's really difficult to get them to think the U.K. should still be giving aid to China," said Adrian Davis, head of the British government aid agency in Beijing, which plans to wrap up its projects in China by March.

"I don't think you will have conventional aid to China from anybody, really, after about the next three to five years," he said.

Aid to China from individual donor countries averaged $2.6 billion a year in 2007-2008, according to the latest figures available from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Ethiopia, where average incomes are 10 times smaller, got $1.6 billion, although measured against a population of 1.3 billion, China's share of foreign aid is still smaller than most. Iraq got $9.462 billion and Afghanistan $3.475 billion.

The aid to China is a marker of how much has changed since 1979, when the communist country was breaking out in earnest from 30 years of isolation from the West. In that year, foreign aid was a paltry $4.31 million, according to the OECD.

Today's aid adds up to $1.2 billion a year from Japan, followed by Germany at about half that amount, then France and Britain.

The U.S. gave $65 million in 2008, mainly for targeted programs promoting safe nuclear energy, health, human rights and disaster relief. The reason Washington gives so little is because it still maintains the sanctions imposed following the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, said Drew Thompson, a China expert at the Nixon Center in Washington, D.C.

China is also one of the biggest borrowers from the World Bank, taking out about $1.5 billion a year.

Asked why China still needed foreign aid after making so much economic progress, the Commerce Ministry ed back that China remains a developing country with 200 million poor and big environmental and energy challenges.

The current debate spotlights the challenges of addressing poverty in middle-income countries such as China, India and Brazil, where economic growth is strong but wealth is unequally spread. After the U.S., China has the world's most billionaires, yet incomes averaged just $3,600 last year.

Roughly three-quarters of the world's 1.3 billion poor people now live in middle-income countries, according to Andy Sumner, a fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex in the U.K.

That's a major shift since 1990, when 93 percent of the poor lived in low-income countries, Sumner said. It raises the question of who should help the poor in such places: their own governments or foreign donors?

Experts say it's hard to justify giving aid to China when it spent an estimated $100 billion last year equipping and training the world's largest army and also holds $2.5 trillion in foreign reserves.

"China's made a strategic choice to invest in building its military and acquiring these massive reserves, but at the same time it's underfunding social services, so I think it's going to be harder and harder for donor nations to continue to fund projects in China," said Thompson.

Japan's generosity has historically been driven at least in part by a desire to make amends for its invasion of China in the 1930s. But in recent years Japanese lawmakers and officials have repeatedly questioned whether the money flow should continue, pointing to China's emergence as a donor to African countries.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Images
View All Images (4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get Quote

Symbol Lookup


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Business
Calif. initiative to legalize pot picks up support 09.26.10
Report: Oman talking to Iran on US prisoners 09.26.10
Consumer spending key to recovery 09.26.10
Meet David Ulevitch, CEO of OpenDNS 09.26.10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China provided around $1.4 billion in aid to Africa last year, according to Professor Deborah Brautigam, an expert on China-Africa relations at the American University in Washington, D.C.

Japan has cut its aid down to grants and technical help for environmental and medical projects. Germany's current projects are due to be completed by 2014.

China is cautious about its new status. It is proud of having lifted half a billion people out of poverty and is beginning to flex the muscle that comes with being an economic power. Yet when, for instance, it is called on to agree to binding reductions in carbon emissions, it replies that it can't because it's still a developing country.

At this week's U.N. global summit on fighting poverty, Premier Wen Jiabao pledged to expand Chinese foreign aid and announced an additional $200 million in aid to flood-hit Pakistan.

But he also stressed that China still had to help its own tens of millions of poor. And when Europe's top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, visited China this month, her hosts made sure to take her to a poor village in the remote southern province of Guizhou.

Development aid is not always solely based on need either. Aid groups say China is an ideal place to try out projects, because the authoritarian government can expand successful ones rapidly on a large scale.

But China is effectively robbing the poor by competing for grants, said Dr. Jack C. Chow, who was the lead U.S. negotiator in talks that set up the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a major funder of health programs.

The $1 billion China has been awarded in grants from the fund could have paid for 67 million anti-malarial bed nets, 4.5 million tuberculosis treatments, or nearly 2 million courses of AIDS therapy in poorer countries, Chow said.

"I think the milestone that China is now the second largest economy, arguably, I would say that it's no longer a developing country with the likes of sub-Saharan Africa," Chow said in an interview. "Having money from the Global Fund going to China really detracts and depletes that mission of helping people in the poorest of countries."

Global Fund spokesman Jon Liden said China has not taken any money away from other countries so far, because the organization has had sufficient funds to approve all applications "of quality" that it has received. But China could help by contributing more to the fund, he said.

The World Bank defends its assistance to China, saying it enables the bank to work with Beijing on climate change and projects in sub-Saharan Africa.

"Sometimes there's a simplistic view that there should just be the developed countries and the very poorest countries," the bank's president, Robert Zoellick, said recently in Beijing. "But that would run exactly against ... the changes in the world economy, where the role of the emerging economies are to support demand, to take on responsibilities as stakeholders with the environment, to help support other poor countries."

Felons hired to work as caregivers for elderly

This is not new. If you research the hiring practices of nursing homes around the country for the last several decades, you will see that their screening process is either non-existent or easily circumvented.

The people who hire these individuals are not stupid, they know what these people will do.

There's nothing they can do about it.

Our litigious society has ruled on behalf of felons. Who brought the lawsuit that felons of all kinds should be allowed to be home health care workers? Unions.

From the Los Angeles TImes, two days ago:
California has paid scores of criminals to care for residents

Reporting from Sacramento — Scores of people convicted of crimes such as rape, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon are permitted to care for some of California's most vulnerable residents as part of the government's home health aide program.

Data provided by state officials show that at least 210 workers and applicants flagged by investigators as unsuitable to work in the program are nonetheless scheduled to resume or begin employment.

State and county investigators have not reported many whose backgrounds include violent crimes because the rules of the program, as interpreted by a judge earlier this year, permit felons to work as home care aides. Thousands of current workers have had no background checks.

