americablog

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/jOKS53G64RM/obamas-speech-per-twitter.html

strangerblog

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/01/fault-lines-in-the-clemmons-case

• Ananda La Vita

From the upcoming Stranger:

Maurice Clemmons would have been the first to say that a man needs to be held accountable for his actions.

"There is absolutely no excuse/justification for my past criminal behavior," he wrote 10 years ago in a clemency application to then-Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, pleading for "mercy" regarding the 108-year sentence he was serving at the time for two robberies and other crimes he'd committed when he was 16.

This was back when Clemmons was purportedly a God-fearing man. Back before he allegedly came to believe, sometime this summer, that he himself was God—Jesus Christ, to be exact, with an ability to fly. ("He reportedly thinks he can fly away and at one point was found in the backyard jumping," says a Pierce County police report from July.) It was back before authorities suspected Clemmons of shooting four Lakewood police officers at a coffee shop on November 29, execution-style, in the worst police killing in Washington State history. Before Clemmons was the subject of a sprawling, chaotic, nearly two-day-long manhunt that consumed SWAT teams and patrol officers all over Seattle and the surrounding region. Before several of Clemmons's family members and friends were rounded up and accused of helping him elude authorities. Before the manhunt finally ended, in the early morning hours of December 1, with Clemmons being shot dead by a lone Seattle officer on patrol in Rainier Valley.

With the hunt for Clemmons now over, a huge question—as important to the local criminal-justice and mental-health systems as it is to the political future of Huckabee—has taken center stage: Who is responsible for the destruction he wreaked this year?

Naturally, everyone involved is pointing in a different direction. Read about who's pointing where, and comment on where you think blame should actually fall in this case, HERE.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

whitehouseblog

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address

Tonight the President outlined his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.  Read the transcript or watch the full video below, we will update this post with translations of the address as they come in:

Click here to see the video.

susiebrightfeed

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SusieBrightsJournal/~3/bqyR3GySMhs/waist-deep-in-the-big-regurgitation.html

americablog

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/q9G9OQVxTCI/reaction-to-obama-speech-on-afghanistan.html

americablog

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/EJoZOoDinmQ/obama-speaks-about-afghanistan-open.html

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

strangerblog

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/01/the-presidents-speech-on-afghanistan

5:00 pm Members of the armed services at West Point give the president a standing ovation. Everyone's wearing black. Obama says: "We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people." Then he calls Al Qaeda "a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."

5:06 pm Brilliant deployment of the passive voice: "Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here." A minute later: "But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there."

5:11 pm "I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service." The camera pans over the crowd. Seriously, it is somber-looking gathering, considering the military's usual panache. Like a field of charcoal. It is stark and startling. He goes on: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." (UPDATE, from comments: "Just FYI, the cadets' somber clothes have nothing to do with the nature of the speech--black, grey, and gold are West Point's colors, and most cadet uniforms are black and grey, sometimes with gold buttons." Thanks, MayraJane.)

5:13 pm "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow... It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror."

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

towleroad

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/towleroad/feed/~3/7Fejguhg7tk/watch-new-york-senate-possible-vote-on-marriage-equality.html

The Times-Union:

"Senate spokesman Austin Shafran just announced that the Senate will not take up the DRP or any other legislation (read: gay marriage) tonight. Staff only began drafting the bill at around 7 p.m. tonight. The Senate will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow."

towleroad

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/towleroad/feed/~3/CNnrVNzb7dc/adam-lambert-tells-ellen-he-didnt-mean-to-disrespect-anybody.html

Adam Lambert appeared on Ellen today and talked about the American Music Awards controversy, saying he might have gone a bit too far:

"I think in hindsight I look back on it and I go ok, maybe that wasn't the best first impression to make again, the first second impression. I mean I had fun up there, I had a good time, my dancers had fun and the band had fun. I respect people and feel like people walked away from that feeling disrespected.  I would never intend to disrespect anybody. So that was not my intention."

Said Ellen: "If you're going to be offended by a show of sexuality onstage, then you should be offended by all shows of sexuality."

Watch the interview and performance of "Whatya Want from Me?", AFTER THE JUMP...

In related news, the Lambert performance has caused ABC/Disney to tighten its standards: "Disney/ ABC Television Group President Anne Sweeney said that the network will now ask artists for assurances that their stage show will resemble their rehearsals and that ABC will seek contractual obligation to make sure artists stick to those plans."

