Contact: red_ankle@mac.com

WWW Mac-a-ro-nies

Contribute:

Blogospherics: Vapid political entries worse than silence

Sometimes the sheer vapidity of so much of what passes for serious discussion in the blogosphere is enough to make one wonder why those of us who read and research before we write bother. We can provide the mineral enriched water, but, a Right Wing blogger, Art Green, recently stated the likely response from too many: "I refuse to drink." The occassion was comments to an entry he wrote stating what he believes to be the situation in Iraq. He had cross posted it to Blogcritics. As occassionally happens to those with far Right views at that largely conservative group blog, Green was surprised when some informed people who disagree with his perspective pointed out the fallacies in his entry. This is the piece.

Kerry Advisor: Iraq Worse Than Vietnam

John Kerry's foreign policy advisor, Richard Holbrooke said on Fox News Sunday that "strategically and politically, the situation in Iraq is worse than it ever was in Vietnam. The situation is clearly getting worse ... and there is no strategy either for success or for victory or for exit."

"The current situation in Iraq is a tunnel without any light at the end of it."

Mr. Holbrooke. Don't you think that way over the top and divisive? Iraq is not near the level of the Vietnam war. There is not near as many dissidents. (75% of the Iraqis want us there until the job is done)

Sure, not everything is perfect in Iraq now. There are more than 1,000 people that will never walk on the earth again, but this is not even remotely close to Vietnam.

You divide the country with the your scare tactics and your lies. And half of the country is too blinded with bias to see through the lies and the scare tactics. It saddens me.

Let's take it from the top. Why would anyone believe that seventy-five percent of any population wants its country to be occupied? Since no source is offered for the statistic, I cannot refute it properly. However, it begs common sense to make such an unreasonable supposition. People everywhere want to run their own lives. They also want their countries to be autonomous. Why would the Iraqis be any different? The daily news of opposition to the occupation, including terrorist acts, suggests that many Iraqis are opposed to the occupation.

One thousand people have died in Iraq? I could swear thousands more have given up the ghost there. Omitting the Iraqis killed during the invasion and occupation is incredibly telling. If says their deaths don't matter.

Scare tactics and lies? Green has failed to cite a single underhanded tactic or bent interpretation. Holbrooke merely stated the opinion he has arrived at after analyzing the facts about the occupation. His credentials in foreign policy make his opinion expert. One would be hard put to find someone more capable of presenting an informed opinion.

Informed opinion. That is what it comes down to. Too much of what passes for information in the blogosphere is gibberish. Linkage means that very thin porridge such as this entry gets passed around, creating or encouraging greater ignorance as it circulates. Unless some legitimate support is offered for claiming an excellent source does not know what he is talking about, a blog entry attacking him serves no useful purpose.

Blogger Hal Pawluk, of 'Tude, an astute observer of politics, offered Green better porridge and a spoon to eat it with. He provided links to articles and blog entries describing how Holbrooke might have reached his conclusion that the United States risks becoming mired in Iraq. Green's response to the information? Not "More, please." He refused to read it. Too many bloggers and blog readers would have done the same.

On another channel

At Silver Rights, "In Memoriam," a farewell to blogger Aaron Hawkins of Uppity Negro.

Commentary: Good dog, bad dog

In the newspaper business, different tags are applied to types of stories. 'Shorts' are filler, used mainly to fill small areas, preventing excess white space. A 'bright' is a short piece meant to make readers smile. News of the weird usually involves someone doing something unusual. You know, the man who bites a dog. Speaking of canines, I'm not sure how to categorize this furry critter story. You decide.

A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.

Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was charged with felony animal cruelty, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday. He was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist.

Bradford said he decided to shoot the 3-month-old shepherd-mix dogs in the head because he couldn't find them a home, according to the sheriff's office.

On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies -- one in his arms and another in his left hand -- when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-caliber revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said.

Three puppies that had been shot to death were found buried on Bradford's property. Apparently, he believes in 'cleaning as you go.' There is no mention of the Floridian being a parent. Something can be said for his genes not being passed on.

I suppose the story is a bright because the remaining puppies were rescued, and, will likely find homes as a result of the publicity.

