Yep. That's how I feel about the whole sorry deal. Senator Craig -- if all of these charges are true that he's had sexual encounters with eight men-- has not been kind to his wife. I feel sorry for her almost to to the point of tears.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Senator Larry Craig's Public Sexual Insult To His Wife Continues
Yep. That's how I feel about the whole sorry deal. Senator Craig -- if all of these charges are true that he's had sexual encounters with eight men-- has not been kind to his wife. I feel sorry for her almost to to the point of tears.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Like ASIMO? Here's LAND WALKER - Like The Imperial Walker In Star Wars
Ok. If you thought ASIMO was a cool advance in human-like mechanics, or Mecha, then check out this device called The Land Walker. It's 11 feet tall, weighs about a ton, costs $315,000. and has side machine guns. The only problem I can see is that it moves slow and seems to be movable on a flat surface, rather than an uneven one.
ASIMO - Honda's Robot Experiment Has Evolved Into Running Entity
What you're about to see is ASIMO -- Honda Corporations 20-year old experimental robot project which is at the point where the latest version can run up to four miles per hour. The video below shows the ASIMO robot in running action, and there are no wires.
Reportedly Honda's designed this robot to be used to help people, and the ASIMO website seems to imply this. But as ASIMO has reached this stage of development, the question of what would happen if ASIMO got into the wrong hands must be asked. Could this robot be used to deliver explosive devices for terrorists? How can one protect the technology from getting into the wrong hands?
Scary stuff, where we're aheaded.
Dave Colarusso On "How Social Media Can Help Shape Society"
Dave Colarusso who created the Community Counts / CNN / YouTube Debates website and is a co-creator of 10Questions, was interviewed by Jean Yung of the USC Annenberg School of Business. The article's called "How Social Media Can Help Shape Society" and is here below and linked to in the title of this post.
How social media can help shape society
OJR speaks with a co-creator of 10Questions.com about how the site is helping empower popular discussion about the U.S. Presidential campaign.
By Jean Yung
Posted: 2007-11-12
Building on July's YouTube/CNN presidential debate, 10Questions.com has opened a new channel of communication between the public and the presidential hopefuls.
Welcome to the agora of the 21st century: 10 Questions is a people-powered platform for presidential politics created by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry of techPresident and high school physics teacher David Colarusso, who also runs a site called Community Counts. Anyone can upload a video question for the candidates. The public votes on the questions it wants to see answered, and the candidates respond to the top 10 questions.
Will such a forum bring the democracy of the Internet to politics? OJR spoke on the phone with 10 Questions co-creator and self-described "technical guy" for the site, David Colarusso. An edited transcript follows.
OJR: 10 Questions is based on the technology of your site, Community Counts. How did Community Counts get its start?
Colarusso: Back in the beginning of this year, YouTube began spotlighting individual candidates on its page by posting a video of the candidate asking the community a question. YouTube users were then invited to submit video responses. Lastly, the candidate responded to these responses. For example, the first question was by Mitt Romney: "What do you believe is America's single greatest challenge?". I submitted a response, and luckily, the first two candidates replied to my videos.
It became obvious to us users after a while that there wasn't a good mechanism for the candidates to understand what the community valued. We thought the community should have some say as to what they wanted to see the candidate respond to. So we said, why don't we just survey everyone? That turned into Community Counts.
When the YouTube/CNN debate came along, I had the tools necessary for people to vote on those questions. We got a good deal of press coverage. We had a lot of users: 30,000 votes by 6,000 voters. That got the attention of the people of techPresident.
After the debate was over, we thought about what we wanted to see happen, and that turned into 10 Questions.
OJR: How is 10 Questions different from the YouTube/CNN debates?
Colarusso: There are some rather profound differences. The primary one is that we're doing this as a people-powered forum, not a debate. It's a discussion with the candidates. The YouTube debate allowed people to ask questions, but CNN had the ultimate say in choosing the final videos. YouTube also took away the features that let users see their peers' most popular videos. Community Counts allowed the users to vote on the questions themselves, to prioritize them. We pose the question: Do you think this should be asked of the candidates? Community Counts shows that when you ask that you get serious stuff.
Another difference is that we offer the ability for the community to comment on the candidates' replies and to rate whether the question was answered.
OJR: As of this morning, 10 Questions had about 76,000 votes and 160 videos. What is the traffic like? How do you add traffic to the site? What do you expect in the final week?