And, Barbara Walters finds Adam Lambert and Lady Gaga fascinating.

nemesisbecoming

• 21:36 Season premiere of Intervention. This woman's immigrant parents love her so much and don't understand she's a terrible person. #
• 21:41 I love this woman's Chinese mom. She wants so much for her. The dgter is taking advantage of her. Spent her retirement on this ungrateful... #
• 21:46 Keeping real, sometimes the only Intervention some people need is a foot intervening with their a$$. Team Drop A Fool Into A Volcano. #
• 21:56 I hate this woman. Anyone who treats their mother like this needs to be punched in the head. Repeatedly. This girl needs to be committed. #
• 22:02 OMG Hoarders is next. With a steady diet of Intervention and Hoarders I'll end up a neurotic mess in no time. #
• 22:26 Solution for Hoarders: Gasoline, a Match. Raze it to the ground. Jesus, take the wheel bring bleach. Allah may have to chip in. Xenu too. #
• 22:51 @sunnysanchez TWO dead cats found in the Hoarders home. TWO. And mummified or something. TWO. Yes, bring Jesus Allah Buddha and RALPH. #
• 22:56 The cleaning crew actually had to do a prayer circle before going into the Hoarder house. Two prayers away from an exorcism. #
• 23:02 Omg... another episode! Damn you, Hoarders. And I thought Clean House was crazy. How she got babies in there and a stay at home mom? What? #
• 23:07 This woman with the toddler: everything she says I scream at TV "THEN CLEAN THE HOUSE!" Now this older woman with the food hoarding... NO!!! #
• 23:37 This woman hoards/let rots gourmet foods. Just think: Whole Foods aka Whole Paycheck. That's like playing handball with Faberge eggs. #

americablog

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/p-Kgsffcs8E/socialist-france-delivers-another.html

French scientists have found a way to create human skin rapidly from stem cells, a discovery that could save the lives of many burns victims who are vulnerable to infection and now wait weeks for a skin graft.

The scientists made the breakthrough by creating a patch of human skin on a mouse's back using stem cells -- cells which have the ability to develop into any human cell.

Skin grafts have traditionally been created from cell cultures taken from the patient -- a process that takes three weeks, too long for some patients suffering extensive burns.

strangerblog

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/01/cancel-your-nook-y-christmas

Barnes and Noble has announced that their Nook e-book reader won't be available until January 11th. That clickety-clack noise you just heard is thousands of people giving up on B&N and buying a Kindle instead.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

strangerblog

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/01/free-books-in-your-inbox

DailyLit just announced that they're going free. DailyLit provides literature in small chunks, via either e-mail or RSS feed. For instance, on this page, you can receive The Count of Monte Cristo in 579 daily installments in your inbox every weekday at 3:20 pm.

Here is the list of sci-fi novels available via DailyLit. Here are the poetry classics you should've read in high school (I just signed up for an Edna St. Vincent Millay book of poems for a little refresher class.) Literature, of course, has a long history of serialization, and I think DailyLit is a great way to disseminate literature. Now that it's free, I can recommend it wholeheartedly.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

capitolhillsea

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Capitolhillseattle/~3/RAmcJwcEsYI/capitol-hill-scientist-is-space-elevator-games-champion

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2009/12/01/capitol-hill-scientist-is-space-elevator-games-champion

Team LaserMotive. Capitol Hill resident Dr. Jordin Kare, second from left, and their laser-powered climber (Photo: LaserMotive)

I often think of Seattle as a small town, but maybe it's only in a city that I would not have known one of my neighbors on the next block was "freelance rocket scientist" Jordin Kare. He's been living on Capitol Hill since March 2003, though his first visit to Seattle was back in 1979.

Previously at Lawrence Livermore, he moved up from the Bay to consult on a commercial satellite project at Boeing. Now he's associated with Bellevue's Intellectual Ventures, though it's his side project, LaserMotive, that brought him to my attention.

A weary but suddenly richer version of Kare greeted me at the Victrola last week to discuss LaserMotive's $900,000 win at the Space Elevator Games, held November 2 to 6, 2009.

"So, what can I do for you?" Kare asked. He's unprepossessing at first glance, clad for Seattle's cold and rain, unruly gray hair longer on the sides and back, and slightly reserved. After the interview he was off to catch a late show of 2012 with his wife, with whom I had a quick discussion about Joss Whedon's Buffy , Firefly , and Dollhouse. (She's still angry at Whedon for the way he killed off " Wash "--really, a shock for all of us Firefly ers.)

This is just proof that you can't tell by looking at someone that he's devoted his professional life to laser propulsion ; Kare has been a leader in his field pretty much since he got into it as a post-grad in 1986. It is the power-beaming aspect of space elevators that got him into the Games. As it happens, it's a great, high profile way to demonstrate that you can beam power over a kilometer's distance in a challenging setting.

