Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Withheld in Full - Episode 1: Morley vs. CIA
“Who was Howard?”
17 months of missing progress reports, a mysterious name on cables and correspondence about and between the DRE, a Cuban exile group - who in 1963 had various interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald - sent former Washington Post reporter and editor Jefferson Morley on a decade-long investigative journey to find the answer to that very question...
“Who was Howard?”
First dismissed by the CIA as possibly a mere “routing indicator,” and after the Agency denied any affiliation with the DRE in 1963, “Howard” was revealed to be George Joannides, an experienced career CIA officer known at the time only as a liaison between the CIA and the House Select Committee on Assassinations during their late 1970s investigation into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
Joannides kept his 1963 activities secret from the HSCA, in strict violation of the CIA’s agreement with the HSCA that no operational officer from the time of Kennedy’s murder would work with the HSCA.
Morley’s discovery provided proof that the CIA knowingly and willingly compromised the Committee’s investigation into the murders. This, prompted the HSCA’s Chief Counsel, G. Robert Blakey in 2003 to denounce his own committee’s findings about any CIA relation to Oswald, and remark that "I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity."
In 2003, after unsuccessfully attempting to seek interest in his Washington Post colleagues in the Joannides story, Morley and renowned FOIA attorney Jim Lesar sued the CIA for release of the Joannides records. In response, the Agency released approximately 100 pages of documents, including the revelation that, in April and May of 1964, Joannides traveled to New Orleans - coincidentally the same day (April 1) that the Warren Commission notified DRE leader Carlos Bringuier that the Commission wanted his testimony.
The purpose of Joannides’ trip to New Orleans remains a mystery.
In November, 2005, the CIA released a Vaughn Index of all secret Joannides documents in his administrative file, including 33 records that the CIA claims cannot be released in any form. In the index, it was revealed that Joannides received a Career Intelligence Medal in March, 1981 - with the reason for that award being “Denied in Full.”
The next month, in December of 2005, the Agency submitted the declaration of Marilyn Dorn, who justified the CIA’s refusal to search its records on Joannides’ secret activities in 1963, during the time of the DRE’s contact with Oswald. While her declaration reveals the existence of secret operational files on Joannides, it also says that the CIA retains 1,100 JFK assassination records that they plan to keep secret until at least 2017.
Morley responded the same month with a 10-page affidavit challenging the adequacy of the Agency’s search, which was met in September, 2006 with Judge Richard Leon’s decision that upheld the CIA’s position, and dismissed Morley’s case.
In July, 2007, Morley and Lesar appealed Judge Leon’s decision, and in December, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Morley’s favor, overturning Judge Leon’s decision, and ordering the CIA to search its operational files for Joannides records, and explain the absence of monthly reports on the DRE from Joannides’ time with them. On February 27, 2008, CIA lawyers promised the Appeals court a response to their decision by April 30.
For more information, please follow the resource links below, containing Morley's writings on the case, Mary Ferrell Foundation Unredacted interviews, and documents from the Morley V. CIA lawsuit.
The RFK Assassination 40th Anniversary - Part I: Stalking RFK
This article is taken from maryferrel.com
Sirhan Sirhan's repetitive writing, his claimed failure to remember the events at the Ambassador hotel, the ease with which he could be hypnotized - for these reasons and more, many observers have speculated that Sirhan was some form of "Manchurian candidate," programmed via hypnosis to be the "patsy" in RFK's assassination.
However, there are several credible sightings of someone closely resembling Sirhan, in the company of others, apparently stalking RFK in the days leading up to June 5. Sirhan was seen in the company of a woman and at times other men, acting suspiciously and in some cases trying to get close to Kennedy or gain access to his schedule. Persons matching the same descriptions were seen in Sirhan's company on the evening of the assassination in the Ambassador hotel, and also fleeing the scene of the crime.
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals had any connection to Sirhan. But while even sincere eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes in details, what is noteworthy here is the consistent descriptions of physical appearance and aggressive demeanor in these independent accounts.
What is also noteworthy is the way in which the LAPD discounted these stories, in some cases justifying the rejection based on alleged retractions for which there is no record. Why weren't these witnesses afforded the standard police procedure of viewing a lineup including Sirhan, to see if they could make a positive id?
The earliest of these reports concerns an incident involving Sirhan and a young woman. at a campaign stop two weeks prior to RFK's murder. It was two days after Sirhan wrote in his notebook "my determination to eliminate RFK is become more the more [sic] of an unshakable obsession." Was this the start of the stalking of RFK?
Robbie's Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20
In Pomona, a 400-person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Bartender Albert LeBeau was called on duty to act as ticket screener on the staircase leading to the function. William Schneid, a Pomona police officer, was assigned to security duty in the restaurant.
Schneid encountered a young woman standing by the kitchen door of the restaurant, apparently trying to get inside through that door. He informed her that the door was locked and she then asked him which way Senator Kennedy would enter the luncheon. He told her that RFK “would probably go up the stairs to the second floor.”
Later, Schneid observed the same young woman, along with a young man, cross over a brick façade adjacent to the stairs, and then climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs. There, they were intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau, who heard a noise as the couple had apparently jumped over the banister. Le Beau challenged the pair, and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told them that they still needed tickets, and she replied, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Since so many people were being allowed upstairs, Le Beau let them go at that point, only to encounter them again.
LeBeaus' interview by LAPD on June 26 has a wealth of detail about his interactions with the couple. He thought it "very odd" that the young man had a coat thrown over his arm even though it was a very warm May afternoon in southern California. When LeBeau encountered them on the second occasion he was made more suspicious because the couple were clearly not with the Seantor's party, and the man appeared to be in what amounted to be a “crouch”, his coat still over his arm. LeBeau began to confront them, saying "pardon me," at which point the young man turned on him and in a "surly" tone asked “Why should I?”
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. That ended the LAPD investigation.
In his June 26 LAPD interview, LeBeau described the young man as "a male Latin type, 25 to 30 years, 5-5.....black hair, dark complected," and also successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males (he also failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID). LeBeau described the girl thusly: "female Caucasian, 25-30 years, 5-4 to 5-6, trim nice figure, with shoulder length straight light brown hair," a good match for the "polka dot dress girl" seen in other circumstances.
While the final LAPD report asserts that LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied," there is nothing in the files to substantiate this alleged retraction.
Police officer Schneid apparently told the FBI that he "did not feel that the man observed by him on the stairs would have been Sirhan Sirhan," but the description he supplied fits Sirhan well - "Early 20's, 5'6" to 5'7", slender, dark curly hair, Latin or Mexican." His description of the girl also matches the "polka dot dress girl." LAPD records note the FBI interview but do not contain any LAPD interview with Schneid.
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30
Ten days after the incident at Robbie's Restaurant, Laverne Botting, a 41 year old RFK campaign worker, observed a young woman and two young men enter the Azuza campaign office. One of the young men approached Botting at her desk and said that he was from the RFK headquarters in Pasadena (Sirhan lived in Pasadena at the time). He wanted to know if RFK would be visiting that area; Botting told the young man that the Senator would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo line up as closely resembling the man who spoke with her. She accurately described Sirhan’s height, black eyes and kinky black hair.
Independently of Botting, Ethel Crehan, another volunteer in the office, called police and told them that she was “fairly certain” that Sirhan had come into the office. She said she could be sure if she could see him in a line-up, as had Botting. Neither was offered the opportunity.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that no one had been sent from that office on that day. Thus, a potentially innocent explanation for this event does not appear to hold up.
No transcript exists of the Botting interview; the officer in charge closed out her file with the remark that she “had obviously made an honest mistake.” Although no one other than the police and FBI should have known of Botting’s report, she later received a threatening phone call at home – “I hear you think you saw Sirhan; you had better be sure of what you are saying!”