But, then, being shot by a dog is a kind of man bites dog tale, too. Weird.

I'm been thinking about dogs lately because people are, to put it bluntly, going too far in regard to them. Within the last two weeks, I've had to complain about persons bringing canines into three inappropriate places. Two were Kinko's copy centers. One was a Starbucks. The woman in Starbucks became quite peeved when I, and two other customers, suggested that plopping her plump Pug on the counter where people are served -- where it promptly urinated -- was not a good idea. She was even more put out when she was told the dog should not have been in the cafe in the first place. I don't know whether these folks mistakenly believe the law that allows handicapped people to bring their assistance dogs into public buildings applies to them, or, are just presumptuous.

The first episode in Kinko's involved a wandering, but friendly, German Shepherd. The second was more troubling and highlights why there are laws excluding dogs from public buildings. Like other people entering the Kinko's, I encountered a growling, turf protecting Rottweiler. After he turned his attention to the person behind me, I approached the counter and asked the clerk what the dog was doing there. He said it belonged to a customer. I said that unless it was an authorized assistance dog that did not matter. The fellow looked uncomfortable. The dog continued to guard the door, his behavior escalating to barking and leaping at people entering. After several complaints, the timid clerk finally got up the nerve to ask the dog's owner, a pony-tailed, granola eating man in his 30s, to take the dog outside. The customer, typing away on his laptop, pointedly ignored the clerk, who looked like he was going to cry. I intervened. I once worked on a civil suit in which a Rottweiler had literally ripped a man's neck open, leaving him partly paralyzed. I told that anecdote. Afterward, I noted that if the next person to enter was of small stature, a child or someone with a baby, the situation was going to go from bad to worse. It was our responsibility not to allow that to happen. Either Granola Guy was going to take the dog outside or the police were going to be called. We finally got results. Though the man never acknowledged our existence, he took the Rottweiler outside. Visitors to the Kinko's still had to find their way around a dangerous dog, but at least it was not inside the building.

The situation ended well, considering the utter lack of interest in the welfare of other people the owner of the dog expressed. I don't have any friends or acquaintances who are so self-centered they refuse to consider that dogs who are lovable companions to them are nuisances, or even dangers, to others, that I know of. If I discover I know someone who has been imposing his pet on other people in public buildings, I will give him a good talking to. I hope you will do the same.

Blogospherics: Starbucks' blogging barista fired fairly

Starbucks is a company some people find easy to hate. It is big. It serves an appetite one might consider a want, not a need. It caters to elitists -- people for whom Maxwell House and Folger's are not good enough. It is in a field, agriculture, where First World meets and sometimes exploits Third World. It has a mermaid on its logo. So, it is not surprising that a current employee fired for blogging tale, featuring a Starbucks' barista, has some people sneering, They were already inclined to, and this story bolsters their disdain. Jason Koulouros brought the sad saga of the unemployed Canadian blogger to my attention.

When does criticizing an employer become a firing offence?

That is the question a former Starbucks employee is asking after the ubiquitous coffee chain terminated him this week for profanity-laced remarks he made about a manager, and the company, on an Internet journal.

Matthew Brown, a 28-year-old Starbucks supervisor in Toronto, uses the Blog, or online journal, to keep in touch with friends and family. The diary contained his thoughts, a place where Mr. Brown vented his frustrations about everything from personal issues to work. When a manager refused to let him go home sick, Mr. Brown sounded off about his boss from home. He said he didn't use his real name, and gave the journal's address to a select group of people, so he doesn't know how the diary ended up in Starbucks' hands.

''I feel violated,'' he told Global News.

Predictably, some people commenting on Brown's dismissal have condemned Starbucks.

Firing an employee for muttering unflattering comments about his employer is ridiculous.

Would you stop buying Starbucks because one of their employees ranted in a blog? Yeah right. Are consumers supposed to believe that everyone who stands behind a fastfood chain's countertop waiting to serve us, loves their job? Give me a break.

Everyone has had bad days. Maybe the employee's supervisor was deserving of the comments. Who knows? Who cares.

The real concern here is personal freedom. Should corporate entities have the power to control their employees' thoughts and expression off the job?

If you answered yes, perhaps you should revisit G. Orwell's 1984. We're talking about brand loyality not the country's security issues.