Only a history of specific types of child abuse, elder abuse or defrauding of public assistance programs can disqualify a person under the court ruling. But not all perpetrators of even those crimes can be blocked.

In addition, privacy laws prevent investigators from cautioning the program's elderly, infirm and disabled clients that they may end up in the care of someone who has committed violent or financial crimes.

"We are allowing these people into the homes of vulnerable individuals without supervision," said John Wagner, director of the state Department of Social Services. "It is dangerous…. These are serious convictions."

Alarmed administrators and law enforcement officials have warned lawmakers, who have the power to change the program's rules, that the system may be inviting predators to exploit program enrollees. But efforts to address the problem have stalled in the Legislature.

Lawmakers with ties to unions representing home care workers are wary of making more changes to a program they have cut deeply under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Relatively new restrictions on who can work in the program or receive its benefits, also implemented at the governor's urging, have already created unnecessary obstacles, lawmakers and activists say.

State and county investigators have identified 996 convicted felons working or seeking jobs in the program since background checks were launched last year; 786 of them were removed or declared ineligible, according to the state Department of Social Services.

The rest are expected to be employed in the program despite the investigators' concerns. Among them is a woman convicted of false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, forging drug prescriptions and selling drugs who continues to work as a caregiver, according to state officials. Another person was convicted of welfare fraud, willfully threatening bodily harm, drug possession and two counts of burglary.

Advocates and unions note that nearly half of the 400,000 employees of the In Home Supportive Services program, which is intended to provide the state a cost-efficient alternative to nursing homes for low-income people who need certain kinds of help, are caring for their own relatives.

"We don't want to put anybody at risk of abuse or theft, but sometimes your options of who you can get to work for you are very narrow," said John Wilkins, a recipient of the services and co-chairman of a coalition of advocacy groups and unions.

Further, he said, "I've had two providers work for me who had criminal histories who were two of the best providers I have had. There is a lot of gray area. It is just not black and white."

A spokesman for the Service Employees International Union, which represents most of the state's home healthcare workers, referred questions to Wilkins. SEIU is consistently one of the biggest donors to the Democrats who dominate the Legislature, contributing millions of dollars to political committees that the state Democratic Party and its leaders use to win legislative seats, register voters and even fund lawmaker retreats.

Members' wages from the home aide program provide millions of dollars in dues revenue that the union can use to fund such operations.

At a recent meeting of an advisory panel made up of administrators, investigators, caregivers and others, one county official raised the case of a man working in the program who had been convicted of raping a 3-year old, said Laura West, a Sacramento County prosecutor who was at the meeting.

"Can you do this job if you burned down someone's house? Yes. Murdered someone? Yes. Raped a 3-year-old child? Yes," West said.

West said she is prosecuting three caregivers for fraud against the system. One has been convicted of armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon; another committed identity theft; the third was a drug dealer.

"These are all good indicators that the person steals," she said. "Yet they were able to work in the program and went on to steal from it."

In Los Angeles County, investigators are frustrated after coming across numerous cases of convicted welfare cheats working in the program who, under current rules, cannot be removed.

"It is so unfair that we can't even tell the [IHSS] consumer about this," said Philip Browning, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. "We have our hands tied. We asked our lawyers if we could share this information. They said, 'Absolutely not,' " due to privacy restrictions.

The strict limits on who can be barred from the program stem from a lawsuit that advocates won in March in Alameda County Superior Court. They sued after the Schwarzenegger administration launched an effort to purge all convicted felons from employment in the program. Exactly who could be barred had been unclear until the court ruling; the restrictions had been lobbed into legislation drafted hastily as part of a late budget deal.

The court sided with the advocates, who represented mostly workers caring for relatives or friends. They argued that the legislation limited those who could be expelled to a narrow group of offenders, so people in need would not lose a trusted provider who had committed an offense such as theft or drunk driving.

Administration officials say they are pushing to root out only the most dangerous felons, and they complain that the effort has met a chilly reception in the Legislature. Union members have argued at legislative hearings that more restrictions would cause people like the plaintiffs in the Alameda County case to lose their jobs and force their family members into institutions.

The battle is part of a larger dispute over the recently implemented anti-fraud measures that Schwarzenegger championed. Advocates say the rules, which in addition to background checks for employees involve fingerprinting of care recipients and spot checks by investigators, are invasive and don't root out fraud because little is being committed.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) said lawmakers would consider a reasonable proposal to block potentially dangerous people from the program if that were all the administration was seeking. But she said the administration also wants to save money by slashing the aides' wages and cutting 200,000 recipients from the program and has even proposed eliminating the services altogether.

"The administration is interested in nothing less than destroying IHSS," said Evans, who has chaired oversight hearings on the program.

Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Denise Moreno Ducheny (D- San Diego) said the budget discussions in which the administration's proposed restrictions have been raised are not an appropriate venue.

"They need to draft a bill, get an author and bring it up in the public safety and human services committees," she said.

Administration officials cited many meetings they have had with lawmakers and their staffs in which they said they raised the issue of criminals working in the program.

Meanwhile, Eileen Carroll, deputy director of adult programs for the state Department of Social Services, says she fields calls from puzzled county investigators who are seeking to keep potential predators out of the program.

"We tell them they have to approve someone who has a murder conviction," she said. "We tell them they have to approve the rapist. They call the state and ask for our help, and all we can tell them is: If it is beyond the [court-approved] list, you cannot deny them. "

US Spending Our Tax Money In Other Countries to Combat AIDS

We have an AIDS epidemic here in the US, with straight women now being those getting the disease the fastest... and our tax money is going overseas, via the National Institute of Health, to study why African men don't wash their genitalia after having sex, and now the whole lifestyle of migrant workers in Russia.

Other countries should not be our responsibility right now - at least when it comes to their AIDS health. We know how to keep from getting AIDS - don't have unprotected sex and don't share needles.

If the HIH wants to continue to study human stupidity - why people continue to get AIDS even though they must know by now how to prevent it - why not study that in the US and share the info with other countries. No need for our tax dollars to go out of country for this type of thing.