LaserMotive was founded, essentially, as a part-time enterprise that would have one product, or goal: to create a laser-powered climber that would win the Space Elevator Games power beaming competition. First prize, for a climber that could travel one kilometer vertically at speeds of five meters per second or more, was $2 million, provided by NASA.

LaserMotive's climber set a world record, doing the kilometer twice at an average speed of four meters per second (topping out at 4.13 m/s), which netted them $900,00. "Hopefully we'll pick up the spare next time we go back down there," said Kare, cheerful at the prospect of holding another huge novelty check, this one for $1.1 million.

This is not precisely the space elevator you've seen on NOVA , with carbon nanotubes . For the competition, pilot Doug Uttecht's helicopter hauled aloft a 3/16-inch steel cable, 4300 feet long, that weighed about 300 pounds. (The people with this niche expertise are Northwest Helicopters , who also flew the cables in for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.)

There's another " tether strength" competition that is supposed to yield a ribbon that can stretch from earth to geostationary orbit, which is over 35,000 kilometers. Since there are no 35,000-km extension cords, and onboard-gas-tank technology is already represented in rocketry, beaming the power via lasers is the preferred method.

"Some of the people who are competing are very much believers in the space elevator--Tom Nugent and I, who started the LaserMotive team, are pretty skeptical," admitted Kare. "It's one of these things where it's a lovely idea, and it may be physically possible--which I wouldn't have said a decade ago--but it's a very long jump drawing pretty pictures and writing basic equations to being able to build something a hundred-and-some-odd-thousand kilometers long."

Laser power beaming, in contrast, is "closer and closer to being something you could do practical work with," said Kare. Satellite solar power arrays, for instance, with 24-hour, unobstructed exposure to the sun, "are enormously more efficient" than ground-based solar power.

"The two problems are always, How much does it cost to get a satellite up there, and how do you get the power back down," explained Kare. "The laser system that we demonstrated in the climber competition are the first ones that are efficient enough that you could talk about sending the power down on a laser beam."

Terrestrial power beaming is just now becoming competitive on both the amount of power delivered and cost, in special instances. A laser power beaming system "delivers" about 20 percent of its electrical intake--about 50 percent of the incoming electricity is converted to light, and about 50 percent of that light is converted by photovoltaic sells back to electricity.

The LaserMotive climber

"It's not what you'd call efficient compared to an extension cord across the room," said Kare, but in remote areas without power infrastructure, it could be cost effective to beam power in. Or, he suggested, electric drones could "refuel" in flight.

These are high-powered laser beams, of course: LaserMotive's climber is powered by their own infrared 4-kilowatt laser , while its two competitors relied on an 8-kilowatt Trumpf TruDisk 8002 . You weld metal with the Trumpf, so safety is not just about not looking into the beam.

"Stepping in front of a high-powered laser beam is generally a bad idea," confirmed Kare. "Our beams will cook hot dogs very nicely but they will take a few minutes to do it," he said, adding a second later that this was confirmed in a LaserMotive test . (While LaserMotive has a great safety record, they also have a sense of humor about working lasers--a sign at their Kent workspace reads " 1 Days Without Shark-Related Accidents.")

It meant more work to develop their own laser system, but LaserMotive banked on getting more power from their 4-kilowatt system because the photovoltaic cells that could handle the 8-kilowatt Trumpf's slightly longer wavelength were simply not as good. The Kansas City Space Pirates, despite having 8,000 watts to burn, could only get around 100 watts out of the standard solar cells they used. LaserMotive's high-efficiency cells produced more with less area.

(In an ironic development, LaserMotive used a manual joystick to direct the laser beam, while its two competitors went with automated guidance. "Other people had problems with radio interference and computers crashing, we didn't have any of that, we just had a guy who could cope," said Kare.)

On their climber's final run at the competition, a single, missing 1/4-inch titanium nut and Murphy's Law meant the stripped-down climber appeared slow, baffling the admittedly sleep-deprived LaserMotive crew, who had just lightened it of protective material. A rod missing that nut had jammed into the backstop that would arrest the climber's descent, and the climber was towing the backstop up. Unaware of the problem, LaserMotive "stepped on it," transmitting 1,000 watts to the climber, and burnt out a DC-to-DC converter.

This article originally appeared on TheSunbreak.com

"We're pretty sure we can do the five meters per second next time," Kare said. The rematch is, tentatively, May 10, 2010.