And if you do trade freedom for "security" you will end up losing both.

I can't join the chorus. Since the situation occurred in Canada, American law does not apply. However, if an American employee engaged in the same conduct, he could be legally terminated. Most workers are employees at will and can be dismissed for almost any reason. Any reason includes a silly reason or no reason at all. Furthermore, Goliath does have a valid concern, despite David's lamentations. Anyone searching for 'blog' and 'Starbucks' could have happened upon Brown's blog. Persons doing so would have been treated to a diatribe against the company it did not have an opportunity to respond to. So, the harm Starbucks is attempting to protect itself from is real. Indeed, if multiple employees chose to criticize their employer publicly, the behavior would have a substantial effect. 'Good will' -- the way consumers feel about a business -- may be difficult to quantify, but it has a tangible impact on the success or failure of an enterprise. Diatribes such as Brown's can harm even a behemoth.

But, what of the "freedom" the naive correspondent above refers to? The truth is there is relatively little of it in workplaces the world over. People trade degrees of freedom, meaning the ability to do what they choose, in return for the necessities of life. Matthew Brown has little choice about how he will behave if he is to remain an employee of just about any company. If he feels violated by being fired for blatantly breaking an employer's rules, he is destined to have a difficult work life. He has the options of being self-employed, or, finding an employer who does not mind being ridiculed on the Internet. However, Starbucks was on solid ground when it decided to let him go.

Reasonably related

There are myths about the evil allegedly done by the humongous Starbucks Corp. An investigation of the allegations by Willamette Week found them to be mainly false.

Law: Dismissal in Bryant case anti-climactic

It is the big celebrity case that wasn't. When Kobe Bryant was indicted for sexual assault, he joined celebrities Robert Blake and Martha Stewart as the accused of national scrutiny. Blake's trial is still on hold. To the surprise of many, Stewart was convicted and has been sentenced to months in prison. Criminal charges against Bryant were dismissed, with prejudice, last week.

I wondered if the prosecution was desperate when it made a last ditch effort to undermine the defense in an earlier entry. Asking that all DNA evidence be excluded, apparently to hide allegations the accuser had intercourse with another man within a few hours of the encounter with Bryant, seemed to signal defeat. My skepticism proved accurate. The prosecution dropped the charges without even waiting for a ruling on its motion.

The New York Times reports citizens of the small town in Colorado where the victim lived are glad to have the case go away. They look forward to returning to normalcy and regret the expense, a reported $400,000, the episode cost the county.

Coverage by KABC-TV in Los Angeles focuses on Bryant's 'apology.'

In the end, the rape case against Kobe Bryant was dropped because the young woman accusing him did not want to testify at trial. Without her, District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said they could not proceed.

. . .In a statement, Bryant, while not admitting blame, apologized to the woman.

"I want to apologize for my behavior that night," he wrote, "and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year."

Should Bryant have apologized? From a legal perspective, the answer is probably no. Since a civil suit alleging he did the woman harm is still pending, an apology could be used as evidence against him. However, the dismissal of the criminal case makes it less likely the civil case will go forward. Even if it does, a jury will be harder to convince that Bryant harmed his accuser and that she deserves damagaes as a result. The best evidence she could have would be a conviction of Bryant in a a criminal trial. It is possible the parties will reach a settlement of the civil suit. But, the accuser will have fewer chips to bargain with as a result of the dismissal of the criminal case.

Some other sources see the gamesmanship of the Bryant prosecution as proof a prosecutor succumbed to the allure of convicting a public figure at the expense of common sense. The GJ Sentinel, in Colorado, takes the person who made the decision to indict Bryant to task.

But one thing has been reasonably clear from the get-go: The prosecution never had a strong case. It was riddled with inconsistencies and evidence that challenged the accuser’s story. It was highly unlikely that 35-year-old District Attorney Mark Hurlbert and his equally youthful staff could have convinced a jury of Bryant’s guilt, even if the young woman had not decided at the last minute that she didn’t want to proceed with the case.

One has to ask whether Hurlbert would have so aggressively pursued the case if the defendant had not been a multimillionaire, world-famous sports star. If the evidence were the same, but the man accused was — let’s say, a young man who worked at the same luxury resort as the young woman — would the same efforts have been made to keep the case alive when it was clearly on life support?

