Oooops

Sophie Bond and her mother Diane

Girl has report from wrong school

The mother of a 12-year-old girl from West Sussex has said she was shocked to receive a progress report from a school her daughter had never attended.

The Patcham High School report, sent to Diane Bond in Hurstpierpoint, praised Sophie's performance in English but said she was misbehaving in maths.

"The school doesn't know whether Sophie is there or not but has quite clearly given her results," said Ms Bond.

The school said it regretted any distress its mistake had caused.

Sophie attended an induction day at the school in July 2006 and was due to join Year 7 in September.

But she took up a place at Oakmeeds Community College in Burgess Hill instead.

Patcham's report gave Sophie grades in five subjects but marked her absent in all the others.

Another 9/11 tragedy

Jonathan Player for The New York Times
Patricia Bingley with pictures of her son, Kevin
Dennis, and her twin grandchildren, Elliott, left, and Ryan.

Parents of 9/11 Victims Torn From Grandchildren
By PAUL VITELLO
Published: January 19, 2007

OYSTER BAY, N.Y. — Five years after their father was killed at the World Trade Center, two little girls, ages 7 and 5, sat crying in a car parked at the curb of their grandparents’ home here one December day, refusing to go inside for a court-ordered visit. It was a painful family tableau rooted in a hundred tangled details, but one overriding and uncontested reality: 9/11.

Sometime after the death of Peter V. Genco, a Cantor Fitzgerald bond trader, in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the relationship between the girls’ mother and their late father’s parents went sour. The grandparents, Barbara and Victor Genco, obtained a court order in 2003 allowing them to see the children — under supervision, and for exactly four hours, once each month. In legal documents, the mother accused her in-laws of abuse and neglect, including drinking in front of them.

And on that Sunday afternoon in December, as described by the grandparents, the girls had apparently had enough of the whole business.

“We had hoped to be a part of their lives and a link to their father,” Barbara Genco, 69, said in an interview. “We imagined taking them with us to Europe, to Disney World. But it is too painful to see how the children have changed toward us.”

This sad tale is not entirely uncommon among families torn by the terrorist attacks. There is no official registry of such separations. One 9/11 family advocate said he had encountered more than 100 conflicts in which aging parents of a World Trade Center victim, desperate to remain connected to the children of their lost offspring, had found themselves in bitter struggles with a surviving spouse who would rather they did not. A mediator who helped negotiate settlements among 9/11 families in the early years after the attacks said 1 in 10 of his cases involved estranged grandparents.

A few have been to court, where recent laws give grandparents some leverage. Many other grandparents have not. Some have been wise and circumspect in efforts to mend relations with their deceased child’s widow or widower. Some have not.

“Sometimes, the spouse is remarried and just doesn’t have time for Grandma and Grandpa anymore,” said Bill Doyle, who lost his son, Joseph, at the World Trade Center and maintains an e-mail registry of several thousand surviving relatives for the Coalition of 9/11 Families.

“Sometimes, the spouse and the grandparents had differences about whether to bury or cremate the remains, or about where remains should end up,” Mr. Doyle added. “Or sometimes, there is money at stake. Or the people just never liked each other and it comes to blows over the kids. It can get so ugly, it’s beyond belief.”

Yes, you need to apologize, you goddamn redneck bastard

You sure told them nigras


Va. Lawmaker Denounced for Slave Comment
Virginia lawmaker draws criticism for comment that blacks should 'get over' slavery

RICHMOND, Va., Jan. 16, 2007
By BOB LEWIS Associated Press Writer

(AP) A state legislator said black people "should get over" slavery and questioned whether Jews should apologize "for killing Christ," drawing denunciations Tuesday from stunned colleagues.

Del. Frank D. Hargrove, 79, made his remarks in opposition to a measure that would apologize on the state's behalf to the descendants of slaves.

In an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville, Hargrove said slavery ended nearly 140 years ago with the Civil War and added that "our black citizens should get over it."

The newspaper also quoted him as saying, "are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?"

Without slavery, a low rent moron like you would have been lucky to leave the farm to find a pig-ugly bride. White skin privledge has given you everything in your miserable life, You sit in the House of Delegates because black people were sent to the back of the bus. You even closed the public schools rather than intergrate them. For five years, you stole childrens futures.