CNSNews: U.S. Has Spent $1.39 Million on Study Surveying Married Tajik Migrant Workers in Moscow, and Interviewing Some of Them, Their Wives, Girlfriends and Prostitutes

(CNSNews.com) - The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent $1.39 million over the last 3 years on a study that involves surveying a group of married Tajik migrant workers in Moscow, and interviewing some of them, their wives, girlfriends and prostitutes.

According to the description of the study on the NIH Web site, the research was developed in order to address “the major global health problem of HIV prevention amongst married male labor migrants in Central Asia and the public health risk for an AIDS epidemic in Tajikistan.”

“The study focuses on married men from Tajikistan working in Moscow and their risks for acquiring HIV through having sex with female sex workers and then transmitting the infection to their wives or female sexual partners,” the description said.

"The specific aims of this study," the NIH abstract for the grant says, "are: 1) To characterize how labor migration of married men under extreme conditions shapes masculine norms and schemas and HIV risk and preventive behaviors; 2) To characterize how women (wives, regular partners, sex workers) and their perceptions of HIV, femininity, and masculinity impact male migrants' HIV risk and preventive behaviors; 3) To assess the current and potential roles of the organizations involved with married male migrants in responding to HIV and in mitigating masculine norms impacting men's sexual behavior; 4) To build an empirically based model for preventing HIV amongst married male migrants that will help to develop programs and policies focused on heterosexual men and masculine norms.

In order to do this, according to the abstract, researchers would interview, among others, Tajik migrant workers in Moscow, their wives and "female partners" back in Tajikistan and "sex workers in Moscow."

"These aims will be accomplished." the abstract says, "by a survey of Tajik married male migrants in Moscow (n=400), ethnographic interviews and observations of the Tajik migrants in Moscow (n=40), their wives/regular female partners in Tajikistan (n=40) and Moscow (n=~30), sex workers in Moscow (n=30), and service providers (n=40) in organizations that are involved with migrants in Tajikistan and Moscow."

The study is being conducted by Dr. Stevan Merrill Weine, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The study, which is not scheduled to conclude until July of 2013, is being funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, a subdivision of the NIH. It received $479,394 in fiscal 2008, $450,102 in fiscal 2009, and $460,256 in fiscal 2010.

Weine did not grant CNSNews.com an interview.

The National Institutes of Health, however, did answer this question from CNSNews.com: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad--who make $52,000 per year--that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”

In an e-mail statement, NIH said:

“The goal of such research is to understand the behaviors that contribute to increased health risks, as well as how these behaviors can be changed in real-world settings.”

The statement continued:

“In the case of HIV prevention, more than 20 million people worldwide have died from AIDS-related illnesses. Unsafe sex and substance abuse are contributing factors to contracting these diseases. Whether HIV research occurs in the United States or in an international setting, what we learn from these scientific studies often benefits Americans.”

According to the CIA factbook, as of 2007 only 0.3 percent of the 7 million people in Tajikistan--a predominantly Muslim nation in Cetral Asia near Afghanistan and Pakistan--had contracted HIV/AIDS, compared with 0.6 percent of the population of the United States.

It is estimated that nearly 1 million Tajiks are labor migrants and nearly half of those migrants work in either Russia or Kazakhstan.

Here are a couple of key points:

“In the case of HIV prevention, more than 20 million people worldwide have died from AIDS-related illnesses. Unsafe sex and substance abuse are contributing factors to contracting these diseases. Whether HIV research occurs in the United States or in an international setting, what we learn from these scientific studies often benefits Americans.”

Well, then, the opposite should be true. Do the studies in the US, where it's got to be cheaper, and share that info to benefit people in other countries.

And

The study, which is not scheduled to conclude until July of 2013, is being funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, a subdivision of the NIH. It received $479,394 in fiscal 2008, $450,102 in fiscal 2009, and $460,256 in fiscal 2010.

Well, this raises a point. Is the Eunice Kennedy Institute of Child Health funded by the Kennedys, donations, or private tax payers?

The Fictionalizing of American News

Stephen Colbert is a comedian who has a faux news show (I hate faux shows. Hate them, hate them, hate them. And faux magazines. Faux evrything. Hate t hem.)

For some reason, he was called to testify before Congress yeaterday, and he did. In character.

Now - forget his politics. His politics are diametrically opposed to mine, but that's not the point. He had no business testifying in front of Congress, just as William Peterson (of CSI) had no business testifying in front of Congress when they were discussing funding Crime Labs, and just as Bono has no business testifying about the starving in Africa.) [Have you heard the news about Bono's charity, ONE? Takes in millions of dollars, gives 1 percent to charity. 1 percent. Why? Well, because his charity was never set up to solve the problem of starvation in Africa, it was set up to raise awareness of the problem of starvation in Africa. Big difference there.

Anyway, I can't believe the Democrats asked Colbert to testify, but he did. Below is the article from the Christian Science MOnitor.

Will Stephen Colbert’s appearance before Congress make a difference in the contentious US debate about the employment of illegal immigrants in farm work?

Hmm, well, he certainly brought a lot of attention to the issue. As one Democratic member in the hearing room said, “I haven’t seen this many TV cameras since [Bill Clinton’s] impeachment.”

Mr. Colbert himself, in his testimony, said that given his own star power he hoped he could “bump this hearing all the way up to C-SPAN1”.

(See, that’s funny because the hearing was shown on C-SPAN3, which is reserved for lower-wattage appearances, usually. At least it’s funny to people in Washington, who watch a lot of C-SPAN.)

But what’s the outcome here? We’ll examine both sides of the issue.

Why it won't matter. Colbert’s appearance might have been too funny. Or rather, it was funny in a way that made many of the members of Congress in the room visibly uncomfortable. Remaining fully in character, the mock-conservative Colbert took shots at Democrats and their poor prospects in the upcoming elections, the predilection of congressmen to not read bills, and even partisanship itself.

“I feel that after my testimony both sides will work for the benefit of America, as you always do,” he said slyly.

That might have hit too close to home for some lawmakers, making them less likely to hear any serious underlying message. Perhaps they had not heard of Colbert’s 2006 appearance before the White House Correspondent Association’s annual dinner, in which he speared both then-President Bush and the media itself and got little applause from the assembled scribes in return. (The public loved it – ratings soared that week. But that’s another story.)