Colarusso: We'll probably get about 100,000 votes by November 14. The videos come in spurts as different groups get interested.
The idea of leveraging the wisdom of the crowds – that a group of people together can make better decisions – works when the crowd is diverse. The two ways we try to get diversity is to make the audience very large and to reach out to different populations. We have a collection of 40 cross-partisan "sponsors," such as the Huffington Post, Hugh Hewitt, DailyKos, BET. There is no financial relationship. The sponsors let their readers and viewers know what's going on over here. We have a nice mix of left and right voters.
OJR: How can you tell the political leaning of your visitors?
Colarusso: We can only say where they're coming from – our main referring sites (our sponsors) have a nice mix.
As for traffic, there are different drivers. Up to today, we've seen three major spikes. (We can tell by looking at the history for each of the videos – the top two videos would show these spikes.)
The first spike was our initial launch. In terms of unique individual visitors to the site, we had about 5,000. There was a peak of 7,000 visitors per day during the launch period.
The second spike in traffic, with a peak of about 11,000 individual visitors to the site, was on October 29, during Barack Obama's MySpace/MTV dialogue. We had worked it out so that the top ten questions on our site at the time would be asked. MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to their users telling them to vote on videos. It generated a lot of attention and traffic. The result was that a question on net neutrality shot up to number one, and it's still currently the top video. The following week there were discussions on the legitimacy of MoveOn.org. They were accused of "astroturfing". We don't think it's the right characterization. Sending out an e-mail asking people to vote doesn't guarantee that everyone will vote.
We do have safeguards on our site – only one vote per IP address allowed. At the end of round one [on November 14, when the top ten questions will be submitted to the candidates], we'll start an auditing process to further refine those safeguards.
This last weekend, there was another spike of about 6,400 unique visitors, resulting in the question, "Is America unofficially a theocracy?" climbing into the current number two spot. A blogger had posted an entry asking his readers to vote on two questions on religion and politics. It took off like crazy after someone dugg the blog entry. It got a couple thousand diggs, and generated a lot of traffic. So in the course of the weekend, it pushed these questions right up to the top 10. Certainly this is not astroturfing. This is not an organized e-mail list. People came and stayed around to vote on other questions.
We're big on being transparent. We've been blogging each day about the traffic. As of today, we've had about 65,000 unique visitors total since the site started. We're pretty happy that these individual people came to vote, and then stayed around to vote on other videos. On average people voted on about three videos. That's promising.
In the last peak, there were fewer unique voters but more voting. It's interesting to see how these numbers are correlated. This is the mystery of the Web – how people participate.
OJR: Have you any idea which campaign is more Web-organized than others, in terms of submitting videos to the site or getting their supporters to vote?
Colarusso: It's a tricky question. You see, you might have a small group that's good at mobilizing its members – but it has few members. I can tell you that over the life of the site, we've got in the top ten list of referring sites (in rough order): digg, blogspot [both from last week's spike], Crooks&Liars, MSNBC, Hugh Hewitt at Townhall, TalkingPointsMemo, HotAir, and Conservative Grapevine.
OJR: One of the hot topics surrounding the democracy of Internet-based forums is: Are the questions better? Smarter? More original? More relevant? What are your thoughts?
Colarusso: I think they're definitely diverse, and that's one of the main things we're trying to get at – a sense of what our community, our visitors think are questions that should be asked. So it's hard not to succeed with that rubric [laughs].
It's interesting to note that these questions are different from the normal questions. I think that means they're adding something. Policy-specific questions, such as net neutrality, or questions about whether America is unofficially a theocracy are obviously what this community feels strongly about.
OJR: What can journalists learn from this public forum?
Colarusso: An interesting question, but hard to answer at the moment. This is something that has to run its course. There could be another spike tomorrow and everything could change. This will work best when we have the most number of users participating. That's when we'll have the most diverse sample. The lesson might just be that there is a desire on people's part to have this access to candidates. We see a lot of student voices, students asking questions. We see the participation of people who might not normally feel like they have access. It's entirely egalitarian. We're not promoting any one viewpoint. We're just letting people decide. I think people very much appreciate that feeling that what you get is the will of the community.
OJR: Will the informal style of Internet home videos put an end to the sound-bite-driven style of politics on TV?