...Hurlbert, a Republican, is up for re-election this year and is facing a Democratic challenger. Voters in Eagle and neighboring counties that comprise the Fifth Judicial District would do well to recall his handling of the Kobe Bryant case when they go to the polls this November.

Kobe Bryant did not really win. Being accused of a crime and having it publicized is never a 'win' for anyone. That is particularly true for a celebrity who relies on endorsements and public good will to remain a multi-millionaire. However, he did obtain his freedom from even more humiliation, and possibly, a prison term, with the dismissal. The American public's aggregate memory is fairly short. Hardly anyone recalls Rob Lowe's sex scandal. The name Jessica Hahn is pretty much forgotten. If he does not find himself in trouble again, Bryant will suffer the consequences of unpleasant notoriety for a few years, but, eventually, regain much of the luster he has lost.

Many basketball fans were loyal to Bryant despite the rape charges.

Politics: Bloggers out gay Right Wing pol

It is one of those scenarios that offer plenty to ponder. Why are so many closeted gay men who are politically active vocal opponents of equality for homosexuals? (Indeed, why are so many vocal Right Wingers revealed to have life styles that don't comport with their stated beliefs, period?) Does the closeted gays' hypocrisy provide permission for others to out them? Should bloggers, particularly anonymous bloggers, do the outing? There is all that and more in the revelation that a legislator has resigned after being outed by blogs. Planet Out reports on the controversy.

A Washington, D.C.-based blogger triggered the resignation of U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock, R-Va., with accusations that he solicited sex with men.

Schrock, a vocal opponent of gay rights and proponent of several anti-gay laws, announced Monday that he will not seek a third term in Congress.

"In recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia's Second Congressional District," Schrock said in a press release.

Apparently, the love that dare not speak its name had still better keep mum. His statement is purposely vague. He did not say: I have been accused of being homosexual.

Schrock, 63, is married and a father. The most outspoken of the weblogs that have made the allegations, Blog Active, has posted audio that it says is of Schrock calling gay sex hotlines and soliciting specific acts. The blogger is not apologetic about having taken action against the politician.

The editor of blogactive, Mike Rogers, said his blog's purpose is to expose "hypocrites" in politics. Rogers has promised more embarrassing revelations about people "who say they are Republicans and then use sexual orientation to stay in power."

Is Shrock a reasonable fellow who just happens to be a Repubican? Far from it. He is a poster boy for the extreme Right. He seems to be particularly opposed to liberalizing laws in regard to homosexuality.

Schrock, who received a 92 percent rating (out of 100) from the Christian Coalition, was one of 233 lawmakers who supported the Marriage Protection Act, which would block federal courts from considering constitutional issues arising from same-sex marriage cases, and he was a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

A retired Navy officer and Vietnam veteran, Schrock also has called for ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in favor of asking enlistees about their orientation to prevent gays from entering the military.

Schrock apparently thinks the allegations, if believed, would make him unwelcome in the Christian Right, where he has made his political home. That has prompted his resignation. Is there fire as well as smoke? I doubt that Rogers would have openly accused Schrock unless he was certain of the evidence he has in hand. Unlike some of the other bloggers who have accused Schrock, Rogers has put his name and reputation in play.

Gay advocacy groups are responding cautiously. Shrock is the enemy -- a person in a powerful position who has done his best to limit the rights of homosexuals. But, at the same time, he is thought to be one of them, a homosexual man. Steven Fisher, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says he cannot condone using outing of gays as a weapon, even when the person suffering the consequences is not someone he sympathizes with.

In his autobiography, Blinded by the Right, former GOP operative David Brock says there has long been a 'gay Mafia' at the higher levels of the party. A sort of Order of Roy Cohn. Despite their homosexuality, they are men (he doesn't mention any women) who have decided the beliefs of the far Right are to be championed, including contempt for homosexuals. It appears that Schrock may have been among that secret society.

Music: Heatwave still warms the heart

First stanza

Always and forever
Each moment with you
Is just like a dream to me
That somehow came true.
And I know tomorrow
Will still be the same
Cause we've got a life of love
That won't ever change and. . .