In addition, Colbert’s performance before Congress was indeed a performance – he slipped in some serious commentary, but it was for the most part pure fake “truthiness.” Also somewhat Dadaesque. He expressed surprise that soil was at ground level and mused that perhaps the answer to the migrant worker problem was to stop eating fruits and vegetables altogether.

“My grandfather did not travel across 4,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean to see an America overrun by immigrants!” said Colbert. “He did it because he killed a man in Ireland.”

What’s that got to do with the plight of undocumented workers?

Why it will matter. Never underestimate the power of pure attention. Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Americans tomorrow will know more about the conditions in which migrants work because a comedian picked corn for a day. It doesn’t matter that Colbert did not have a three-point plan for passing a bill that allows illegal migrant workers to work towards legal status by remaining in agricultural jobs. Today those workers are less faceless than they were before.

“I like talking about people who don’t have any power,” said Colbert near the end of his appearance. “And it seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don’t have any rights as a result.”

Yes, his overall appearance might have been self-aggrandizing. But Colbert knows that clips have tremendous power of their own. In today’s world of viral Internet communication all a few pithy lines can travel around the globe before a full policy paper gets its boots on.

Consider what Colbert said about economist Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of market capitalism.

“This brief experience made me realize why so few Americans are clamoring to begin an exciting career as a migrant farm worker ... apparently even the invisible hand does not want to pick beans,” said Colbert.

Kidnapper, robber and kiler walks away from un-fenced in halfway house

Organizational stupidity is the worst kind of stupidity. Take for example the story below.

I cite the relative passage that made me nervous:
But the hospital, which has a history of inmate escapes, failed to tell its neighbors that Hartman, 49, is a killer, kidnapper and robber who had a penchant for attacking good Samaritans offering him help.
Now, there are not many good Samaritans out there, but there are a few. And each and every one of them in the Denver area, or indeed, throughout Colorado for that matter, could be in danger.

The article raises the following questions.
1. What is a killer, kidnapper and robber with mental health issues doing at a halfway house that doesn't have bars or guards?
2. Why can people continue to escape from this institution, since most of the people who do escape have actually assaulted and even killed people.
3. Why wasn't the public told he was a killer and to stay away from him -- particularly if he had a history of harming people who tried to help him?

Public not told escapee a killer - The Denver Post

The Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo has no fence or guard station to keep patients from walking off the grounds.

After Mark Hartman bolted last week from Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, this halfway house dutifully informed the public that the inmate was missing and wanted.

But the hospital, which has a history of inmate escapes, failed to tell its neighbors that Hartman, 49, is a killer, kidnapper and robber who had a penchant for attacking good Samaritans offering him help.

The only reference on the notice about Hartman's criminal background recounted his most recent offenses: escape, contraband possession in prison and an unspecified parole violation. Nothing was included about the time Hartman, who remains at large, shot a man in the face and burned his corpse during a cross- country crime spree.

State Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, said Tuesday that failing to report the most troubling part of Hartman's criminal background is a lapse that could affect how aggressively law enforcement attempts to arrest Hartman, who escaped Thursday. Furthermore, she said, it doesn't send an adequate alarm to citizens.

"It's concerning to me that the appropriate level of care wasn't taken," McFadyen said. "It certainly isn't appropriate. It sounds like we need a review of the hospital's notification policy."

Rep. Dianne Primavera, a Broomfield Democrat and chairwoman of the Legislative Audit Committee, said McFadyen told her Tuesday that she intends to formally request an audit of the hospital's escape-notification policy.

"I think this is a public-safety issue," Primavera said. "I think it is something we should look into."

The failure to tell the full story about Hartman's violent past was perplexing to a former investigator with the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office.

"He was very dangerous," said John Lauck, who has since retired as an investigator. "Anybody who has done something that he has done has the potential of doing it again. If I lived in Pueblo, I'd sure want to know if somebody had walked away from a

Mark Hartman is still at large after escape. halfway house and is a killer."
Institute spokeswoman Eunice Wolther said the hospital releases notices about walkaways or escapees in the interest of public safety. The notice explains that when forensic patients are without medications, they can be dangerous.

Wolther said she didn't intentionally withhold information about Hartman's past. She simply didn't know.

"I can only tell you why he's here," Wolther said. "As far as his background, I don't know his history."

She said Hartman was committed to the hospital in July 2007 after being found not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition for the comparatively benign crimes cited on the public warning.

That release doesn't mention prior convictions or commitments and Hartman has bounced in and out of prison and the state hospital since 1983, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records.

Lauck wondered whether the hospital didn't release Hartman's more serious convictions because someone wanted to hide the fact that they made the decision that it was safe to put him in a halfway house.

"If somebody evaluated him, they had to conclude he is not a threat or he wouldn't be in a halfway house," he said.

Lauck said he'll never forget Hartman's case because of how senseless it was.

In early January 1983, Hartman, then 24, was hitchhiking when he caught a ride with a former Navy seaman, L.D. Gipson, who was on a trip from Texas to California, Lauck said.

Hartman tricked Gipson into letting him have his keys at a gas station and Hartman stole the car, he said.

Hartman picked up a passenger, Susan Brown, and the two drove to Golden, where the pastor of North Golden Baptist Church allowed them to sleep overnight, Lauck said.

On Jan. 25, 1983, the pair broke into the church and stole checks and money from the church's business office, Lauck said.

Later that day, the couple met security officer Lawrence Gale at a Golden bar. They told him about their financial hard-luck story, and he went to their room at the Holiday Inn in Golden, Lauck said.

A hotel worker later found blood in the room. The next day in a remote area, Douglas County sheriff's deputies discovered a corpse that had been badly burned. The body was Gale's.

Hartman and Brown set out for Gale's mobile home in Thornton — apparently to burglarize it — but entered his neighbor's residence by mistake, Lauck said. They threatened the neighbor, a woman, with a gun and tied her up. They were burglarizing the home when police arrived, Lauck said.

It took Lauck and other investigators a month to find the murder scene on a remote gravel road in Jefferson County. Bullets found in the road indicated Gale had been shot execution style while he was lying on the ground.