Crehan’s report was closed because the officer noted that her estimate of the man’s height was three to four inches above Sirhan’s actual height - although still relatively short at 5’8” - and despite her selecting his picture out. For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.” This dismissal seems premature at best, given the rest of her description and the corroborating account of Lavern Botting.
Santa Ana Mountains, South of Corona, California, June 1
Dean Pack, an insurance executive, was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains on June 1, two days after the Azuza visit. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting with a pistol at cans set up on a hillside. He was in the company of a girl in her early twenties with long brunet hair and another man who was around six feet tall, with sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
According to a 1969 interview with author Jonn Christian, recounted in the book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” Pack told Christian:
"The person who looked like Sirhan didn't say a word. He just stood there and glared at me. The other fellow was the only one who would talk."
Pack added:
"Sirhan was shooting a pistol.....As I walked away from them, you know, you get the funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back. I was relieved to get out of their sight."
Pack reported the incident to the FBI, offering to take them to the spot to recover bullets or shell casings and look for fingerprints on the bottles and cans being handled by the three. The FBI was uninterested: "I got the attitude that they had their man so why spin wheels about anything else."
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “viewed a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” the man he encountered with the pistol, but that he “could not be positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, however, Pack stated that he had only talked to the police on the telephone, had been shown no picture and still felt that the young man he and his son had seen shooting with a pistol was Sirhan.
At the Ambassador, June 2
Karen Ross reported to the LAPD that, while attending a Kennedy rally at the Grove room in the Ambassador the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. Her description of the dress matches that of witnesses to the girl at the assassination scene. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “short flip" and "puffy.” Ross thought there was something unusual about the girl's nose, possibly it had been “fixed”, another recurring feature of polka dot dress girl descriptions.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. According to author and defense participant Robert Kaiser, who wrote the book RFK Must Die!, Sirhan told his attorney Grant Cooper that he had been to the hotel on June 2, "to hear him talk." He said the same thing to defense psychiatrist Dr. Bernard Diamond. He denied being in the kitchen that night, calling two individuals who had seen him there liars. Ultimately he testified at his trial about being at the Ambassador on June 2, though was not asked about being there in the presence of a girl. About seeing Kennedy there: "I was really thrilled, Sir.....he looked like a saint to me. I liked him.”
At the Ambassador, June 4/5
A girl in a polka dot dress, whose description matches that given by the witnesses previously noted, was seen at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of RFK's assassination by several witnesses. Some saw her in the company of Sirhan. She was even seen in the pantry where Kennedy was shot, and fleeing the scene in the company of another man.
Irene Gizzi of Students for Kennedy and a 14-year-old student named Katherine Keir noticed a group of three people who didn't seem to fit in with the exuberant crowd. The young woman in the group had on a polka dot dress and was with a young man with a dark complexion, dark hair and a gold colored shirt. Gizzi felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. Katherine Keir even told police that later that evening, the woman had run by her saying "We shot Kennedy," but Keir revised her statement when re-interviewed in the presence of her parents (three fellow students who gave corroborating accounts were also re-interviewed in this manner).
During Kennedy’s speech, Roy Mills observed a group of five people (including a woman) in the hallway outside the Embassy room. He identified one as Sirhan, remembering him specifically for his baggy pants. Pauline Walker also saw a girl in the polka dot dress in this general area, in the company of a man (apparently not Sirhan).
Photographer Conrad Seim and other witnesses observed a girl with a "funny nose." Seim told the LAPD that the girl had asked him for his press pass and was "very persistent."
Darnell Johnson, one of the pantry shooting witnesses, described four men and a girl in the pantry as RFK was entering. One of the men was Sirhan. The girl was in a polka dot dress. The girl and the men walked out of the pantry as everyone was rushing to RFK and wrestling with Sirhan.
Several witnesses - George Green, Booker Griffin, Dr. Marcus McBroom, Jack Merritt - observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor, through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Campaign worker Sandra Serrano, out at a staircase behind the hotel, later heard some "backfires," and then watched as a woman in a polka dot dress and a male companion burst out of the hotel shouting "we shot him, we shot him" Serrano asked who, and the woman replied "Senator Kennedy."
This incredible account was corroborated by LAPD Officer Paul Sharaga, who arrived quickly at the back lot of the hotel and set up a command post there. He was told a nearly identical story by an elderly couple named the Bernsteins, who told him that a man and a woman in a polka dot dress ran past them, gleefully shouting "We shot him! We shot him!" When queried, the girl replied, "Kennedy, we shot him! We killed him!"
An All Points Bulletin was issued by the Los Angeles police, looking for two additional suspects. A few hours later the APB was canceled by Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives John Powers. Powers is quoted on the LAPD radio logs: "don't want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy."
Coming soon: The Polka Dot Dress Girl expands on the sightings of Sirhan's accomplices at the Ambassador Hotel, and the manner by which the LAPD dealt with this stark evidence of a conspiracy involving Sirhan.
This article is adapted from an essay written by Larry Hancock, and is based on the research of Robert Kaiser, Dr. Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian, Lisa Pease, and others.
The article on the original Mary Ferrell page contains links to books and documents.
Sirhan Sirhan's repetitive writing, his claimed failure to remember the events at the Ambassador hotel, the ease with which he could be hypnotized - for these reasons and more, many observers have speculated that Sirhan was some form of "Manchurian candidate," programmed via hypnosis to be the "patsy" in RFK's assassination.
However, there are several credible sightings of someone closely resembling Sirhan, in the company of others, apparently stalking RFK in the days leading up to June 5. Sirhan was seen in the company of a woman and at times other men, acting suspiciously and in some cases trying to get close to Kennedy or gain access to his schedule. Persons matching the same descriptions were seen in Sirhan's company on the evening of the assassination in the Ambassador hotel, and also fleeing the scene of the crime.
The LAPD eventually chose to repudiate, reject or filter all the witness observations suggesting that other individuals had any connection to Sirhan. But while even sincere eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes in details, what is noteworthy here is the consistent descriptions of physical appearance and aggressive demeanor in these independent accounts.
What is also noteworthy is the way in which the LAPD discounted these stories, in some cases justifying the rejection based on alleged retractions for which there is no record. Why weren't these witnesses afforded the standard police procedure of viewing a lineup including Sirhan, to see if they could make a positive id?
The earliest of these reports concerns an incident involving Sirhan and a young woman. at a campaign stop two weeks prior to RFK's murder. It was two days after Sirhan wrote in his notebook "my determination to eliminate RFK is become more the more [sic] of an unshakable obsession." Was this the start of the stalking of RFK?
Robbie's Restaurant, Pomona California, May 20
In Pomona, a 400-person campaign luncheon was being held for RFK in the second floor dining area of the restaurant. Bartender Albert LeBeau was called on duty to act as ticket screener on the staircase leading to the function. William Schneid, a Pomona police officer, was assigned to security duty in the restaurant.
Schneid encountered a young woman standing by the kitchen door of the restaurant, apparently trying to get inside through that door. He informed her that the door was locked and she then asked him which way Senator Kennedy would enter the luncheon. He told her that RFK “would probably go up the stairs to the second floor.”
Later, Schneid observed the same young woman, along with a young man, cross over a brick façade adjacent to the stairs, and then climb over the stair railing behind people checking tickets at the foot of the stairs. There, they were intercepted by LeBeau at his position further up the stairs. LeBeau, who heard a noise as the couple had apparently jumped over the banister. Le Beau challenged the pair, and the woman responded “we are with the Senator’s party.” LeBeau told them that they still needed tickets, and she replied, “we are part of the Senator’s party; he just waved us upstairs.” Since so many people were being allowed upstairs, Le Beau let them go at that point, only to encounter them again.
LeBeaus' interview by LAPD on June 26 has a wealth of detail about his interactions with the couple. He thought it "very odd" that the young man had a coat thrown over his arm even though it was a very warm May afternoon in southern California. When LeBeau encountered them on the second occasion he was made more suspicious because the couple were clearly not with the Seantor's party, and the man appeared to be in what amounted to be a “crouch”, his coat still over his arm. LeBeau began to confront them, saying "pardon me," at which point the young man turned on him and in a "surly" tone asked “Why should I?”