Chorus

Every day
Love me your own special way
Melt all my heart away
With a smile.
Take time to tell me
You really care
And we'll share tomorrow together
I'll always love you forever.

Heatwave warmed hearts and bodies from the mid-1970s into the early '80s, so I suppose the fast numbers would be called disco, despite their jazz influences. Unfortunately, the word 'disco' has become grounds for raised eyebrows. Tunes such as "Boogie Nights" and "The Groove Line" capture the pure joy of dance music and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let the 'D-word' prevent you from giving these well-wrought dance hits a new listen. The very jazzy "Ain't No Half-Steppin'" should act as an antidote if the disco aspect leaves your eyes stuck in mid roll.

One feature of Heatwave that made it different from other groups of the era was its international cast. The group was founded by Johnnie and Keith Wilder in Germany after they ended their tours of service with the U.S. Army there. They recruited whoever added flavor and talent to the group. Members hailed from Czechoslovakia, Spain and Britain, as well as the United States.

The Wilder brothers' soulful lead vocals were important to the identity forged by the group. The other key ingredient in the recipe that produced Heatwave is songwriter British Rod Temperton. He began his career as the pianist for Heatwave and wrote most of the songs on Heatwave: Always and Forever. You may know that he went on to write for Michael Jackson, Quincy Jones, George Benson and other 'names.' With Heatwave, Temperton's focus was on creating club band music, utilizing Johnnie Wilder's distinctive tenor and introducing electronics, especially the synthesizer.

One reason Teddy Pendergrass talks about Johnnie Wilder in his book is that Wilder, whose star was on the rise at the same time his was, was a good friend. The other reason is that Wilder was paralyzed in an automobile accident in 1979, three years before Pendergrass suffered the same fate. Wilder, who is paralyzed from the neck down, was one of the people who helped Pendergrass survive periods of depression during his early years of being a quadriplegic. Though Wilder sang lead vocals on the album Candles after he was paralyzed, the touring was too taxing. Guest vocalists filled in for live performances for a time, but by the mid-'80s, Heatwave was dormant.

Johnnie Wilder, who also wrote songs for Heatwave, now writes, performs and produces Christian music, mainly a cappella vocals. Keith Wilder formed a new verison of Heatwave in the 1990s. The group performs on the oldies circuit and at corporate events.

Reasonably related

•There's a brief biography of Heatwave at Soul Tracks.

•Visit Johnnie Wilder's site.

•Read a review of Teddy Pendergrass' autobiography.

Entertainment: Spears' marriage may be messy

US Magazine has the dish on Britney Spears' upcoming nuptials, in a piece titled, "Britney, the Bridezilla." Seems the wedding plans have been plagued by setbacks. Though the big to-do is planned for November, friends say the pop princess is getting antsy. She may move the date forward. They say she is resisting a quickie trip to Las Vegas because it would be deja vu all over again, considering her annulled marriage to another man a few months ago. The size of the wedding is also uncertain, with Spears vacillating between small and intimate and huge and a humdinger, sources say. She may invite 200 guests, or just 20.

US reports there are also family-to-be problems. The betrothed suspects fiance Kevin Federline's family of leaking information about the couple to the media. Meanwhile, Spears has said 'Hi,' to Char Jackson, his former girlfriend, and the mother of his two babies, but that is all. She has also met Federline and Jackson's toddler, but not their newborn. It unclear how the families will blend. Child support also appears to unresolved. Federline is unemployed. Spears mother, Lynne, is said to be asking businesses associated with the nuptials, including a hotel, to provide their services free in return for publicity. 'Bridezilla's worth is calculated at about $100 million.

Give me props. I read this frivolous article, so you would not have to.

Technology: Employers may block public IMs

I recently wrote about why, after years on the Internet, I am no longer much of a user of instant messaging. I've discovered I function better without interruptions.

If responding in comments to something I've said or emailing me is not fast enough, I wonder why. I don't miss the immediacy and like being able to adhere to other things I'm working on instead of answering the online equivalent of the phone.

In the interest of fairness, I also considered why some IM users love real time Internet conversations, citing ZDNet's Anchordesk columnist Brian Cooley.