Both Hartman and Brown were convicted of second-degree murder. Hartman was sentenced to 36 years in prison. In 1990, Hartman was charged with possession of contraband and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was sent to the state hospital for a term of one day to life. Since then, he has been in and out of the state hospital.

"He was very callous, cold-blooded," Lauck said of Hartman. "Twenty-five years ago, he didn't have any compunction about killing someone. If he is on the run, he could fall back on old ways to get out of Dodge."

Learning from history - does anyone *ever* do it?

This type of animal control has been tried before. Rats have always been a problem - they go wherever mankind goes. Mankind introduces some other non-native animal to try to take care of them - then that animal becomes a menace.

From a 19 Sep 2010 article in the NY Post
Mouse-eating opossums run amok in Brooklyn

The city played possum -- and Brooklyn residents lost.

In a bizarre attempt to outwit Mother Nature, city officials introduced beady-eyed opossums in Brooklyn years ago to scarf down rats running amok in the borough, according to local officials.

Surprise: Operation opossum didn't work.

Not only do wily rats continue to thrive, but the opossums have become their own epidemic, with bands of the conniving creatures sauntering through yards, plundering garbage cans and noshing on fruit trees.

They've even taken up golf, with two sightings of the whiskered marsupials at the Dyker Heights municipal course in the past week, local officials said.


OPOSSUM
Marsupial marauder.
"They are everywhere," said Theresa Scavo, chairwoman for Community Board 15, which represents Sheepshead Bay and surrounding south Brooklyn neighborhoods.

"Didn't any of those brain surgeons realize that the opossums were going to multiply?"

A city Sanitation spokeswoman said they were not involved with the Brooklyn opossum drop, and the Health Department didn't have any record of it. But Scavo and two city councilmen said city officials spoke about the effort at a 2007 Brooklyn forum.

"City brought possums in to take care of rats," read Community Board 15 notes from the meeting.

The opossums were set free in local parks and underneath the Coney Island boardwalk, with the theory being they would die off once the rats were gobbled up, said Councilman Domenic Recchia (D-Brooklyn).

Instead, the critters have been populating, spreading to Park Slope and Manhattan.

"The population has boomed in recent years," said Josephine Beckmann, district manager for Community Board 10, which represents Bay Ridge. "They climb up in the tree and have a good meal."

The critters have a mouth full of 50 sharp teeth, tend to exude a foul odor, and can occasionally contract rabies, said Stuart Mitchell, an entomologist.

They are nocturnal, and some Brooklynites have become terrified to go into their yards at night.

Bad headline: Japan officials delay Paris Hilton from entering (AP)

This is the Yahoo news headline:

Japan officials delay Paris Hilton from entering (AP)
AP - Japanese officials delayed Paris Hilton's entry into the country a day after she pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in Las Vegas, the socialite's spokeswoman said.

The headline is grammatically inaccurate. The word "from" has no place there.

It should be

"Japanese officials delay entrace of Paris Hilton"
"Paris Hilton faces delay in entering Japan due to legal problems"
"Japan protects borders - refuses to allow criminal into country" [a headline you'll never see in the US, I daresay]
"Japanese officials delay Paris Hilton's entrance into country"

Bobcat Has No Regrets for Assaulting Buckeye

If you read interview with this boy - he's hardly a man at 19, at least not in the mental health department - the idiot thinks he did nothing wrong. He's proud of it and would do it again. In actual fact, he needs to be thrown in jail.

The sad thing is that there are many people on sports message boards - presumably at the mental age of 19 themselves - who think his unwarranted assault was perfectly okay and "funny."

It may be funny when it's orchestrated, but when you've got a totally unsuspecting victim attacked with no warning and no reason -- it's not funny. It's criminal assault.

This guy probably watches the DTV NFL Ticket commercials and laughs and laughs.


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Turns out, the Bobcat had it in for the Buckeye all along.

"It was actually my whole plan to tackle Brutus when I tried out to be mascot," said Brandon Hanning, formerly known as Ohio University's Rufus Bobcat. "I tried out about a year ago, and the whole reason I tried out was so I could come up here to Ohio State and tackle Brutus."

And that's what he did Saturday, wrestling unsuspecting Brutus to the ground before 105,075 screaming college football fans at Ohio Stadium. Ohio State got even in the end, trampling the visiting team, 43-7.

The tussle led to an apology from Ohio University on Monday and the 19-year-old Hanning is banned from further affiliation with the school's athletics department. Actually, he's not even a student there anymore; he now attends nearby Hocking College.

Hanning, of Meigs County in southeast Ohio, not far from Ohio University's campus in Athens, suited up about 15 minutes before the Bobcats faced Ohio State, went on the field near the OU cheerleaders and waited for his chance.

It came as Brutus and an Ohio State cheerleader hoisted an OSU flag, and prepared to lead the Buckeyes players onto the field. With his Bobcat head in place, Hanning ran along the sideline and got in position.

"As soon as they started running onto the field, that's when I went," he said.

The Bobcat sideswiped the Buckeye, who got back to his feet and continued his sprint toward the end zone.

But Rufus, um, Hanning, wasn't done.

He then chased Brutus into the end zone, climbed on his back and rode him to the ground. The two then tussled, with Rufus punching the Buckeye in his oversized head while fans booed.

The Post of Athens was the first to report Hanning's intentions.

Ohio apologizes for mascot's attack on Brutus Buckeye

Bobcats athletics spokesman Jason Corriher released a statement calling the actions "extremely poor judgment and sportsmanship" and saying that the university regrets the negative effect they may have on the relationship between the two schools.

Bobcats coach Frank Solich summed up it nicely: "Obviously we needed to tackle the guy with the ball, not the mascot."

Hanning said he thinks the reaction to the tackle has been "a little blown out of proportion."

"Either everybody loved it or everybody hated it. It's never been anything in the middle," he said.

"I think I planned it pretty well ... and I definitely would have done it again."

Poor headline writing -- Afghans vote despite attacks, turnout appears low

I am not making fun of the tragedy that is Afghanistan, but rather of the way it was reported in the news (Yahoo news) three days ago.