LAPD records show that LeBeau was fairly certain the young man was Sirhan but would not swear it under oath. That ended the LAPD investigation.
In his June 26 LAPD interview, LeBeau described the young man as "a male Latin type, 25 to 30 years, 5-5.....black hair, dark complected," and also successfully picked Sirhan’s photo from a sample set of 25 young dark skinned males (he also failed to pick out another photo of Sirhan taken from his Racing Commission ID). LeBeau described the girl thusly: "female Caucasian, 25-30 years, 5-4 to 5-6, trim nice figure, with shoulder length straight light brown hair," a good match for the "polka dot dress girl" seen in other circumstances.
While the final LAPD report asserts that LeBeau “initially stated the man was Sirhan, but later admitted he lied," there is nothing in the files to substantiate this alleged retraction.
Police officer Schneid apparently told the FBI that he "did not feel that the man observed by him on the stairs would have been Sirhan Sirhan," but the description he supplied fits Sirhan well - "Early 20's, 5'6" to 5'7", slender, dark curly hair, Latin or Mexican." His description of the girl also matches the "polka dot dress girl." LAPD records note the FBI interview but do not contain any LAPD interview with Schneid.
Kennedy Campaign headquarters, Azuza California, May 30
Ten days after the incident at Robbie's Restaurant, Laverne Botting, a 41 year old RFK campaign worker, observed a young woman and two young men enter the Azuza campaign office. One of the young men approached Botting at her desk and said that he was from the RFK headquarters in Pasadena (Sirhan lived in Pasadena at the time). He wanted to know if RFK would be visiting that area; Botting told the young man that the Senator would not. In an interview with the LAPD, Botting picked Sirhan out of a photo line up as closely resembling the man who spoke with her. She accurately described Sirhan’s height, black eyes and kinky black hair.
Independently of Botting, Ethel Crehan, another volunteer in the office, called police and told them that she was “fairly certain” that Sirhan had come into the office. She said she could be sure if she could see him in a line-up, as had Botting. Neither was offered the opportunity.
The police did check with the Pasadena RFK office staff and were told that no one had been sent from that office on that day. Thus, a potentially innocent explanation for this event does not appear to hold up.
No transcript exists of the Botting interview; the officer in charge closed out her file with the remark that she “had obviously made an honest mistake.” Although no one other than the police and FBI should have known of Botting’s report, she later received a threatening phone call at home – “I hear you think you saw Sirhan; you had better be sure of what you are saying!”
Crehan’s report was closed because the officer noted that her estimate of the man’s height was three to four inches above Sirhan’s actual height - although still relatively short at 5’8” - and despite her selecting his picture out. For this reason he felt “it was doubtful she observed Sirhan.” This dismissal seems premature at best, given the rest of her description and the corroborating account of Lavern Botting.
Santa Ana Mountains, South of Corona, California, June 1
Dean Pack, an insurance executive, was hiking with his son in a secluded part of the Santa Ana Mountains on June 1, two days after the Azuza visit. After the assassination, he recognized Sirhan as “strongly resembling” a young man whom they had encountered during their hike. The young man was shooting with a pistol at cans set up on a hillside. He was in the company of a girl in her early twenties with long brunet hair and another man who was around six feet tall, with sandy colored hair and a ruddy complexion.
According to a 1969 interview with author Jonn Christian, recounted in the book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the main thing that struck Pack “was how unfriendly they were.” Pack told Christian:
"The person who looked like Sirhan didn't say a word. He just stood there and glared at me. The other fellow was the only one who would talk."
Pack added:
"Sirhan was shooting a pistol.....As I walked away from them, you know, you get the funny sensation that it would be possible for them to put a bullet in your back. I was relieved to get out of their sight."
Pack reported the incident to the FBI, offering to take them to the spot to recover bullets or shell casings and look for fingerprints on the bottles and cans being handled by the three. The FBI was uninterested: "I got the attitude that they had their man so why spin wheels about anything else."
A two-sentence LAPD report on Pack states that he “viewed a photograph of Sirhan” and said that the man he saw “strongly resembled” the man he encountered with the pistol, but that he “could not be positive of the identification.” When interviewed by Christian in 1969, however, Pack stated that he had only talked to the police on the telephone, had been shown no picture and still felt that the young man he and his son had seen shooting with a pistol was Sirhan.
At the Ambassador, June 2
Karen Ross reported to the LAPD that, while attending a Kennedy rally at the Grove room in the Ambassador the Sunday before the assassination, she had observed a young woman in a polka dot dress at the rally. Her description of the dress matches that of witnesses to the girl at the assassination scene. The woman was medium height, somewhat “husky” with dark blond hair worn with a “short flip" and "puffy.” Ross thought there was something unusual about the girl's nose, possibly it had been “fixed”, another recurring feature of polka dot dress girl descriptions.
Sirhan was also at the Ambassador that evening. According to author and defense participant Robert Kaiser, who wrote the book RFK Must Die!, Sirhan told his attorney Grant Cooper that he had been to the hotel on June 2, "to hear him talk." He said the same thing to defense psychiatrist Dr. Bernard Diamond. He denied being in the kitchen that night, calling two individuals who had seen him there liars. Ultimately he testified at his trial about being at the Ambassador on June 2, though was not asked about being there in the presence of a girl. About seeing Kennedy there: "I was really thrilled, Sir.....he looked like a saint to me. I liked him.”
At the Ambassador, June 4/5
A girl in a polka dot dress, whose description matches that given by the witnesses previously noted, was seen at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of RFK's assassination by several witnesses. Some saw her in the company of Sirhan. She was even seen in the pantry where Kennedy was shot, and fleeing the scene in the company of another man.
Irene Gizzi of Students for Kennedy and a 14-year-old student named Katherine Keir noticed a group of three people who didn't seem to fit in with the exuberant crowd. The young woman in the group had on a polka dot dress and was with a young man with a dark complexion, dark hair and a gold colored shirt. Gizzi felt that the third man might well have been Sirhan. Katherine Keir even told police that later that evening, the woman had run by her saying "We shot Kennedy," but Keir revised her statement when re-interviewed in the presence of her parents (three fellow students who gave corroborating accounts were also re-interviewed in this manner).
During Kennedy’s speech, Roy Mills observed a group of five people (including a woman) in the hallway outside the Embassy room. He identified one as Sirhan, remembering him specifically for his baggy pants. Pauline Walker also saw a girl in the polka dot dress in this general area, in the company of a man (apparently not Sirhan).
Photographer Conrad Seim and other witnesses observed a girl with a "funny nose." Seim told the LAPD that the girl had asked him for his press pass and was "very persistent."
Darnell Johnson, one of the pantry shooting witnesses, described four men and a girl in the pantry as RFK was entering. One of the men was Sirhan. The girl was in a polka dot dress. The girl and the men walked out of the pantry as everyone was rushing to RFK and wrestling with Sirhan.
Several witnesses - George Green, Booker Griffin, Dr. Marcus McBroom, Jack Merritt - observed the young woman and man hurrying out of the pantry and corridor, through the Embassy room and out towards the rear stairs and parking lot.
Campaign worker Sandra Serrano, out at a staircase behind the hotel, later heard some "backfires," and then watched as a woman in a polka dot dress and a male companion burst out of the hotel shouting "we shot him, we shot him" Serrano asked who, and the woman replied "Senator Kennedy."
This incredible account was corroborated by LAPD Officer Paul Sharaga, who arrived quickly at the back lot of the hotel and set up a command post there. He was told a nearly identical story by an elderly couple named the Bernsteins, who told him that a man and a woman in a polka dot dress ran past them, gleefully shouting "We shot him! We shot him!" When queried, the girl replied, "Kennedy, we shot him! We killed him!"