Colarusso: One of our goals is to provide a forum to allow politicians to move away from sound bites. It has to do with what we're looking for. With all these debates on TV, candidates say they don't get the chance to give nuanced answers. We're giving them a month to submit answers. They'll actually have to live up to that.
Additionally, having the community rate their answers lets the candidate know that they have an engaged community. And we hope that that will also provide an impetus for a more substantive answer.
As far as the informality of the questions, I think the main benefit is to put a human face on people who ask the questions, to make people feel more engaged when they are watching someone that looks more like them.
OJR: Is anyone analyzing or tabulating all the questions you've gotten?
Colarusso: We're keeping tabs on it – trying to give commentary as we go. We're providing data on votes and history. I'm definitely interested in seeing what the final tally looks like. There's a lot to glean there.
How social media can help shape society
OJR speaks with a co-creator of 10Questions.com about how the site is helping empower popular discussion about the U.S. Presidential campaign.
By Jean Yung
Posted: 2007-11-12
Building on July's YouTube/CNN presidential debate, 10Questions.com has opened a new channel of communication between the public and the presidential hopefuls.
Welcome to the agora of the 21st century: 10 Questions is a people-powered platform for presidential politics created by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry of techPresident and high school physics teacher David Colarusso, who also runs a site called Community Counts. Anyone can upload a video question for the candidates. The public votes on the questions it wants to see answered, and the candidates respond to the top 10 questions.
Will such a forum bring the democracy of the Internet to politics? OJR spoke on the phone with 10 Questions co-creator and self-described "technical guy" for the site, David Colarusso. An edited transcript follows.
OJR: 10 Questions is based on the technology of your site, Community Counts. How did Community Counts get its start?
Colarusso: Back in the beginning of this year, YouTube began spotlighting individual candidates on its page by posting a video of the candidate asking the community a question. YouTube users were then invited to submit video responses. Lastly, the candidate responded to these responses. For example, the first question was by Mitt Romney: "What do you believe is America's single greatest challenge?". I submitted a response, and luckily, the first two candidates replied to my videos.
It became obvious to us users after a while that there wasn't a good mechanism for the candidates to understand what the community valued. We thought the community should have some say as to what they wanted to see the candidate respond to. So we said, why don't we just survey everyone? That turned into Community Counts.
When the YouTube/CNN debate came along, I had the tools necessary for people to vote on those questions. We got a good deal of press coverage. We had a lot of users: 30,000 votes by 6,000 voters. That got the attention of the people of techPresident.
After the debate was over, we thought about what we wanted to see happen, and that turned into 10 Questions.
OJR: How is 10 Questions different from the YouTube/CNN debates?
Colarusso: There are some rather profound differences. The primary one is that we're doing this as a people-powered forum, not a debate. It's a discussion with the candidates. The YouTube debate allowed people to ask questions, but CNN had the ultimate say in choosing the final videos. YouTube also took away the features that let users see their peers' most popular videos. Community Counts allowed the users to vote on the questions themselves, to prioritize them. We pose the question: Do you think this should be asked of the candidates? Community Counts shows that when you ask that you get serious stuff.
Another difference is that we offer the ability for the community to comment on the candidates' replies and to rate whether the question was answered.
OJR: As of this morning, 10 Questions had about 76,000 votes and 160 videos. What is the traffic like? How do you add traffic to the site? What do you expect in the final week?
Colarusso: We'll probably get about 100,000 votes by November 14. The videos come in spurts as different groups get interested.
The idea of leveraging the wisdom of the crowds – that a group of people together can make better decisions – works when the crowd is diverse. The two ways we try to get diversity is to make the audience very large and to reach out to different populations. We have a collection of 40 cross-partisan "sponsors," such as the Huffington Post, Hugh Hewitt, DailyKos, BET. There is no financial relationship. The sponsors let their readers and viewers know what's going on over here. We have a nice mix of left and right voters.
OJR: How can you tell the political leaning of your visitors?
Colarusso: We can only say where they're coming from – our main referring sites (our sponsors) have a nice mix.
As for traffic, there are different drivers. Up to today, we've seen three major spikes. (We can tell by looking at the history for each of the videos – the top two videos would show these spikes.)
The first spike was our initial launch. In terms of unique individual visitors to the site, we had about 5,000. There was a peak of 7,000 visitors per day during the launch period.