Afghans vote despite attacks, turnout appears low (AP)
AP - Despite Taliban rocket strikes and bombings, Afghans voted for a new parliament Saturday, the first election since a fraud-marred presidential ballot last year cast doubt on the legitimacy of the embattled government.

More specifically, the headline: "Afghans vote despite attacks, turnout appears low"

In other words, the attacks have scared most people AWAY from voting, and only a very few brave people are voting.

The headline as written makes no sense. It should be something like "Attacks on Afghan Polls cause low turnout".

Air Sex World Championships

Words fail me.

This is the type of thing you expect to see in Japan, or somewhere in Europe, but it's apparenlty all the rage in the United States now. There are competitions in New Orleans, Dallas, Atlanta, Washington DC, Providence RI, Philadelphia, heck, even in Oregon!, Santa Fe, and so on.

People actually get up on stage and have "air sex" [similar to the phenomena of "air guitar" where people who can't play guitar pretend that they can. Presumably the contestants here are people that can't have sex, but imagine what it would be like if they could...

Stupid...and scary. The degredation of America continues.

Here's the About page from their website:

The time for you to lose your air virginity is NOW.

In 2009, The Air Sex World Championships erupted in over 14 cities across North America, crowning champions from Atlanta to Toronto to Tucon. The competition climaxed in Austin, Tx in October where we crowned the first ever World Champion, Shanghai Slammer from Los Angeles. This year we come back and we’re looking forward to what the country shows us now that we’re in a more formal relationship.

Never been to an Air Sex show before? Here’s what you need to know: it’s a lot like Air Guitar, but instead of rocking out with an imaginary guitar, you’re making sweet and/or filthy love with an imaginary sex partner. You choose a clip of music, you show up in whatever sort of wardrobe you like, and you come up on stage and show everyone how you do it. Or how you wish you could do it. Or how you once had it done to you, and oh my god was that a bad idea and while it’s embarrassing to show that act to a room of strangers, you know that you need to do it now in order to make sure that no one else falls down the same rabbit hole you got stuck inside. Or, you know, just do it however you want.

The only rules we have are the laws laid down by the state we’re in. Since most Air Sex venues serve alcohol, you can’t get naked. And since some also serve food, all orgasms have to be simulated (or at least arguably so). Other than that, you’re free to do whatever it takes to impress the judges, the audience in the theater, and the world!

The Air Sex World Championships are hosted by comedian Chris Trew and based out of the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Tx.

Drunk drivers - Darwin award candidates

Woman drank vodka before deadly crash en route to DUI class

AZUSA, Calif. (AP) — Investigators say a Southern California woman killed in a rollover freeway crash had stopped in a bar for drinks before hurrying out to get ready for a court-ordered DUI class.

The California Highway Patrol says Lidia Kopach, who was convicted of drunken driving a year ago, consumed two vodka drinks and split two pitchers of beer at a Monrovia bar before the deadly crash at 2 a.m. Thursday on Interstate 210 in Azusa.

The Pasadena Star-News says Kopach told 24-year-old Daniel Martinez, who was slightly injured in the crash, that she needed to get home and for some sleep because she had to attend a court-ordered DUI education class on Thursday.

Martinez told CHP investigators he repeatedly asked Kopach to slow down before the crash.

Here are my questions.
1) How long before the bartenders at the bar are sued by this woman's family for lettin gher drink two vodkas and two pitchers of beer (even if she "split" them, that's still a lot of beer. [For the record, I don't think they should be sued. It's the responsibility of the patron to know when to stop.]

2) Why wasn't Martinez driving the car, instead of the woman who'd drunk so much? Or had he had the same amount of liquor as she.

3) Why dont' people ever learn from their own mistakes? Most drunk drivers are recidivists. Indeed, some have killed people, get off very lightly, and then continue to drink and drive. Some drive even though their licenses have been revoked.

(If you're license has been revoked, and you're still driving, I would think that you would drive extremely carefully. No speeding, obey all traffic signs, etc. That way, you don't get pulled over, you don't get found out, you don't get into trouble!)

What Does Independence Mean To You?

Several years ago, I saw a Public Service Announcement (PSA) featuring Michael J. Fox. Not sure if he filmed it while he was a star of Family Ties, or of his second big series, Spin Series.

In any event, the PSA featured him walking through a long corridor. Doors on either side of him would slam shut as he passed.

His speech, and I paraphrase, was "We all go through life having to make a series of choices. What we wear, what we eat, whether we do drugs or not. We can all make our own decisions, but if you do drugs, all those other decisions are made for you."

I don't know how effective that spot was - since drug use has been increasing rather than decreasing, I'd say not a lot, but I always thought it was a powerful message that I would have thought people would listen to.

What do we do as kids? Rebel against our parents. "You can't tell me what to do!" Then the kid does drugs, or some other stupid activity against the law, gets thrown in jail, and all of a sudden you can bet he, or she, is doing what she's told to do, in a much more harsh environment than the family home.

And why? To do drugs? To steal a candy bar or a case of beer. To destroy a car just because you can? And then all your independence gets thrown out of the window and you are in the power of other people forever.

I think of that, occasionally, when I read about people - particularly celebrities - who go to jail (or don't) for drug possession. I think to myself... the world is their oyster. They've got all the money in the world, they can do whatever they want, and all they can think of to do is get lost in some drug or alcoholic haze, and worse, not do it in the privacy of their own homes, but have to do it in cars, where they then become a danger to themselves and the public at large?

Talk about stupid.

So, latest in the news, Lindsay Lohan:

No more excuses. Lindsay Lohan admitted Friday night that she failed a random drug test - an offense that could send her back to jail for 30 days. "This was certainly a setback for me but I am taking responsibility for my actions and I'm prepared to face the consequences," the actress writes on her Twitter page. Lohan, 24, who was released from rehab Aug. 24 after serving nearly two weeks in jail in a DUI case, thanks her fans and family for their support. She says she's "keeping my faith" and remains "hopeful." "Substance abuse is a disease, which unfortunately doesn’t go away over night,"

Substance abuse is not a disease. Or if it's a disease, it's a self-caused one, and deserves little sympathy. But calling these things a disease of course absolves the "victim." It's not her fault she can't control herself, she's got a disease."