An All Points Bulletin was issued by the Los Angeles police, looking for two additional suspects. A few hours later the APB was canceled by Acting Chief of LAPD Detectives John Powers. Powers is quoted on the LAPD radio logs: "don't want them to get anything started on a big conspiracy."
Coming soon: The Polka Dot Dress Girl expands on the sightings of Sirhan's accomplices at the Ambassador Hotel, and the manner by which the LAPD dealt with this stark evidence of a conspiracy involving Sirhan.
This article is adapted from an essay written by Larry Hancock, and is based on the research of Robert Kaiser, Dr. Philip Melanson, Jonn Christian, Lisa Pease, and others.
The article on the original Mary Ferrell page contains links to books and documents.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Ladies and Gentlemen.....We Got Him!
By Billy Tucker
It might be early, but Tim Brewster is certainly off to a great start on the recruiting trail in '09 and building off his surprising No. 23 class from a year ago. The second year head coach with a reputation as a fierce recruiter has landed another talented offensive prospect who by most accounts, was a reach for the Golden Gopher program that went 1-11 in 2007.
Running back Hasan Lipscomb (Houston/Cypress Ridge) chose Minnesota over Nebraska, LSU and Iowa State and has the physical makeup in our opinion to be a very productive college running back, a guy who could potentially carry the load for the Gophers. Lipscomb has the lateral quickness and perimeter speed to hurt a defense on the outside and we feel he will develop into a great runner who can become a one cut and go downhill runner at the next level. With great upside, he forms a great offensive nucleus with Under Armour All-American quarterback Moses Alipate (Bloomington, Minn./Jefferson).
Aside from his impressive skills as a running back, Lipscomb is a significant land out of the talent rich state of Texas. Minnesota went the extra mile to snag the ESPN 150 Watch List back, and it made quite an impression on him while doing so.
"They told me I can come in and start like every school tells recruits, but I believe them," Lipscomb explained. "At some of those other schools like LSU I would be like the third running back -- in just the freshmen class alone."
A victim of Hurricane Katrina when living in New Orleans, Lipscomb fell behind in his school credits. He said the effort Minnesota's staff has put forth in getting the gifted running back on the right track to be eligible for college, was one of the deciding points as well. Some schools in Lipscomb's eyes were scared off by the challenge, but Minnesota hung with him, and now the back who rushed for over 1,600 yards and 26 touchdowns while playing in the shadow of Under Armour All-American athlete Russell Shepard (Houston/Cypress Ridge) is doing some solid recruiting of his own.
"I am calling and texting other recruits Minnesota has offered," Lipscomb said. "There are not going to be as many scholarships this year so I want to make sure we get great players."
3 jr. high kids suspended for sitting during pledge
By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune
Three small-town eighth-graders were suspended for not standing at the start of the school day Thursday for the Pledge of Allegiance.
"My son wasn't being defiant against America," said Kim Dahl, mother of one of the students, Brandt, who attends Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton Junior High School in western Minnesota. She said her son offered no reason for sitting.
Brandt told the Fargo Forum that Thursday's one-day in-school suspension, "was kind of dumb because I didn't do anything wrong. It should be the people's choice."
Kim Dahl said the "punishment didn't fit the crime. If they wanted to know why he didn't stand, they should've made him write a paper."
She said that Brandt has not been standing all year, and "all of a sudden it became an in-school suspension."
The district today is defending the punishments. The school's handbook says all students are required to stand but are not obligated to recite the pledge. The same is true for all four schools in the district, a school official said.
"These three [students] didn't, and they got caught," said Mel Olson, the district's community education director. He said he backs the punishment, "being a veteran and a United States of America citizen, absolutely." Olson served in the Marines in Japan during the Vietnam War.
The head of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union said that the school's actions against the students are unconstitutional.
"The school can't do that; that's illegal," said Chuck Samuelson, the civil liberties group's executive director. "Wow."
Samuelson said that numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings dating to the 1940s say that "students who refuse to participate in the pledge cannot be punished for refusing to participate."
Samuelson said he's surprised that any public school district would have such a pledge requirement. In St. Paul, said district spokesman Howie Padilla, "Students can respectfully not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance."
Olson said this morning that a "very nice announcement" was made at the start of the junior high's school today reminding the students that they must stand for the pledge.
Principal Colleen Houglum said that all students this morning were "involved in some fashion" during the pledge, adding that no additional suspensions were needed.
"Our social studies teacher led the pledge, and that was kind of a nice change of pace," Houglum said.
Kim Dahl asked Brandt why he has remained seated all school year, but "he didn't have an answer ... he doesn't get in trouble; he's just a normal 13-year-old."
As for today, she told Brandt to take his cell phone with him to school and text her should he run into trouble again.
"I said you should probably just stand if you're not protesting something."
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
McGovern, former Clinton backer, urges her to drop out
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Former Sen. George McGovern, who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, is urging her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.
McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.
After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.
McGovern says he is calling former President Clinton to tell him of the decision and adds that he remains close friends with the Clintons.
McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.
After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.
McGovern says he is calling former President Clinton to tell him of the decision and adds that he remains close friends with the Clintons.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
North Carolina: Sit-in against UNC's ties to sweatshops ends with 5 arrests
By Kosta Harlan
Chapel Hill, NC - A 16-day sit-in at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) administration building came to a dramatic close on Friday May 2, when Chancellor Moeser ordered UNC police to arrest five of the protesters. It was the longest sit-in protest in UNC's history. Dozens of students had occupied the lobby of South Building, the administrative headquarters at UNC, in a protest against the university's use of sweatshops for the manufacture of UNC apparel.
The students, members of the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition, had demanded that Chancellor Moeser and the UNC Licensing Labor Code Advisory Committee sign on to the Designated Suppliers Program, which would ensure that university apparel is manufactured in factories where workers earn a living wage and have the right to organize. In contrast, most UNC apparel is currently manufactured in Central American and South Asian sweatshops, where workers are routinely harassed on the job, denied the right to organize and earn pitiful wages that fall short of what is needed to support a family.
After 16 days of sitting in, members of the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition were granted a meeting with the licensing committee and the Chancellor. Commenting on what took place at the meeting, Student Action with Workers member Salma Mirza said, "Chancellor Moeser demonstrated at that committee meeting that he had no intention of taking any moral leadership on the fact that our apparel is manufactured under sweatshop conditions."
After the meeting, the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition held a press conference in South Building. A dozen students then entered Chancellor Moeser's office to inform him that they would continue to occupy the administration building until he entered into a genuine dialog with the Coalition. In response, Moeser ordered the students arrested. The police arrested one student without warning, and then told the others to leave if they did not want to be arrested. Four remained and were arrested on charges of failure to disperse, while one student was charged with resisting arrest.
"We knew our arrests would join with the 46 others that have taken place across the U.S. around this campaign, and that we would be contributing to the deep history of struggle at UNC," said Tim Stallmann, a graduate student at UNC and a member of Student Action with Workers. "This was an anti-sweatshop fight, but we were putting our bodies on the line for all workers involved at UNC: the clerical and campus workers, the student workers and the workers manufacturing UNC apparel in sweatshops around the world."
The statement from the Coalition on the arrests said, "The Chancellor stated that he was disappointed by our actions. We cannot begin to express our disappointment in the Chancellor of a university that calls itself the 'university of the people,' who would prefer to arrest peaceful student protesters instead of ensuring that there is justice for the workers who make this university run."
Members of the Coalition and Student Action with Workers, the group that led the protests, promise to continue the struggle the next year. "The campaign for justice for all workers in the Carolina community will not end with the arrests of peaceful student protesters," explained Salma Mirza. "Though we were the ones arrested, we must ask - which is more criminal, our act of peacefully occupying an office of a public institution that our tuition pays for, or Chancellor Moeser allowing our Carolina apparel to be made under sweatshop conditions that violate international and domestic law?"