The second spike in traffic, with a peak of about 11,000 individual visitors to the site, was on October 29, during Barack Obama's MySpace/MTV dialogue. We had worked it out so that the top ten questions on our site at the time would be asked. MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to their users telling them to vote on videos. It generated a lot of attention and traffic. The result was that a question on net neutrality shot up to number one, and it's still currently the top video. The following week there were discussions on the legitimacy of MoveOn.org. They were accused of "astroturfing". We don't think it's the right characterization. Sending out an e-mail asking people to vote doesn't guarantee that everyone will vote.
We do have safeguards on our site – only one vote per IP address allowed. At the end of round one [on November 14, when the top ten questions will be submitted to the candidates], we'll start an auditing process to further refine those safeguards.
This last weekend, there was another spike of about 6,400 unique visitors, resulting in the question, "Is America unofficially a theocracy?" climbing into the current number two spot. A blogger had posted an entry asking his readers to vote on two questions on religion and politics. It took off like crazy after someone dugg the blog entry. It got a couple thousand diggs, and generated a lot of traffic. So in the course of the weekend, it pushed these questions right up to the top 10. Certainly this is not astroturfing. This is not an organized e-mail list. People came and stayed around to vote on other questions.
We're big on being transparent. We've been blogging each day about the traffic. As of today, we've had about 65,000 unique visitors total since the site started. We're pretty happy that these individual people came to vote, and then stayed around to vote on other videos. On average people voted on about three videos. That's promising.
In the last peak, there were fewer unique voters but more voting. It's interesting to see how these numbers are correlated. This is the mystery of the Web – how people participate.
OJR: Have you any idea which campaign is more Web-organized than others, in terms of submitting videos to the site or getting their supporters to vote?
Colarusso: It's a tricky question. You see, you might have a small group that's good at mobilizing its members – but it has few members. I can tell you that over the life of the site, we've got in the top ten list of referring sites (in rough order): digg, blogspot [both from last week's spike], Crooks&Liars, MSNBC, Hugh Hewitt at Townhall, TalkingPointsMemo, HotAir, and Conservative Grapevine.
OJR: One of the hot topics surrounding the democracy of Internet-based forums is: Are the questions better? Smarter? More original? More relevant? What are your thoughts?
Colarusso: I think they're definitely diverse, and that's one of the main things we're trying to get at – a sense of what our community, our visitors think are questions that should be asked. So it's hard not to succeed with that rubric [laughs].
It's interesting to note that these questions are different from the normal questions. I think that means they're adding something. Policy-specific questions, such as net neutrality, or questions about whether America is unofficially a theocracy are obviously what this community feels strongly about.
OJR: What can journalists learn from this public forum?
Colarusso: An interesting question, but hard to answer at the moment. This is something that has to run its course. There could be another spike tomorrow and everything could change. This will work best when we have the most number of users participating. That's when we'll have the most diverse sample. The lesson might just be that there is a desire on people's part to have this access to candidates. We see a lot of student voices, students asking questions. We see the participation of people who might not normally feel like they have access. It's entirely egalitarian. We're not promoting any one viewpoint. We're just letting people decide. I think people very much appreciate that feeling that what you get is the will of the community.
OJR: Will the informal style of Internet home videos put an end to the sound-bite-driven style of politics on TV?
Colarusso: One of our goals is to provide a forum to allow politicians to move away from sound bites. It has to do with what we're looking for. With all these debates on TV, candidates say they don't get the chance to give nuanced answers. We're giving them a month to submit answers. They'll actually have to live up to that.
Additionally, having the community rate their answers lets the candidate know that they have an engaged community. And we hope that that will also provide an impetus for a more substantive answer.
As far as the informality of the questions, I think the main benefit is to put a human face on people who ask the questions, to make people feel more engaged when they are watching someone that looks more like them.
OJR: Is anyone analyzing or tabulating all the questions you've gotten?
Colarusso: We're keeping tabs on it – trying to give commentary as we go. We're providing data on votes and history. I'm definitely interested in seeing what the final tally looks like. There's a lot to glean there.
Hugo Chavez Loses Crucial Constitutional Vote
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) ― President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat Monday in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and solidify his bid to transform this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state.
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.
She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.
"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people's will.
It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.
"Don't feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez's opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.
Chavez's supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela's oil wealth.
The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.
Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.
Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.
The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.
All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.