Slavery is where you start apologizing

The Hamilton Rule

Alexander Hamilton

President Schwarzenegger -- a potential blockbuster
POSTED: 5:27 p.m. EST, January 18, 2007
By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Schwarzenegger -- how does that sound?

Some people think it sounds pretty good. But don't we have enough people running for president next year?

According to CNN's tabulation, four Democrats are already running. One is exploring. Seven others are thinking about it. The Republican list is even longer. Eight Republicans are exploring. Six are thinking. That makes 26 potential candidates.

The editors of The Los Angeles Times think there's room for one more.

"Why should Californians have their governor sidelined from the race?'' the Los Angeles Times asked in a January 14 editorial. "And why can't voters across the country be entrusted to decide for themselves whether the governor of California is sufficiently 'American' to earn their vote? It's insulting really.''

The reason is Article II of the United States Constitution which reads, "No person except a natural-born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.''

It's in there because John Jay, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, wrote a letter to George Washington in 1787 arguing that the commander-in-chief of the United States Army should not be anyone but a natural-born American. The Founders were worried about ambitious foreigners taking over the country; as in Poland, which -- at the time -- had just been partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia.

That's not exactly a problem for the United States today. Yet the provision remains in the Constitution, barring naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright from ever becoming President.

And Austrian-born Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Amending the Constitution to drop the provision has been proposed before.

In the 1993 movie, "Demolition Man,'' about a police officer who was cryogenically frozen and thawed out in 2032, it was a joke.

"Stop! He was president?" asked the incredulous officer, played by Sylvester Stallone, was when his lieutenant, played by Sandra Bullock, told him to go to the Schwarezenegger Library to gather evidence.

"Yes," the lieutenant replied. "Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st amendment, which states that even . . . ''

"I don't want to know,'' the officer interrupted. "President?''

But the Times canvassed California's congressional delegation to find out how many would support a Constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens to become President. Six out of eight Republicans who responded said "yes." Democrats were more closely split -- 9 yes, 7 no.

Jen

Yes, I think the President should be born in America. As far as the Rethugs who are supporting changing the Constitution go, let's see how happy they are when they get their President Hernandez or Garcia.


No Bill, it was because the other founding fathers hated Hamilton.

Maybe it's me, but at a time Tom Tancredo wants to strip citizenship from people born in this country, why should California's idiot governor get a break

Time to serve

(Thaier al-Sudani/Reuters)


This was sent to warmonger Peter Beinhart. I think he deserves a flood of these letters myself


from Operation Yellow Elephant
to pbeinart@cfr.org
subject Have you considered volunteering for military service yourself?

Dear Mr. Beinart:

Thank you for your strong support of continued U.S. military intervention in Iraq. We have a few questions for you. We would like to publish your answers on our blog.

Are you a veteran? [If so, thank you for your service.] Although it's highly unlikely that you are in ROTC/OCS/something similar, if you are, we thank you for your commitment. Have you applied for military service, but were not accepted? [If so, thank you for stepping forward.] Do you know that you are not eligible to serve? [If so, please let us know that one fact, and we won't contact you again.]

Otherwise, it would appear that you are eligible to serve in our military. Have you considered it? What resulted from those deliberations? Don't you think that someone who advocates military intervention has an obligation at least to consider volunteering personally?

If you have addressed this issue in your columns or elsewhere on the record, we would welcome links. [If you would like to keep something not-for-publication, please use brackets as I am doing with this sentence.] Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Karl Olson

Operation Yellow Elephant

About going to Walter Reed

GWU College Republicans at Walter Reed: Real Americans Push Back

From the student newspaper GW Hatchet (letters 2 and 3):

Stand up for your beliefs

(money quote para 4)

As a former Air Force intelligence officer who has deployed in support of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I applaud Gary Livacari (at podium) and Peter Glessing for taking the time to see our wounded personnel at Walter Reed Hospital ("The children of the 60s," Jan. 17, p. 4). However, I am concerned that they are missing something.

Since Sept. 11, military personnel have enjoyed enthusiastic support from those at home. I personally have received standing ovations at airports, unexpected free meals at restaurants, and many warm handshakes. All of these gestures are much appreciated, especially when we compare this with what returning Vietnam veterans endured. However, if we are to win this war, we will need something more than these gestures. We will need people at home to begin sacrificing too.