For more information, and to support the campaign, please visit: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/uncsitin
Chapel Hill, NC - A 16-day sit-in at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) administration building came to a dramatic close on Friday May 2, when Chancellor Moeser ordered UNC police to arrest five of the protesters. It was the longest sit-in protest in UNC's history. Dozens of students had occupied the lobby of South Building, the administrative headquarters at UNC, in a protest against the university's use of sweatshops for the manufacture of UNC apparel.
The students, members of the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition, had demanded that Chancellor Moeser and the UNC Licensing Labor Code Advisory Committee sign on to the Designated Suppliers Program, which would ensure that university apparel is manufactured in factories where workers earn a living wage and have the right to organize. In contrast, most UNC apparel is currently manufactured in Central American and South Asian sweatshops, where workers are routinely harassed on the job, denied the right to organize and earn pitiful wages that fall short of what is needed to support a family.
After 16 days of sitting in, members of the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition were granted a meeting with the licensing committee and the Chancellor. Commenting on what took place at the meeting, Student Action with Workers member Salma Mirza said, "Chancellor Moeser demonstrated at that committee meeting that he had no intention of taking any moral leadership on the fact that our apparel is manufactured under sweatshop conditions."
After the meeting, the Carolina Sweatfree Coalition held a press conference in South Building. A dozen students then entered Chancellor Moeser's office to inform him that they would continue to occupy the administration building until he entered into a genuine dialog with the Coalition. In response, Moeser ordered the students arrested. The police arrested one student without warning, and then told the others to leave if they did not want to be arrested. Four remained and were arrested on charges of failure to disperse, while one student was charged with resisting arrest.
"We knew our arrests would join with the 46 others that have taken place across the U.S. around this campaign, and that we would be contributing to the deep history of struggle at UNC," said Tim Stallmann, a graduate student at UNC and a member of Student Action with Workers. "This was an anti-sweatshop fight, but we were putting our bodies on the line for all workers involved at UNC: the clerical and campus workers, the student workers and the workers manufacturing UNC apparel in sweatshops around the world."
The statement from the Coalition on the arrests said, "The Chancellor stated that he was disappointed by our actions. We cannot begin to express our disappointment in the Chancellor of a university that calls itself the 'university of the people,' who would prefer to arrest peaceful student protesters instead of ensuring that there is justice for the workers who make this university run."
Members of the Coalition and Student Action with Workers, the group that led the protests, promise to continue the struggle the next year. "The campaign for justice for all workers in the Carolina community will not end with the arrests of peaceful student protesters," explained Salma Mirza. "Though we were the ones arrested, we must ask - which is more criminal, our act of peacefully occupying an office of a public institution that our tuition pays for, or Chancellor Moeser allowing our Carolina apparel to be made under sweatshop conditions that violate international and domestic law?"
For more information, and to support the campaign, please visit: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/uncsitin
Size matters
Iowa was The Biggun.
Then New Hampshire was The Biggun.
Michigan was supposed to be The Biggun but state party officials interfered and made it a wee'un.
Then Nevada and South Carolina were The Bigguns.
Florida played Michigan's game and ended up another wee'un.
Then...Super Tuesday, baby! Now that was The Biggun.
The Potomac Primary? The real Biggun!
Then Texas and Ohio were The Biggest Bigguns of all.
Until Pennsylvania came along. It wasn't just The Biggun, it was THE BIGGUN.
Now Indiana and North Carolina are The BIGGEST BIGGUNS IN ALL BIGGUNLAND.
Then New Hampshire was The Biggun.
Michigan was supposed to be The Biggun but state party officials interfered and made it a wee'un.
Then Nevada and South Carolina were The Bigguns.
Florida played Michigan's game and ended up another wee'un.
Then...Super Tuesday, baby! Now that was The Biggun.
The Potomac Primary? The real Biggun!
Then Texas and Ohio were The Biggest Bigguns of all.
Until Pennsylvania came along. It wasn't just The Biggun, it was THE BIGGUN.
Now Indiana and North Carolina are The BIGGEST BIGGUNS IN ALL BIGGUNLAND.
Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option
UPDATE | May 5, 11am ET : Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.
In a statement issued in response to a story on The Huffington Post ("Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option," see below), the campaign declared:
"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated."
The campaign's public assertions stand in contrast to its response to inquiries prior to publication of the story. At that point, Clinton aides insisted on keeping all comments either off the record or on deep background, or did not respond to questions at all. The campaign statement appeared to be designed to try to reduce the significance of the story.
In a more typical reaction to the story, political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said: "Wow. The nuclear option will yield nuclear winter for the Democratic Party."
---
Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.
With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.
Using the Rules and Bylaws Committee to force the seating of two pro-Hillary delegations would provoke a massive outcry from Obama forces. Such a strategy would, additionally, face at least two other major hurdles, and could only be attempted, according to sources in the Clinton camp, under specific circumstances:
First, this coming Tuesday, Clinton would have to win Indiana and lose North Carolina by a very small margin - or better yet, win the Tar Heel state. She would also have to demonstrate continued strength in the contests before May 31.
Second, and equally important, her argument that she is a better general election candidate than Obama -- that he has major weaknesses which have only been recently revealed -- would have to rapidly gain traction, not only within the media, where she has experienced some success, but within the broad activist ranks of the Democratic Party.
Under that optimistic scenario, some Clinton operatives believe she could overcome several massive stumbling blocks:
-- Clinton loyalists on the Rules Committee would have to be persuaded to put their political futures on the line by defying major party constituencies, especially black leaders backing Barack Obama. Committee members are unlikely to take such a step unless they are convinced that Clinton has a strong chance of winning the nomination.
Former DNC and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Donald Fowler -- a Hillary loyalist -- would, for example, face an outpouring of anger from South Carolina Democrats if he were to go along with such a strategy.
-- A controversial decision to seat the two delegations, as currently constituted, would be appealed by the Obama campaign to the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee.
The full make-up of the Credentials Committee will not be determined until all the primaries are completed, but the pattern of Clinton and Obama victories so far clearly suggests that Obama delegates on that committee will outnumber Clinton delegates. Obama will not, however, have a majority, according to most estimates, and the balance of power will be held by delegates appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean.
For the scenario to work, then, Dean would have to be convinced of Clinton's superior viability in the general election, and that she has a strong chance of defeating McCain next November.
One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is privately making to autonomous "super" or "automatic" delegates, as well as to delegates technically "pledged" to Obama as a result of primary and caucus results, is that the campaign shifted dramatically in roughly mid-February. At that point, Clinton supporters contend, the economy replaced Iraq as the dominant issue among primary voters, and that transition led to Clinton's successes in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
Clinton people also make the case that the past six weeks have seen examples of Obama's political vulnerabilities: his wife's "proud to be an American" remarks, the emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, wider coverage of Obama's ties to 1960s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "bittergate," the flag pin imbroglio, and "hand on the heart" accusations -- all impugning Obama's patriotism.
* * *
The controversy over Michigan and Florida grows out of the decision of both states to flout national party rules prohibiting all but a few states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from holding primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008. Michigan held its primary on January 15 and Florida on January 29.
On December 1, 2007, well before the contests were held, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to refuse to seat either state's delegation at the August 2008 convention in Denver.
When the contests were actually held, none of the candidates actively campaigned in either state. In Michigan, Obama had his name taken off the ballot. Clinton "won" both contests.
The Obama campaign contends that the primaries in the two states were not legitimate, especially in Michigan where voters could not cast a ballot for Obama. Clinton "won" the Michigan contest with 55 percent, while 40 percent voted "uncommitted" and the remainder went to minor candidates.
Obama manager David Plouffe has argued that the only way to seat the Michigan delegation would be to divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama: "A 50-50 split would be fair."