Cooley's main reason for liking instant messaging is disliking email.

But today e-mail is choked with garbage, and I think that's the best reason for IM. I run two spam filters just to get down to 300 spam messages in my in-box each day. People I need to reach aren't responsive to e-mail anymore; they seem to check it every few hours or so, probably dreading the onslaught of spam and tedious threads that await them.

IM restores that rapid-fire pungency e-mail used to have, an electronic version of someone sticking their head in your office door.

It turns out that employers are more concerned about instant messaging than I am. According to Infoworld, the practice may be on its way out of American workplaces. The magazine covered the topic this week.

There is no question that IM is entrenched in the enterprise. More than 90 percent of businesses report IM activity, according to Osterman Research. A main reason, as we discovered in " Getting serious about enterprise IM ," is the improved productivity and reduced communications costs that IM delivers. What should concern CIOs is that unsanctioned consumer IM networks -- such as those from America Online, ICQ, Microsoft, and Yahoo -- make up 80 percent of corporate IM use today, and the number of users of these unsecured IM networks is growing at a fast clip, according to The Radicati Group. True, public IM networks offer enterprises some protection, such as very basic identity control. But organizations are still exposed to a multitude of security risks, including viruses and breached firewalls.

Instant messaging is of great concern to employers, especially corporations, because of the security risks inherent in it and contractual obligations that require secure wide area networks. The baseline protection against unauthorized entry -- firewalls -- is insufficent because sophisticated IM programs can easily detect and tunnel under them. IM programs can also evade virus protections.

Infoworld recommends using software designed to limit IMing to approved uses as a solution.

The answer -- employed by all three security products reviewed here -- is a gateway specifically tuned to detect IM and p-to-p use. From there, these solutions enforce the access policies you set. For example, you could permit MSN text messaging but not file transfers.

However, an equally viable reaction is to curtail use of public internet messaging by making it verboten in workplaces. I expect many employers will do that instead of investing in software that may not produce the needed results. It appears workplace Internet messaging is headed in the same direction as sending and receiving personal email in workplaces. Employees may not be able to do it much longer.

News: Kennedy Smith sued for alleged rape

This news makes me feel old. Been there. Done that. Or at least read all about it. More than a decade ago, I followed the William Kennedy Smith rape case closely. My feelings about it were mixed. I thought the victim believed she had been raped. I also thought Smith might be someone who likes his sex rough, based on allegations by other women who had known him. However, a jury -- not unreasonably -- believed that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. And, here we go again.

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A woman claims in a lawsuit that William Kennedy Smith sexually assaulted her in 1999, and her lawyer said Thursday that she did not come forward at the time because she was intimidated by his wealth and connections.

The Kennedy cousin cleared of rape charges in 1991 said his family and personal history made him a target for "outrageous" allegations. And the woman herself acknowledged having had a relationship with Smith some months after the alleged assault.

In the suit filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court, 28-year-old Audra Soulias alleges that after a night of drinking in 1999, Smith, now 43, forced her out of a cab and into his home where he sexually assaulted her. She is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

. . .In 1991, a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida, acquitted Smith of sexual assault and battery on a then 30-year-old woman he met in a nightclub. He said the sex between him and the accuser, Patricia Bowman, was consensual.

Soulias was an employee when the alleged rape occurred. Kennedy, a physician, has established a fine reputation as an activist for victims of land mines. He heads the Center for International Rehabilitation. He has been lauded for his work for such a wonderful cause. Thousands of people, many of them children, are maimed by mines left from wars throughout the world each year. Kennedy seemed to have made a winning recovery from the embarrassing situation he found himself in in 1991.

If Kennedy felt intimidated by Soulias, I believe he would have agreed to a monetary settlement without the ugly publicity resulting from a lawsuit being brought. Expect him to fight back.

Law: Bryant prosecutors attack DNA evidence

There is an interesting new twist in the controversial prosecution of basketball star Kobe Bryant for rape. Prosecutors have asked for a hearing at which they hope to have important evidence thrown out as unreliable. Voir dire (jury selection) is set to begin next week. However, this development could delay it, and the start of the trial.

CNN is covering the case.