After that? Possibly exploring power beaming to one of those "remote areas" he mentioned earlier. LaserMotive has been talking to NASA about the prospect of beaming power to robot rovers on the moon or Mars. (The incredibly hardy Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity have been sleeping through Martian winters, when not enough sunlight arrives to power them.)

Kare, who has worked out not one but two methods of interstellar travel, perked up at this idea. $2-million prizes are one thing. Space exploration, that's where the excitement is.

bilerico

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BilericoProject/~3/VJN17j0_-YA/speaking_engagements_bilerico_goes_to_texas.php

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/12/speaking_engagements_bilerico_goes_to_texas.php

I'm beginning to feel like a jet-setter lately. I've been to NYC twice, DC a couple of times, I'm off to San Francisco this week, and now I'll be traveling to Dallas and Austin early next year to speak at a couple of conferences.

Creating Change: NGLTF's shining jewel for LGBT activists and leaders, the Creating Change conference is a must-attend for folks interested in movement building. Bilerico Project is partnering with the New Organizing Institute to present five sessions at the 2009 conference:

• Building Your Online Presence
• Small-Dollar Online Fundraising
• Integrating New Media Into Your Organizing Strategy
• Online to Offline Engagement
• Reaching Out to the Blogosphere

We're also partnering with Feministing for the session, "From Inclusive to Intersectional: the Joys and Challenges of Diverse Online Communities." Plus, we'll also be hosting our annual mixer. The conference runs from Feb 3-7 in Dallas, Texas.

South by Southwest: I'll be part of a panel discussion called "Engaging The Queer Community" at the SXSW conference in March. Co-panelists will include Trish Bendix from AfterEllen.com and Sinclair Sexsmith of SugarButch. The moderator will be Fausto Fernos of Feast of Fun. The conference runs from March 12-16 in Austin, Texas.

whitehouseblog

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/a-dialogue-accelerating-innovation-economy

For the past day and a half, several Senior Administration officials and I joined leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors to discuss the role of innovation in achieving sustainable economic growth and quality jobs. We wish to extend our thanks to the Aspen Institute, Intel, the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, for bringing people together on this important Presidential priority, reflected in President Obama's Strategy for American Innovation.

Much of the discussion centered around our national investments in the building blocks of innovation - increased support for basic research & development, a world-class educational system focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and a modern infrastructure that includes broadband alongside roads, high-speed rail, and airports.

Demonstrating our commitment to this conversation, I was joined by six colleagues - National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, Staff Director of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board Austan Goolsbee, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his Executive Director for the national broadband plan Blair Levin.

In the coming weeks and months, we hope to extend this conversation throughout the country to hear directly from you on the set of policies that will expand the nation's innovation capacity.

Until then, please feel free to watch video segments at http://www.theinnovationeconomy.org/videos/.

Aneesh Chopra is the Federal Chief Technology Officer and the Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

towleroad

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/towleroad/feed/~3/WSn-4LRdB80/towleroad-guide-to-the-tube-577-i-talk-because-edition.html

Today, on World AIDS Day, NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Health Committee Chair Joel Rivera, Council Member Rosie Mendez, and representatives from HIV/AIDS organizations from around New York City, launched the "I Talk Because" social networking campaign, featuring YouTube clips of New Yorkers talking about HIV and AIDS. 

The clips above feature NYC Speaker Quinn, model Ronnie Kroell, Joseph, and Gay Men's Health Crisis CEO Marjorie Hill. Many more can be viewed HERE.

Said State Senator Tom Duane: “I applaud Speaker Quinn for her initiative to ensure that HIV/AIDS awareness is not only addressed on World AIDS Day but also throughout the year. In order to prevent new HIV infections, and increase the percentage of HIV-positive New Yorkers who know their status and have access to appropriate care, we need to talk about how HIV is spread and confront the associated stigma and discrimination that tragically persist. I look forward to participating in this innovative social networking campaign to help stem the spread of this deadly disease." 

The campaign is on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. New Yorkers are encouraged to submit videos by emailing italkbecause@gmail.com.

For recent Guides to the Tube, click HERE.

bilerico

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BilericoProject/~3/eRyRwZXojhs/whats_missing_from_world_aids_day.php

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/12/whats_missing_from_world_aids_day.php

I've been sitting at my computer all morning, reading through the advocacy discussion on World AIDS Day. Usually on these kinds of commemoration days there is an overemphasis on quick internet activism- a Facebook status update is all I expect out of lots of friends, both gay and straight- and an underemphasis on offline action.

Today is no exception, but it's especially disappointing because of the lack of emphasis on vaccine trials.

Allow me to get a little personal on you.

Continue reading "What's missing from World AIDS Day"...