Many Democrats, including DNC chair Howard Dean, believe it is critically important to reach some kind of compromise to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in order not to alienate voters in the two battleground states, each of which could be pivotal in the November general election.
In the case of Florida, there are a number of proposals under consideration. One would be to seat the delegation as is, but give each delegate only one half a vote. Another would be to cut the number of Florida delegates in half.
Spokesmen for the Obama campaign declined to discuss their strategies for dealing with the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, or to speculate on what they think the Clinton forces with try to do.
In a statement issued in response to a story on The Huffington Post ("Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option," see below), the campaign declared:
"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated."
The campaign's public assertions stand in contrast to its response to inquiries prior to publication of the story. At that point, Clinton aides insisted on keeping all comments either off the record or on deep background, or did not respond to questions at all. The campaign statement appeared to be designed to try to reduce the significance of the story.
In a more typical reaction to the story, political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said: "Wow. The nuclear option will yield nuclear winter for the Democratic Party."
---
Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.
With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.
Using the Rules and Bylaws Committee to force the seating of two pro-Hillary delegations would provoke a massive outcry from Obama forces. Such a strategy would, additionally, face at least two other major hurdles, and could only be attempted, according to sources in the Clinton camp, under specific circumstances:
First, this coming Tuesday, Clinton would have to win Indiana and lose North Carolina by a very small margin - or better yet, win the Tar Heel state. She would also have to demonstrate continued strength in the contests before May 31.
Second, and equally important, her argument that she is a better general election candidate than Obama -- that he has major weaknesses which have only been recently revealed -- would have to rapidly gain traction, not only within the media, where she has experienced some success, but within the broad activist ranks of the Democratic Party.
Under that optimistic scenario, some Clinton operatives believe she could overcome several massive stumbling blocks:
-- Clinton loyalists on the Rules Committee would have to be persuaded to put their political futures on the line by defying major party constituencies, especially black leaders backing Barack Obama. Committee members are unlikely to take such a step unless they are convinced that Clinton has a strong chance of winning the nomination.
Former DNC and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Donald Fowler -- a Hillary loyalist -- would, for example, face an outpouring of anger from South Carolina Democrats if he were to go along with such a strategy.
-- A controversial decision to seat the two delegations, as currently constituted, would be appealed by the Obama campaign to the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee.
The full make-up of the Credentials Committee will not be determined until all the primaries are completed, but the pattern of Clinton and Obama victories so far clearly suggests that Obama delegates on that committee will outnumber Clinton delegates. Obama will not, however, have a majority, according to most estimates, and the balance of power will be held by delegates appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean.
For the scenario to work, then, Dean would have to be convinced of Clinton's superior viability in the general election, and that she has a strong chance of defeating McCain next November.
One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is privately making to autonomous "super" or "automatic" delegates, as well as to delegates technically "pledged" to Obama as a result of primary and caucus results, is that the campaign shifted dramatically in roughly mid-February. At that point, Clinton supporters contend, the economy replaced Iraq as the dominant issue among primary voters, and that transition led to Clinton's successes in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
Clinton people also make the case that the past six weeks have seen examples of Obama's political vulnerabilities: his wife's "proud to be an American" remarks, the emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, wider coverage of Obama's ties to 1960s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "bittergate," the flag pin imbroglio, and "hand on the heart" accusations -- all impugning Obama's patriotism.
* * *
The controversy over Michigan and Florida grows out of the decision of both states to flout national party rules prohibiting all but a few states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from holding primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008. Michigan held its primary on January 15 and Florida on January 29.
On December 1, 2007, well before the contests were held, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to refuse to seat either state's delegation at the August 2008 convention in Denver.
When the contests were actually held, none of the candidates actively campaigned in either state. In Michigan, Obama had his name taken off the ballot. Clinton "won" both contests.
The Obama campaign contends that the primaries in the two states were not legitimate, especially in Michigan where voters could not cast a ballot for Obama. Clinton "won" the Michigan contest with 55 percent, while 40 percent voted "uncommitted" and the remainder went to minor candidates.
Obama manager David Plouffe has argued that the only way to seat the Michigan delegation would be to divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama: "A 50-50 split would be fair."
Many Democrats, including DNC chair Howard Dean, believe it is critically important to reach some kind of compromise to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in order not to alienate voters in the two battleground states, each of which could be pivotal in the November general election.
In the case of Florida, there are a number of proposals under consideration. One would be to seat the delegation as is, but give each delegate only one half a vote. Another would be to cut the number of Florida delegates in half.
Spokesmen for the Obama campaign declined to discuss their strategies for dealing with the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, or to speculate on what they think the Clinton forces with try to do.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Six Degrees of Barack Obama
by Cenk Uygur
The latest right-wing game is to pin controversial figures, who might have said or done anything objectionable at any point in their lifetimes, to Barack Obama. Then make him apologize for them. Then make him denounce and reject them. And then say he hasn't done enough to "distance" himself from them.
It could be his pastor, it could be his neighbor, it could be someone he served on a board with, it could be someone who donated to him, it could be someone who gave him an unsolicited endorsement (Louis Farrakhan) or it can just simply be someone who is black (Harry Belafonte).
So, let's play the six degrees of Barack Obama game and see who else he should denounce and reject. I'll start off the festivities. I'm an easy one. I connect to him in only two degrees. I know Josh Orton, who worked on the online side of his campaign for some time. Bingo. Obama now owns everything I have ever said.
He's not going to like what he finds. Although I am perfectly reasonable in politics (though given to fits of vitriol), I am a fervent agnostic. I have argued vehemently against religion. Quotes of mine in this field could be devastating to Obama. I'll provide no links here; it wouldn't be fun if I did the media's job for them. Have fun, it's a treasure hunt.
Worse yet, I was born Muslim. I went to school in Turkey until I was eight (that will be translated as "attended a madrasa" by Fox "News" Channel). His connection to a known Muslim and atheist (come on, who is going to bother with the distinction between agnostic and atheist in the sound bite world) could be devastating. Is America ready for non-flag wearing, Muslim, atheist two heart beats away from the president?
If you think it's damaging that I am only two people removed from Obama, it gets worse. I often speak favorably of Obama on our show and among the remaining candidates he is clearly my favorite! Aha, that's the equivalent of an endorsement. He might not have asked for it, but just by the virtue of me issuing it, he's stuck with it.
I hope he at least does me the solid of denouncing my words and not my entire existence. It's gotta sting to have your whole being denounced and rejected.
I invite all of you to play along. See how many degrees it takes you to get to Obama and how enthusiastically and vociferously he has to denounce you.
Now, unfortunately, there is one man who is not allowed to play - John McCain. Because the media has decided that while it is eminently fair to attach any person Obama has ever met (or in some cases not even met) to him, you can never look into anyone that John McCain has ever been associated with. He is a maverick, moderate, war-hero, straight-talker. So, obviously he doesn't need to answer for anyone in his past or undergo any of the Obama treatment. Sorry, John. This is one fun game you'll have to sit out.
Though there will be this awkward moment when people realize Barack Obama knows John McCain. And he is therefore is responsible for everything McCain says - even though he is running against him. Wrap your mind around that one.
I do have some concerns about this though. I wonder if this game will distract from the real issues. I wonder if people will see through it as an obvious attempt to smear Obama by association. I wonder if people will realize it has absolutely nothing to do with how Obama would govern if he were elected. I wonder if people will wonder why it's only done to one candidate and not the others.
Nah, probably not. Don't want to ruin the fun, let's just keep mindlessly playing it until November and see what happens.
The latest right-wing game is to pin controversial figures, who might have said or done anything objectionable at any point in their lifetimes, to Barack Obama. Then make him apologize for them. Then make him denounce and reject them. And then say he hasn't done enough to "distance" himself from them.
It could be his pastor, it could be his neighbor, it could be someone he served on a board with, it could be someone who donated to him, it could be someone who gave him an unsolicited endorsement (Louis Farrakhan) or it can just simply be someone who is black (Harry Belafonte).