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Crucial DNA evidence tested by defense experts in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case might have been contaminated, prosecutors said in a court filing released Wednesday, just two days before jury selection is to begin.

Prosecutors said they had found contamination in DNA "control" samples intended to ensure testing was accurate. They also said data from the defense's experts appears to have been manipulated.

Prosecutors asked the judge to hold a hearing Thursday to force the NBA star's attorneys to prove the reliability of the evidence intended to be presented at trial by defense experts.

If the evidence were to be excluded, that would favor the prosecution. The victim, according to leaked and mistakenly released information, had sex with at least one other man between the time of the alleged rape and the next day. Then, she went to a hospital. The physical evidence prosecutors are offering is from that examination. It allegedly proves Bryant had intercourse with the woman. If there was a second partner, his DNA is also likely present. But, if the "control" test was contaminated, then all DNA evidence could be excluded under the rules of evidence. That would include evidence of the second sexual partner. If the evidence is excluded, there will be no basis for the theory that the victim was sexually active with another man, and he might have caused bruising or other injury, being introduced. That is important because of the inferences jurors might make in regard to a rape victim who claims to be have been brutally assaulted, but went on to have sexual intercourse with another man the same night. Jurors would question how severely she was injured, whether she considered the incident rape at the time and if she might have other reasons for filing criminal charges against a wealthy man.

It is doubtful the evidence -- which is very significant -- will be excluded. Indeed the maneuver may be a mark of the prosecution's desperation. Leaks of information, publicity about the victim's instability and the successful efforts of Bryant's crack legal team have evened the balance of power between the adversaries. Normally, a criminal defendant does not have the economic resources needed to defend himself in a legal system weighted against him and in favor of the state. The Kobe Bryant case gives us an opportunity to see the difference affluence makes when a citizen responds to a criminal prosecution.

Politics: Cheney opposes gay marriage amendment

While acknowledging his lesbian daughter, Vice President Dick Cheney has said he does not agree with the Republicans' claim federal legislation is needed to ban marriage between gays. He expressed his opinion at a political event in Iowa. His remarks were very carefully phrased. The New York Times has the story.

Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage. In contrast, President Bushhas argued that a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is essential. Mr. Cheney noted that Mr. Bush sets policy for the administration.

In unusually personal remarks on the issue, delivered at a campaign forum in Davenport, Iowa, the vice president referred to his daughter, Mary, who is a lesbian, saying that he and his wife "have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with." He added, according to a transcript of his remarks, provided by the White House, "We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them."

He spoke on the same day that a draft version of the Republican platform was distributed to convention delegates that declared, "We strongly support President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage." The draft platform added, "Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."

Cheney's remarks appear to be timed to create a less harsh view of the Republicans' attitude toward homosexuals for their national convention. The gesture may be meant to serve two purposes:

•Reassure gay conservatives, such as the Log Cabin Republicans. Homosexuals who are conservatives often support the GOP's positions on matters other than the rights of homosexuals. Since gay men are more likely to be white, better educated and affluent, unlike other minority groups, there is a significant constituency of conservative homosexuals.

•Get conservative gays who are not Republicans to consider the party as it enters the image polishing process of a national convention.

There is a caveat to Cheney's position.

But Mr. Cheney noted that the president believed a recent round of court decisions, notably in Massachusetts, "were making the judgment or decision for the entire country," and had thus embraced a constitutional amendment.

His alleged fear of 'activist judges' could provide cover for Cheney to support a federal resolution to the issue, despite his claim he does not consider gay marriage a federal matter.

Gay activists expressed skepticism in regard to Cheney's stance.

The Associated Press reports delegates preparing for the convention perused the proposal to make opposition to gay marriage part of the party's platform Tuesday.

Republicans call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in a proposed election platform headed for a feisty debate in the days before their national convention.

If the plank is approved as expected, it would mark the first time the GOP has gone on record in its statement of principles as supporting an amendment against gay marriage. The issue opens a new point of contention between the party’s social conservatives and moderates in platform hearings, who typically tangle over abortion rights each presidential election season. .

Mary Cheney is said to have successfully recruited gay people to the Republican Party during the 2002 mid-term elections.