At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here!" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.
Opponents -- including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders -- feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.
Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez's power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.
"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.
Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday's vote.
He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.
Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.
Lucena called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout just 56 percent.
She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.
"This was a photo finish," Chavez said immediately after the vote, adding that unlike past Venezuelan governments, his respects the people's will.
It was the first victory for an emboldened opposition against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.
"Don't feel sad," he urged his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options in a referendum that Chavez's opponents feared could have meant a plunge toward dictatorship.
Chavez's supporters had faith he would use the reforms to deepen grass-roots democracy and more equitably spread Venezuela's oil wealth.
The changes would have created new forms of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map, permit civil liberties to be suspended under extended states of emergency and allow Chavez to seek re-election indefinitely. Now, Chavez will be barred from running again in 2012.
Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds. The reforms also would have granted Chavez control over the Central Bank and extended presidential terms from six to seven years.
Chavez had warned opponents ahead of the vote he would not tolerate attempts to incite violence, and threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interfered.
The loss was unfamiliar territory for a leader who easily won re-election last year with 63 percent of the vote.
All was reported calm during voting but 45 people were detained, most for committing ballot-related crimes like "destroying electoral materials," said Gen. Jesus Gonzalez, chief of a military command overseeing security.
At a polling station in one politically divided Caracas neighborhood, Chavez supporters shouted "Get out of here!" to opposition backers who stood nearby aiming to monitor the vote count. A few dozen Chavistas rode by on motorcycles with bandanas and hats covering their faces, some throwing firecrackers.
Opponents -- including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders -- feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.
Cecilia Goldberger, a 56-year-old voting in affluent eastern Caracas, said Sunday that Venezuelans did not really understand how Chavez's power grab would affect them. She resented pre-dawn, get-out-the-vote tactics by Chavistas, including fireworks and reveille blaring from speakers mounted on cruising trucks.
"I refuse to be treated like cattle and I refuse to be part of a communist regime," the Israeli-born Goldberger said, adding that she and her businessman husband hope to leave the country.
Chavez sought to capitalize on his personal popularity ahead of Sunday's vote.
He is seen by many as a champion of the poor who has redistributed more oil wealth than any other leader in memory.
Tensions have surged in recent weeks as university students led protests and occasionally clashed with police and Chavista groups.
Lucena called the vote "the calmest we've had in the last 10 years."
DesMoines Register Reports Barack Obama Ahead in Poll
Yet another poll is reporting that Senator Barack Obama's ahead in Iowa; this one by The DesMoines Register in Iowa. What it may mean is that -- assuming the poll focuses on older voters -- that the Iowa older voter is seeing Obama as the candidate of choice. If that's the case then Clinton's in big trouble, as Obama's growing beyond his base of young supporters.
Bionic Woman On Hulu - Best Episode Yet - Do Not Disturb
Ok, you now know I'm hooked on the new show "Bionic Woman" and for reasons I've stated already. But the show's writing -- before the strike -- kept getting better and better. Here's an example which can be seen on Hulu, or here if you don't have a Hulu account.
Ron Paul Fielding Questions After The CNN YouTube Debate
Congressman Ron Paul has a one-trick-pony approach to his candidacy that is based on classic conservative ideology. In this video made after the CNN / YouTube Republican Debate, we see how Ron Paul adresses questions.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Hate Crimes in U.S. Increase by Nearly 8%- Extremely Disappointing
Associated Press
November 19, 2007 10:34 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Hate crime incidents in the U.S. rose last year by nearly 8%, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Monday, as racial prejudice continued to account for more than half the reported instances.
Police across the nation reported 7,722 criminal incidents in 2006 targeting victims or property as a result of bias against a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability. That was up 7.8% from the 7,163 incidents reported in 2005.
Although the noose incidents and beatings among students at Jena, La., high school occurred in the last half of 2006, they were not included in the report. Only 12,600 of the nation's more than 17,000 local, county, state and federal police agencies participated in the hate-crime reporting program in 2006 and neither Jena nor LaSalle Parish, in which the town is located, were among the agencies reporting.
Nevertheless, the Jena incidents, and a rash of subsequent noose incidents around the country, have spawned civil-rights protests in Louisiana and last week at Justice Department headquarters here. The department said it investigated the incident but decided not to prosecute because the federal government does not typically bring hate crime charges against juveniles.