So, let's play the six degrees of Barack Obama game and see who else he should denounce and reject. I'll start off the festivities. I'm an easy one. I connect to him in only two degrees. I know Josh Orton, who worked on the online side of his campaign for some time. Bingo. Obama now owns everything I have ever said.
He's not going to like what he finds. Although I am perfectly reasonable in politics (though given to fits of vitriol), I am a fervent agnostic. I have argued vehemently against religion. Quotes of mine in this field could be devastating to Obama. I'll provide no links here; it wouldn't be fun if I did the media's job for them. Have fun, it's a treasure hunt.
Worse yet, I was born Muslim. I went to school in Turkey until I was eight (that will be translated as "attended a madrasa" by Fox "News" Channel). His connection to a known Muslim and atheist (come on, who is going to bother with the distinction between agnostic and atheist in the sound bite world) could be devastating. Is America ready for non-flag wearing, Muslim, atheist two heart beats away from the president?
If you think it's damaging that I am only two people removed from Obama, it gets worse. I often speak favorably of Obama on our show and among the remaining candidates he is clearly my favorite! Aha, that's the equivalent of an endorsement. He might not have asked for it, but just by the virtue of me issuing it, he's stuck with it.
I hope he at least does me the solid of denouncing my words and not my entire existence. It's gotta sting to have your whole being denounced and rejected.
I invite all of you to play along. See how many degrees it takes you to get to Obama and how enthusiastically and vociferously he has to denounce you.
Now, unfortunately, there is one man who is not allowed to play - John McCain. Because the media has decided that while it is eminently fair to attach any person Obama has ever met (or in some cases not even met) to him, you can never look into anyone that John McCain has ever been associated with. He is a maverick, moderate, war-hero, straight-talker. So, obviously he doesn't need to answer for anyone in his past or undergo any of the Obama treatment. Sorry, John. This is one fun game you'll have to sit out.
Though there will be this awkward moment when people realize Barack Obama knows John McCain. And he is therefore is responsible for everything McCain says - even though he is running against him. Wrap your mind around that one.
I do have some concerns about this though. I wonder if this game will distract from the real issues. I wonder if people will see through it as an obvious attempt to smear Obama by association. I wonder if people will realize it has absolutely nothing to do with how Obama would govern if he were elected. I wonder if people will wonder why it's only done to one candidate and not the others.
Nah, probably not. Don't want to ruin the fun, let's just keep mindlessly playing it until November and see what happens.
Recent Speeches by Rev. Wright
I want to provide the recent interviews and speeches of Rev. Wright for you to check out for yourself, if you want to. Judge for yourself. Let's be real though.....everything he's saying is true! (well, except for the AIDS thing
Bill Moyer's interview with Rev. Wright
Rev. Wright's speech at The National Press Club
Bill Moyer's interview with Rev. Wright
Rev. Wright's speech at The National Press Club
The Origins of May Day, International Workers Day
Yesterday was May Day 2008, and being the MarxistGopher Report, I've decided to post about the history of May Day...a day late.
PBS looks at one of the incidents that gave rise to International Workers Day--May 1 or Mayday.
The video only deals with the Haymarket Square confrontation with police and the aftermath where eight labor leaders were charged with murder. Four were hanged, one committed suicide and three had their sentences commuted.
Labor organizers had called a national strike for an eight-hour work day on May 1, 1886. In Chicago, workers held a parade and rally with over 80,000 participants.
On May 3, 1886, striking employees of the McCormick Reaper Works clashed with replacement workers. Police retaliated against the striking employees, killing two.
On May 4th, 1886, a rally of anarchists and labor activists in Chicago's Haymarket Square in support of the McCormick strikers turned deadly. An unknown assailant tossed a bomb into a throng of riot police who were advancing on the rally, killing one instantly. In the chaos that erupted, seven policemen were killed, sixty injured, and civilian casualties were likely as high.
The eight men were arrested and charged with murder at Haymarket. Though they all opposed Chicago's elite businessmen, whom they believed stood for "starvation of the masses, privileges and luxury for the few," the eight held very different ideas about what action to take. Some advocated change through violence, while others believed progress could come via social engineering. Despite their different beliefs, the trial, convictions and sentencing that followed would unite these "Haymarket Eight" in history.
At a convention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1888 the union decided to campaign for the eight-hour day once again. May 1, 1890 was agreed upon as the date on which workers would strike for an eight-hour work day and to commemorate the earlier fight for an eight hour day.
In 1889 AFL president Samuel Gompers wrote to the first congress of the Second International, which was meeting in Paris. He informed the world's socialists of the AFL's plans and proposed an international fight for a universal eight-hour work day.
In response to Gompers's letter the Second International adopted a resolution calling for "a great international demonstration" on a single date so workers everywhere could demand the eight-hour work day.
In light of the Americans' plan, the International adopted May 1, 1890 as the date for this demonstration. It has been celebrated around the world as Mayday--International Workers Day-- ever since.
PBS looks at one of the incidents that gave rise to International Workers Day--May 1 or Mayday.
The video only deals with the Haymarket Square confrontation with police and the aftermath where eight labor leaders were charged with murder. Four were hanged, one committed suicide and three had their sentences commuted.
Labor organizers had called a national strike for an eight-hour work day on May 1, 1886. In Chicago, workers held a parade and rally with over 80,000 participants.
On May 3, 1886, striking employees of the McCormick Reaper Works clashed with replacement workers. Police retaliated against the striking employees, killing two.
On May 4th, 1886, a rally of anarchists and labor activists in Chicago's Haymarket Square in support of the McCormick strikers turned deadly. An unknown assailant tossed a bomb into a throng of riot police who were advancing on the rally, killing one instantly. In the chaos that erupted, seven policemen were killed, sixty injured, and civilian casualties were likely as high.
The eight men were arrested and charged with murder at Haymarket. Though they all opposed Chicago's elite businessmen, whom they believed stood for "starvation of the masses, privileges and luxury for the few," the eight held very different ideas about what action to take. Some advocated change through violence, while others believed progress could come via social engineering. Despite their different beliefs, the trial, convictions and sentencing that followed would unite these "Haymarket Eight" in history.
At a convention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1888 the union decided to campaign for the eight-hour day once again. May 1, 1890 was agreed upon as the date on which workers would strike for an eight-hour work day and to commemorate the earlier fight for an eight hour day.
In 1889 AFL president Samuel Gompers wrote to the first congress of the Second International, which was meeting in Paris. He informed the world's socialists of the AFL's plans and proposed an international fight for a universal eight-hour work day.
In response to Gompers's letter the Second International adopted a resolution calling for "a great international demonstration" on a single date so workers everywhere could demand the eight-hour work day.
In light of the Americans' plan, the International adopted May 1, 1890 as the date for this demonstration. It has been celebrated around the world as Mayday--International Workers Day-- ever since.
HSCA "Mugbook" Photos
I found this on maryferrel this morning. The HSCA just released their mugshot photo collection.
These photographs come from the HSCA Numbered Boxes of photos (box 5). They depict various people related to the JFK assassination saga and in whom the HSCA had an interest. Index is in record number 180-10124-10172.
These photographs come from the HSCA Numbered Boxes of photos (box 5). They depict various people related to the JFK assassination saga and in whom the HSCA had an interest. Index is in record number 180-10124-10172.
Shocking New Polls!!!
Wow, unbelievable! It looks like Obama is going to win North Carolina, and Clinton is going to win Indiana. I simply can't believe it?!