Well, perhaps she had. Until you've had millions of dollars in the bank, you don't know what pressures these people are under. But I sure would like to walk in their shoes for a mile or two. I believe I can guar-an-tee that no drugs or alcohol would pass my lips. If I was too shy to know what to say to people without my inhibitions being loosened by alcohol, I'd pay them to talk to me! Easily done.

Show a bit of class - when you've done wrong, resign

The prosecutor in the story below, from the Palm Beach Post, shouldn't be in a position to not resign. He should be fired, and barred from ever holdign public office again. If we had a little "zero tolerance" policy for elected officials and people in positions of authority abusing their office, we'd have better people in those positions.

Wis. prosecutor who 'sexted' victim won't resign

CHILTON, Wis. — A Wisconsin prosecutor known for two decades as an advocate for crime victims says he is embarrassed about sending sexually suggestive text messages to a younger woman while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend in a domestic abuse case, but will remain in office.

Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz issued that statement Wednesday after The Associated Press reported on the 30 texts he sent to a 26-year-old woman who had complained to police last year. A police report shows he repeatedly sent Stephanie Van Groll text messages in October 2009 trying to spark an affair.

"Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA ... the riskier the better?" Kratz, 50, wrote in one message. In another, he wrote: "I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you'd be THE woman! R U that good?"

Kratz was prosecuting Van Groll's ex-boyfriend on charges he nearly choked her to death last year. Kratz also was veteran chair of the Wisconsin Crime Victims' Rights Board, a quasi-judicial agency that can reprimand judges, prosecutors and police officers who mistreat crime victims.

In a combative interview in his office, Kratz did not deny sending the messages and expressed concern their publication would unfairly embarrass him personally and professionally. He said the Office of Lawyer Regulation found in March he did not violate any rules governing attorney misconduct, but refused to provide a copy of what he said was the report clearing him. That office cannot comment on investigations.

"This is a non-news story," Kratz shouted. But he added, "I'm worried about it because of my reputational interests."

Hours later, Kratz issued a statement acknowledging sending the messages and saying he "was embarrassed at this lapse of judgment."

"I have never been the subject of attorney discipline during my entire 25-year career, and until today, have enjoyed a spotless reputation as a vigorous advocate for crime victims," he said.

Van Groll told police in Kaukauna, Wis., where she lived, that she felt pressured to have a relationship with Kratz or he would drop charges against her ex-boyfriend.

Kratz said he "immediately removed himself" from the prosecution after learning about the complaint, and the state Department of Justice took over. Kratz said he resigned from the crime victims board, which he helped create, after more than a decade as chair as a "self-imposed sanction." He and his wife filed for divorce last December.

Kratz has served in Chilton since 1992 and earns a $105,000 salary. Kratz, a Republican, isn't up for re-election until November 2012.

"Nothing really happened to him and I had three days of hell," Van Groll said in a phone interview with the AP. "They gave him a slap on the wrist and told him not to do it again. If it was anybody else that did something like this, they'd lose their job."

Domestic violence experts called Kratz's text messages disturbing and unethical for several reasons, including the power differential between a prosecutor and a younger abuse victim.

"If what's being alleged is true, it's sad a prosecutor would use the same sort of power and control over a woman who has already experienced that in her personal life," said Patti Seger, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Kratz, who flirted with a run for Congress in 2008, may be best known for prosecuting Steven Avery in the 2005 killing of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer. The case received national attention because Avery had spent 18 years behind bars for a rape he did not commit in a separate case before DNA evidence implicated someone else.

A spokeswoman said the victims' rights board has not received a complaint about Kratz and is not investigating his conduct toward Van Groll.

Kratz cited an undisclosed conflict of interest in stepping away from the abuse case after Van Groll reported the text messages, court records show. A special prosecutor won a conviction on one felony count of strangulation against the man, Shannon Konitzer.

Van Groll said Kratz sent the first text minutes after she left his office, where he had interviewed her about the case.

He said it was nice talking and "you have such potential," signing the message "KEN (your favorite DA)." Twenty minutes later, he added, "I wish you weren't one of this office's clients. You'd be a cool person to know!" But he quickly tried to start a relationship and told her to keep quiet about the texts.

Van Groll at first was polite, saying Kratz was "a nice person" and thanking him for praise. By the second day, she responded with answers such as "dono" or "no." Kratz questioned whether her "low self-esteem" was to blame for the lack of interest.

"I'm serious! I'm the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize!" he texted.

Kratz told her the relationship would unfold slow enough for "Shannon's case to get done." ''Remember it would have to be special enough to risk all," he wrote.

Van Groll said she went to police after the messages started becoming "kind of vulgar." She provided copies of 30 messages and her responses, which the department released in response to an AP request.

The department referred the complaint to the state Division of Criminal Investigation. Van Groll, a college student and part-time preschool teacher who has moved to Merrill, said she has been told Kratz won't be charged because "they didn't think he did anything criminally wrong."

IMDB Re-designs Its Site and Turns it Into Garbage

Had I but known, I would have made a screencap of the IMDB site, and the way it has been for the last 8 years. It was a perfect design. Along the left hand side of the page, there were all the links for the actor or individual - bio, roles, photos, etc. etc. It was an elegant, efficient design.

Now, just today - or within the last week, anyway - I go to the IMDB and see the utter garbage that is their new design.



So basically there are no longer any links on the left. You have to scroll down "below the fold" to see the links, and now they are on the right hand side. Ridiculous. And of course there are ads everywhere on the site.

Well, the ads are how they make their money - but still, the design is horrible. And I clicked on their Feedback button and told them so. I wonder if they consulted with anyone *before* they made these ridiculous changes, rather than just asking for feedback afterwards.

More Facts on the Bruce Pearl Case

There is an interrogation technique that police and security personnel are taught. First, they are taught to ask open-ended questions, rather than questions to which one can answer "yes or no." Second, they are taught to ask confrontational questions, like, "Yes?" barked out.

Nine out of ten people can't stay quiet, but will immediately start babbling, telling the interrogator everything they want to know without the interrogator asking for specifics.