November 19, 2007 10:34 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Hate crime incidents in the U.S. rose last year by nearly 8%, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Monday, as racial prejudice continued to account for more than half the reported instances.
Police across the nation reported 7,722 criminal incidents in 2006 targeting victims or property as a result of bias against a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability. That was up 7.8% from the 7,163 incidents reported in 2005.
Although the noose incidents and beatings among students at Jena, La., high school occurred in the last half of 2006, they were not included in the report. Only 12,600 of the nation's more than 17,000 local, county, state and federal police agencies participated in the hate-crime reporting program in 2006 and neither Jena nor LaSalle Parish, in which the town is located, were among the agencies reporting.
Nevertheless, the Jena incidents, and a rash of subsequent noose incidents around the country, have spawned civil-rights protests in Louisiana and last week at Justice Department headquarters here. The department said it investigated the incident but decided not to prosecute because the federal government does not typically bring hate crime charges against juveniles.
CNN / YouTube Debates - My Message To Steve Grove and Dave Bohrman
This video and post present my message to Steve Grove, the News and Politics editor for CNN, and to Dave Bohrman, the Executive Producer of the CNN / YouTube Debates for CNN.
My take is that CNN/YouTube was lucky to realize the ratings record that was set for the debate, and this was achieved for two reasons: 1) the time of year -- it's the fall holiday season, and 2) the fact that all of the Republican Presidential Candidates were there, which is no small feat.
Still, CNN/YouTube handled this debate differently than the Democratic Debate. First, the level of promotion of the event was dramatically scaled back compared to the first. Second, there were fewer questions picked out of the 5,200 that were submitted : 34 questions versus 43 for the first debate. Third, there was an annoying tendency to pick Blacks who submitted questions about Black issues, when there were videos from people who were not Black, but did ask questions about Blacks and the Republican Party.
(As a momentary aside, I think that practice shows an America that does not exist. It shows an America where only Blacks care about Black or minority issues, and not the real America, where a diverse set of people care about all Americans, and will ask questions regarding how Blacks are treated. To not show this -- the real America -- is criminal and paints America as far more racist than it really is. This country has come a long way and is better than it's ever been.)
CNN/YouTube also didn't handle its video talent properly. In the video I present myself as an example. In the begining I was -- and still am -- part of the sample video for the CNN/YouTube Debates. I'm also on the YTDebates channel, at least as of this writing and you can see my photo on the channel here in this blog post. So when I learned that YouTubers were being flown out by Google to the debates, I thought -- rightfully -- that somone would call.
Nope. Didn't happen.
I also sent an inquiry to determine if this was the case, and didn't get an answer from Steve Grove.
So it makes one wonder -- in this case, me -- what's going on over at CNN / YouTube and why they treat people in this way - or at least me. But given the thousands of people who have made and submitted videos, and the other talent that was promoted, I can't believe it's just me that had the problem.
CNN itself showed little regard for my time when they contact me for the first debate. Three show producers contacted me separately and in one case I thought I was to get on a flight. Then didn't get a call back. Then was essentially made to wait for a few days, then got a call saying I wasn't being flown out, only to get a call from another show flying me to New York.
Nuts.
What bothered me this time around was not that I was not called, but Steve didn't answer my emails attempting to learn what he and YouTube were going to do. If they'd said "Zennie, we don't need you this time", or "Hey CNN thinks you're an Obama supporter, and they've got a problem with that" then I'd be fine. I just wanted communication. I didn't get it.
As for the debate itself there were a lot of problems in addtion to the ones I discussed above. Not a single video question on Health Care was presented, leaving one to think the Republican Party doens't care about it. Is that CNN's call or the Republican Party? One has to assume they were working together. But in eliminating that series of questions, CNN / YouTube and the Republican Party pissed off a country.
Plus, CNN / YouTube did't tell video submitters they were going to do this, and the video makers -- given the Democratic Debate with YouTube, had full reason to think they would do so. Moreover, CNN / YouTube didn't tell anyone what they were going to do -- I learned it from CNN's David Bohrman being quoted in the New York Times.
That's not good.
In closing, I think CNN / YouTube owes YouTubers an appology and I'm also disappointed with how Steve Grove handled things this time around. I have high standards for him and I expect that -- givent the historic nature of what he's doing with YouTube and CNN that he will reach and maintain them. It's not personal -- I like Steve -- just professional.