State Pollster End date Clinton Obama
Indiana Rasmussen Apr. 29 46% 41%
Indiana TeleResearch Apr. 29 48% 38%
North Carolina Zogby May 01 34% 50%
North Carolina Research 2000 Apr. 30 44% 51%
North Carolina Mason-Dixon Apr. 29 42% 49%
Oregon SurveyUSA Apr. 30 44% 50%
State Pollster End date Clinton Obama
Indiana Rasmussen Apr. 29 46% 41%
Indiana TeleResearch Apr. 29 48% 38%
North Carolina Zogby May 01 34% 50%
North Carolina Research 2000 Apr. 30 44% 51%
North Carolina Mason-Dixon Apr. 29 42% 49%
Oregon SurveyUSA Apr. 30 44% 50%
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The A-11 Offense (all 11 players eligible!)
Kurt Bryan might be onto something. Bryan, the head football coach at Piedmont (Calif.) High, e-mailed recently to spread the word about the A-11 offense, a formation in which all 11 offensive players are potentially eligible.
Piedmont created it and -- after much discussion with officials about its legality -- ran it for the first time this past season to the tune of a 7-3 record. Intrigued, we decided to give Bryan a call. Turns out we're not the only ones around the country -- or even in Minnesota -- that want to know more.
"Some coaches are more open and some are more cryptic about who they are," Bryan said of interest generated among his peers. "There are two from Minnesota that are using anonymous names. They're definitely coaches. You can tell by the lingo they use."
The spread offense was hot in Minnesota last year. But it's a copycat game, and the A-11 offense could be "the next step in the evolution of the sport," Bryan said.
Frustrated by Piedmont's lack of size, coaches developed the offense, which is described on the website www.a11offense.com as "blending aspects of the spread option, West Coast and run-and-shoot." Anything beyond that gets a little too technical for this confined space, but the website does a good job of breaking it down and also provides video examples.
Bryan said coaches of large high schools are interested in it as a change-of-pace package, while smaller schools are curious about using it as their base offense. Bryan said he even has been contacted by college teams and one NFL team.
While Bryan couldn't reveal the identity of the interested Minnesota schools, he does think there eventually will be more than only two intrigued coaches in this state. Fans might even see it locally as early as the fall.
"It takes a little bit to just get your mind around it. It's so unique," Bryan said. "That's what we're hearing from coaches. 'We can't believe we didn't think of this.' They're sending us ideas and plays."
Piedmont created it and -- after much discussion with officials about its legality -- ran it for the first time this past season to the tune of a 7-3 record. Intrigued, we decided to give Bryan a call. Turns out we're not the only ones around the country -- or even in Minnesota -- that want to know more.
"Some coaches are more open and some are more cryptic about who they are," Bryan said of interest generated among his peers. "There are two from Minnesota that are using anonymous names. They're definitely coaches. You can tell by the lingo they use."
The spread offense was hot in Minnesota last year. But it's a copycat game, and the A-11 offense could be "the next step in the evolution of the sport," Bryan said.
Frustrated by Piedmont's lack of size, coaches developed the offense, which is described on the website www.a11offense.com as "blending aspects of the spread option, West Coast and run-and-shoot." Anything beyond that gets a little too technical for this confined space, but the website does a good job of breaking it down and also provides video examples.
Bryan said coaches of large high schools are interested in it as a change-of-pace package, while smaller schools are curious about using it as their base offense. Bryan said he even has been contacted by college teams and one NFL team.
While Bryan couldn't reveal the identity of the interested Minnesota schools, he does think there eventually will be more than only two intrigued coaches in this state. Fans might even see it locally as early as the fall.
"It takes a little bit to just get your mind around it. It's so unique," Bryan said. "That's what we're hearing from coaches. 'We can't believe we didn't think of this.' They're sending us ideas and plays."
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Gophers Unveil New Football Uniforms for 2008 Season ...yuck!
Well, we all knew it was going to happen. They great uniforms of 1999-2007 are gone. So here's my take on the new uni's.
I expected something bad, but even so I have to say I'm disappointed. I was expecting something modern, but not a change of the colors! So lets take it step by step here:
Side Piping: I'm not a fan of it, but I know that's the trend and it's what the recruits like, so I'm fine with it. This is the new feature of the uniforms that I have the least problem with.
MINNESOTA on the front: I really don't like this feature. I think it looks silly and makes the jersey look cluttered. It reminds me of 80's style uniforms and also the 1992-1993 Gopher jerseys that Jim Wacker changed to when he was named the coach.....bad memories.
Numbers: Well again, because of the MINNESOTA on the front the numbers had to be reduced in size, and they look too small. Also, and much more offensive, is the addition of the white outline around the numbers on the home jersey and yellow outline on the away jerseys. White isn't one of our colors! It adds to the cluttered look of the jersey having an outline. Numbers are much cleaner and easier to read without any outline at all. And if you have to add an outline, why not make it yellow to match the outline on the M on the helmets?!
Colors: This is the biggest mistake, and a terrible tragity. The maroon on the old uniforms was lighter and looked very good in all lighting. The new uniforms went back to the terrible brown/purple maroon look of the 1997-1998, and 1992-1993 teams. This is the same thing that both Jim Wacker and Glen Mason did in their first 2 season as coach, before going back to a lighter maroon. We lost the great colors of the 1999-2008 teams, and will now have to endure many years of brown uniforms....thanks a bunch for ruining the great uniforms Tim Brewster!!
Also in the color category is the addition of white pants to the rotation. I actually don't have a problem with the white pants being worn at home with the maroon jersey. It's not a terrible combination, and the first time the Gophers have had white pants since the 1967 season. (White pants were worn throughout the late 50's, through the 1960-1961 rose bowl season, to 1967.) The white road jerseys look bad, as there's a serious lack of color, especially yellow, in the trim. And the white jersey and white pants look aweful! Again, our colors aren't WHITE!!!
After having a day to digest this new look I've calmed down a little. It could have been much worse, but it's definitely NOT an improvement form the previous uniforms. I'll give it a grade of a C-.
And on a scale of 1-10, I give them a 4.
I expected something bad, but even so I have to say I'm disappointed. I was expecting something modern, but not a change of the colors! So lets take it step by step here:
Side Piping: I'm not a fan of it, but I know that's the trend and it's what the recruits like, so I'm fine with it. This is the new feature of the uniforms that I have the least problem with.
MINNESOTA on the front: I really don't like this feature. I think it looks silly and makes the jersey look cluttered. It reminds me of 80's style uniforms and also the 1992-1993 Gopher jerseys that Jim Wacker changed to when he was named the coach.....bad memories.
Numbers: Well again, because of the MINNESOTA on the front the numbers had to be reduced in size, and they look too small. Also, and much more offensive, is the addition of the white outline around the numbers on the home jersey and yellow outline on the away jerseys. White isn't one of our colors! It adds to the cluttered look of the jersey having an outline. Numbers are much cleaner and easier to read without any outline at all. And if you have to add an outline, why not make it yellow to match the outline on the M on the helmets?!
Colors: This is the biggest mistake, and a terrible tragity. The maroon on the old uniforms was lighter and looked very good in all lighting. The new uniforms went back to the terrible brown/purple maroon look of the 1997-1998, and 1992-1993 teams. This is the same thing that both Jim Wacker and Glen Mason did in their first 2 season as coach, before going back to a lighter maroon. We lost the great colors of the 1999-2008 teams, and will now have to endure many years of brown uniforms....thanks a bunch for ruining the great uniforms Tim Brewster!!
Also in the color category is the addition of white pants to the rotation. I actually don't have a problem with the white pants being worn at home with the maroon jersey. It's not a terrible combination, and the first time the Gophers have had white pants since the 1967 season. (White pants were worn throughout the late 50's, through the 1960-1961 rose bowl season, to 1967.) The white road jerseys look bad, as there's a serious lack of color, especially yellow, in the trim. And the white jersey and white pants look aweful! Again, our colors aren't WHITE!!!
After having a day to digest this new look I've calmed down a little. It could have been much worse, but it's definitely NOT an improvement form the previous uniforms. I'll give it a grade of a C-.
And on a scale of 1-10, I give them a 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