The unfortunate truth is that our volunteer force was not designed to handle the monumental task of transforming the Middle East. The stress to our troops is only half the story. The other half is the devastation to our supplies and equipment, and the enormous crisis of military readiness we face when Iraq is over. The system of contractors and corporations we have in place to replace our equipment is very slow, and one of the main reasons our troops die is because our vehicles and gear are inadequate. We need all new equipment designed for this threat, and we need them yesterday. We need civilians to demand this for us because we can't. Such demand requires civilians to sacrifice their time and energy. In today's America, it is hard to make those sacrifices. But it is what we need to win.

Finally, we need young people such as Mr. Lavacari and Mr. Glessing to join the military and help us fight. Talking to veterans and comforting them is great, but in the end, only talk. We need you, Mr. Livacari and Mr. Glessing, to fight for the cause that you say you believe in. That may mean sacrificing your college career for a while or the first few years of your professional career. But it is what we need to win. You invoked the greatest generation in your column. The greatest generation sacrificed greatly. I hope that you will too.

-Jordan Curry, GW law student

Support for leaders must be earned

The students participating in this Friday's trip to Walter Reed Hospital ought to be commended. However, a very basic truth is lost on Peter Glessing and Gary Livacari, the two individuals soliciting participation. As the death toll mounts and the sordid truths about this Iraq war are laid bare, the home front is turning its indignation against its leaders rather than its protectors. You don't see any fewer "Support the Troops" ribbons, only fewer "Bush/Cheney" stickers; that is not a coincidence. A "surge in patriotism" will come about if and only when Americans see a genuine, positive change in the conduct of the leaders who are sending their countrymen into harm's way.

-Alexander Tucciarone, Junior

OYE Comment: We agree. And President Bush can best earn that support by calling upon his strongest supporters, if qualified, such as Gary Livacari and Peter Glessing, to Be A Man! Enlist!

Voir Dire from hell

In Libby Trial, Big Names Make Jury Picks a Tall Order
Shallow Pool Teems With Ties to Players

By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A01

To see how small a town Washington really is, drop in on jury selection at the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, where so far nearly every juror candidate seems to have a connection to the players or events surrounding the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

There is the software database manager whose wife works as a prosecutor for the Justice Department, and who counts the local U.S. attorney and a top official in Justice's criminal division as neighbors and friends. A housecleaner who works at the Watergate and knows Condoleezza Rice, not by her title of secretary of state, but as the "lady who lives up on the fifth floor." And a former Washington Post reporter whose editor was now-Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward; he went to barbecues at the house of NBC's Tim Russert, a neighbor, and just published a book on the CIA and spying

Such is the challenge as U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton tries to seat a jury of 12 peers for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, in one of Washington's biggest trials in years.

It has always been difficult to select juries in Washington, where the pool is small compared with the number of trials, and half the people summoned to be jurors don't even show up. But the star power of the players in this case has complicated matters.

Libby is charged with lying to FBI agents and a grand jury investigating the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to the media in 2003, shortly after the Iraq war began. He is accused of fabricating a story to conceal the nature of his conversations with reporters and his role in a White House effort to discredit Plame's husband, a prominent critic of the invasion of Iraq.

Defense lawyers for Libby contend that he forgot the details and timing of those conversations amid the crush of his daily workload and believed he had heard about Plame from Russert. Only later, they say, did he remember that he had actually learned her identity from his boss, Cheney.

By the end of yesterday's session, Walton and lawyers for both sides had quizzed 33 potential jurors and excused nine. The 24 remaining in the pool, and others who will be questioned starting this morning, still could be struck by lawyers on either side. Walton said he wanted to complete the selection of 12 jurors and four alternates by the end of today. Jurors cannot be identified by name, under an order from the judge.

Members of the government and media elite are the key players and witnesses expected to be called in a case that will often focus on the administration's justification for war in Iraq. As the slow questioning of potential jurors in Courtroom 16 of the federal court wound through a second day yesterday, it became clear that those celebrities rub shoulders a lot with the regular folks in this 13-mile-wide city of 550,000.