I don't know Dave Bohrman, but I expect that he's a fine and upstanding person who will take these crticisms to heart and act on them. I think all of us want to see the CNN / YouTube system reach its potential.
My take is that CNN/YouTube was lucky to realize the ratings record that was set for the debate, and this was achieved for two reasons: 1) the time of year -- it's the fall holiday season, and 2) the fact that all of the Republican Presidential Candidates were there, which is no small feat.
Still, CNN/YouTube handled this debate differently than the Democratic Debate. First, the level of promotion of the event was dramatically scaled back compared to the first. Second, there were fewer questions picked out of the 5,200 that were submitted : 34 questions versus 43 for the first debate. Third, there was an annoying tendency to pick Blacks who submitted questions about Black issues, when there were videos from people who were not Black, but did ask questions about Blacks and the Republican Party.
(As a momentary aside, I think that practice shows an America that does not exist. It shows an America where only Blacks care about Black or minority issues, and not the real America, where a diverse set of people care about all Americans, and will ask questions regarding how Blacks are treated. To not show this -- the real America -- is criminal and paints America as far more racist than it really is. This country has come a long way and is better than it's ever been.)
CNN/YouTube also didn't handle its video talent properly. In the video I present myself as an example. In the begining I was -- and still am -- part of the sample video for the CNN/YouTube Debates. I'm also on the YTDebates channel, at least as of this writing and you can see my photo on the channel here in this blog post. So when I learned that YouTubers were being flown out by Google to the debates, I thought -- rightfully -- that somone would call.
Nope. Didn't happen.
I also sent an inquiry to determine if this was the case, and didn't get an answer from Steve Grove.
So it makes one wonder -- in this case, me -- what's going on over at CNN / YouTube and why they treat people in this way - or at least me. But given the thousands of people who have made and submitted videos, and the other talent that was promoted, I can't believe it's just me that had the problem.
CNN itself showed little regard for my time when they contact me for the first debate. Three show producers contacted me separately and in one case I thought I was to get on a flight. Then didn't get a call back. Then was essentially made to wait for a few days, then got a call saying I wasn't being flown out, only to get a call from another show flying me to New York.
Nuts.
What bothered me this time around was not that I was not called, but Steve didn't answer my emails attempting to learn what he and YouTube were going to do. If they'd said "Zennie, we don't need you this time", or "Hey CNN thinks you're an Obama supporter, and they've got a problem with that" then I'd be fine. I just wanted communication. I didn't get it.
As for the debate itself there were a lot of problems in addtion to the ones I discussed above. Not a single video question on Health Care was presented, leaving one to think the Republican Party doens't care about it. Is that CNN's call or the Republican Party? One has to assume they were working together. But in eliminating that series of questions, CNN / YouTube and the Republican Party pissed off a country.
Plus, CNN / YouTube did't tell video submitters they were going to do this, and the video makers -- given the Democratic Debate with YouTube, had full reason to think they would do so. Moreover, CNN / YouTube didn't tell anyone what they were going to do -- I learned it from CNN's David Bohrman being quoted in the New York Times.
That's not good.
In closing, I think CNN / YouTube owes YouTubers an appology and I'm also disappointed with how Steve Grove handled things this time around. I have high standards for him and I expect that -- givent the historic nature of what he's doing with YouTube and CNN that he will reach and maintain them. It's not personal -- I like Steve -- just professional.
I don't know Dave Bohrman, but I expect that he's a fine and upstanding person who will take these crticisms to heart and act on them. I think all of us want to see the CNN / YouTube system reach its potential.
Four Arrested In Redskins Sean Taylor Killing
The Miami-Dade Police Department arrested four individuals Friday in connection to the horrific slaying of Washington Redskins Pro Bowl safety Sean Taylor.
All four men, ranging in age from 17 to 20, are facing possible charges of murder and robbery in lieu of the break in at Taylor's lavish Miami home early Monday morning.
Contrary to the sentiments expressed by many that this was a planned attack by the four suspects, police director Robert Parker said that this was an attempted burglary and the four incarcerated men ''were certainly not looking to go there and kill anyone.''
All four men, ranging in age from 17 to 20, are facing possible charges of murder and robbery in lieu of the break in at Taylor's lavish Miami home early Monday morning.