Third, although this is actually a maxim for interviewers rather than interrogators, but the NCAA seems to follow it - ask questions to which you already know the answer. If your interviewee lies, you catch him dead to rights then and there.

That is why, if someone "in authority" asks you a question the best thing to do is to tell the truth right away, because if you lie, you will always be found out. [Although of course the very, very best thing is not to do something regarding which you would then need to lie about in the first place!]

So, with that preface, here's an excerpt from sports columnist Greg Doyel's article for today:

The whole thing started when Pearl broke a relatively minor NCAA rule on recruiting in 2008. That was the year, according to CBSSports.com college basketball expert Gary Parrish, that Pearl entertained several recruits -- high school juniors -- at his house. Problem is, high school juniors aren't allowed in a college coach's house. High school seniors? Sure. But a high school junior? No way.

Pearl knew that rule -- it's one of the more basic rules in the NCAA's enormous rulebook -- and he broke it anyway. That's bad, but it's forgivable.

When the NCAA caught wind of the violation and asked Pearl about it, he lied. He was shown a photograph of the recruits standing in his house, and he was asked, "Where was this picture taken?" Pearl looked at that picture, and he lied. He told the NCAA he didn't know where that picture had been taken.

That's bad, and it's unforgivable. You don't lie to the NCAA, ever, but you damn sure don't lie to the NCAA when you've cheated and are trying to get away with it. Well, you don't lie in those circumstances and then realistically ask for forgiveness, as Pearl did last week.

When he admitted his transgression at a news conference, Pearl basically said he had come clean to the NCAA because he knew lying was a mistake.

When the truth is, Pearl came clean because he knew he had been busted.

According to a source close to the situation -- really close; I mean, really, really close -- Pearl discovered almost immediately that his lie hadn't fooled anyone. The NCAA had already talked to other witnesses before talking to Pearl. That question the NCAA asked, wondering where the picture had been taken? The NCAA knew the answer before it asked Pearl the question. That's what Pearl discovered. He realized he had told the wrong lie to the wrong people.

Rather than wait for the NCAA to drop the hammer on him for lying, Pearl came clean. But not because of his conscience, as he told everybody last week. No. He came clean because he had no other choice.

This isn't semantics -- this is everything. Not to be all naïve about sports, but a college coach stands for more than wins and losses, which Pearl has done at a 126-46 level in five seasons at Tennessee. There is also leadership and mentorship. There is accountability.

And Bruce Pearl has shown none of it. At best he is a liar. At worst he is a pathological liar. Either way, he has to be fired.

Stimulus Money sent overseas to fund...genital washing

The article is from CSNNews.com - not a mainstream source. But they provide a link to NIMH which gives the wording of this study, so it obviously happened...

Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program
Monday, September 13, 2010
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex.

The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011.

“NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications,” the grant abstract states. “We propose to evaluate the feasibility of a post-coital genital hygiene study among men unwilling to be circumcised in Orange Farm, South Africa.”

Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow.

“The aim of the proposed feasibility study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a post-coital male genital hygiene procedure, which participants will be asked to practice immediately post-coitus or at least 12 hours after,” reads the abstract.

Entitled “Community-Based HIV VCT: South Africa,” the name of the broader umbrella project, the program plans to test how well received the penis-washing regimen is among South African men.

If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections.

“If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study,” the grant says.

The study’s lead investigator Dr. Thomas J. Coates was the fourth highest-funded researcher in the country in 2002 and is currently conducting HIV research on three continents.

CNSNews.com asked both Coates and NIMH the following question: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”

Coates, who was unavailable for comment, directed CNSNews.com to ask grant-related questions of his assistant, Darya Freedman, who did not respond.

The NIMH also declined to respond to CNSNews.com’s question.

>>>Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow.

I will admit this taught me something. I didn't realize a guy could avoid getting AIDS just by washing his genitalia.

Rather than teach them to be circumcized or to wash their genitalia, why not just spend the money to give them condoms and educate them as to their use!!!!

This is only the latest in a long line of people who are given grant money for stupid, stupid research studies.

The "In Jokes" of listing art on ebay

I read the blog of a guy whom I don't really like, because he works in an entertainment field that interests me, and after he finishes blathering on for the first paragraph of his blog, he usually gets down to the nitty gritty. (I find his blog "voice" to be absolutely cringe-making, and I feel so embarrassed for him, but his pretentiousness doesn't seem to get in the way of his real work (maybe those people dont' read his blog)).

Anyway, he had a rant today about people who sell art for astronomical sums on Ebay. And he said he found 7 pages worth of art, each one listed at $21,000,000. (And the shipping? $1,000.) Then he went on and on about some other art there, making snarky comments about how much money people wanted. He also went on to make a snarky comment about "Oh, or they'll take best offer."

So, I went to Ebay, did what he did (Type art into the search field and select art from the category field, then sort by highest price first) and lo and behold yes, there are 7 pages worth of art listed for the ridiculous price of $21,000,000. After that, you get another 7 pages of art listed at $12,000,000. And each one of those is also listed at "Or best offer."

I clicked on a couple of these paintings. As far as an artist named Tommervik is concerned, he comes right out and says, "These paintings aren't worth $12,000,000. Make me your best offer."

As for the people who list their works for $21,000,000 they don't say that, but if you check their feedback, everything they've ever sold is in the $300 to $100 range.

So this other blogger who'd been making fun of these artists asking so much, didn't do his due diligence. They aren't expecting to get that much money...

My assumption is that they want to make sure their name comes up at the top of any list of "art search" so they put a high price on their work. And the knowledgeable Ebay art buyer knows that he/she can offer much less. It just must be some kind of game the Ebay sellers play to make sure they are found by any "search" for art. They could presumably do it the same way, only charging a penny for their artwork, but that would be counter productive. You always get more money if you make the buyer "beat you down" than if you're waiting for several buyer to bid the price up.

Having said that, here are photos of works from an artist named Tommervik, who is offering more than a dozen paintings there. I'm a Star Trek fan, but the presentation does nothing for me. All of his work, appears, to me, to be a little samey.