Contrary to the sentiments expressed by many that this was a planned attack by the four suspects, police director Robert Parker said that this was an attempted burglary and the four incarcerated men ''were certainly not looking to go there and kill anyone.''
Source: Nathan's Friends, Family Used NYPD Service
This is a very sticky situation and one that is garnering tremendous attention in the Tri State Area.
It's imperative to point out that contrary to the belief of Guiliani's press secretary who thinks Rudy is the Republican front-runner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will receive the party's nomination.
Cops Chauffeured Relatives Around Without Her In Car
NEW YORK (CBS) ― The revelations continue in the case of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the security detail for Judith Nathan, his one-time mistress who is now his wife.
Did Nathan misuse the city police detail that Giuliani assigned to protect her?
At the dawn of 2001, Nathan was Giuliani's good friend and was receiving a blanket of police protection.
It was an unusual circumstance. His wife, first lady Donna Hanover, was still living at Gracie Mansion with their children.
But the mayor was unapologetic, citing security concerns.
"If you had any concern for people's safety, you'd have the decency to leave it alone. You should be ashamed of yourselves," the former mayor said back in 2001.
Six years later, presidential candidate Giuliani is facing questions about that security. A source involved with the mayor's operations at the time tells CBS 2 HD that Nathan took flagrant advantage of that police car and driver.
The source says Nathan forced police to chauffeur her friends and family around the city -- even when she wasn't in the car.
That set off alarms with ethics watchdogs.
"The rules are clear, you can't use city resources for private reasons," said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "And if you're using a city car, a police driven car to chauffeur around relatives, unless they're explicitly protected and their deemed to be the subject of potential security threats, it's just wrong."
Nathan's detail was approved by the NYPD after a stranger made an unspecified threat to her. The commissioner at the time was Bernard Kerik, who was recently indicted on tax fraud charges in an unrelated matter.
"It wasn't about her being the mayor's girlfriend," Kerik said. "The person spoke to her by name and made comments to her."
On Friday, Giuliani avoided reporters' questions about the security for Nathan back then. He told reporters off camera "we've explained it."
Giuliani's press secretary, Maria Comella, angrily denounced the use of an unnamed source in this story.
But she did not deny the assertion that Nathan used her police detail to ferry around friends and family.
And she repeated what Giuliani has said about reports questioning how his security detail was financed, saying, "This is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at the Republican front-runner."
It's imperative to point out that contrary to the belief of Guiliani's press secretary who thinks Rudy is the Republican front-runner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will receive the party's nomination.
Cops Chauffeured Relatives Around Without Her In Car
NEW YORK (CBS) ― The revelations continue in the case of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the security detail for Judith Nathan, his one-time mistress who is now his wife.
Did Nathan misuse the city police detail that Giuliani assigned to protect her?
At the dawn of 2001, Nathan was Giuliani's good friend and was receiving a blanket of police protection.
It was an unusual circumstance. His wife, first lady Donna Hanover, was still living at Gracie Mansion with their children.
But the mayor was unapologetic, citing security concerns.
"If you had any concern for people's safety, you'd have the decency to leave it alone. You should be ashamed of yourselves," the former mayor said back in 2001.
Six years later, presidential candidate Giuliani is facing questions about that security. A source involved with the mayor's operations at the time tells CBS 2 HD that Nathan took flagrant advantage of that police car and driver.
The source says Nathan forced police to chauffeur her friends and family around the city -- even when she wasn't in the car.
That set off alarms with ethics watchdogs.
"The rules are clear, you can't use city resources for private reasons," said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "And if you're using a city car, a police driven car to chauffeur around relatives, unless they're explicitly protected and their deemed to be the subject of potential security threats, it's just wrong."
Nathan's detail was approved by the NYPD after a stranger made an unspecified threat to her. The commissioner at the time was Bernard Kerik, who was recently indicted on tax fraud charges in an unrelated matter.
"It wasn't about her being the mayor's girlfriend," Kerik said. "The person spoke to her by name and made comments to her."
On Friday, Giuliani avoided reporters' questions about the security for Nathan back then. He told reporters off camera "we've explained it."
Giuliani's press secretary, Maria Comella, angrily denounced the use of an unnamed source in this story.
But she did not deny the assertion that Nathan used her police detail to ferry around friends and family.
And she repeated what Giuliani has said about reports questioning how his security detail was financed, saying, "This is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at the Republican front-runner."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)