Internet: To IM or not

I rarely use instant messaging. I haven't developed a complex theory why, and, the far Right hasn't managed to link my apostasy to some presumed malfeasance by John Kerry -- yet. Perhaps it has to do with longevity on the 'Net. As a veteran of AOL chatrooms in the early '90s, Talk City news chats later, and various ethnic and women's sites, not to mention Yahoo and About.com, I think I may have exceeded my lifetime bandwidth for real time interaction on the Web a long time ago. If responding in comments to something I've said or emailing me is not fast enough, I wonder why. I don't miss the immediacy and like being able to adhere to other things I'm working on instead of answering the online equivalent of the phone.

However, being a reasonable person, I am willing to lend an ear to people who approve of instant messaging. Brian Cooley, at ZDNet's Anchordesk, likes IM. Cooley is a convert who started out with a decidedly different opinion.

Working at CNET back in 1996, it seemed like everyone on earth went with instant messaging, but I stood pat with e-mail. Why? Like so many of my life's little stances, I can't remember anymore.

I think it had something to do with thinking IM was an unseemly waste of time, just another way to goof off in an industry that didn't exactly need more of those. For example, my office was less than two minutes away from a massage place, a video arcade, a foosball parlor, and a phalanx of Coke machines--and that was without leaving the building

I don't know that I ever considered instant messaging unseemly. Most people who contacted me did not spell you're 'your' or blather about Britney Spears. The conversations were more likely to be about a legal decision or a book I'd mentioned reading. They weren't a waste of time, but neither were they momentous. Answering my IMs was much less goofing off than the millions of Americans who play Solitaire on their computers at work are engaged in. I've never been to the kind of massage place Cooley is referring to and I don't play foosball.

Cooley's main reason for liking instant messaging is disliking email.

But today e-mail is choked with garbage, and I think that's the best reason for IM. I run two spam filters just to get down to 300 spam messages in my in-box each day. People I need to reach aren't responsive to e-mail anymore; they seem to check it every few hours or so, probably dreading the onslaught of spam and tedious threads that await them.

IM restores that rapid-fire pungency e-mail used to have, an electronic version of someone sticking their head in your office door.

My email filters are about 75 percent effective in identifying detritus and depositing it in my Junk and Trash folders. I weed through the rest. I don't believe IMing would make much difference in how much email I receive. I already route real life communicants to email addresses that I don't publish, so I know to check those accounts often.

I suspect Brian Cooley's real motivation for IMing is the immediacy he refers to as "rapid-fire pungency." There was a time, years ago, when I might have said the same thing. But, as more words than I care to think about have come and gone from and to me on the Internet, I've become less eager to have someone stick his head in my office door. Email me instead.

Politics: Second Kerry attacker discredited

Another of the Vietnam veterans who has attempted to smear presidential candidate John Kerry has been revealed to be circulating false information. With Election Day approaching, a group of conservative veterans, some who have been attacking Kerry since he was an opponent of the war during the Nixon administration, has revved up its offensive. Television ads describing Kerry as a coward instead of a hero are airing in some media markets. A book which says he does not deserve the medals for heroism he earned in Vietnam will soon be released.

However, the credibility of the attackers is coming under increased scrutiny. Military records and the accounts of the far Right swift boat veterans seldom match. The Washington Post reports.

WASHINGTON -- Newly obtained military records of one of John Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that his boat came under fire March 13, 1969, in Viet Cong-controlled territory. Kerry won a Bronze Star that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow also won a Bronze Star, and the citation praises him for providing aid to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He also is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The public-advocacy group of Vietnam veterans, dismayed by Kerry's subsequent anti-war activities, has aired a controversial advertisement attacking his war record.

On March 13, 1969, Kerry pulled an officer who had been thrown from a boat out of the water, possibly saving his life. Thurlow has denied that Kerry's boat was under fire when the rescue occurred. He has claimed Kerry's account is "totally fabricated" and that the presidential candidate does not deserve the Bronze Star he received as a result of the incident. Military records say that all of the boats were under fire, including Kerry's. Thurlow himself says the boats were taking fire in the records. In addition to the claim that Kerry's boat was not under attack, Thurlow and other members of the group claim that Kerry fled the scene that day. (Odd, considering that there would have been nothing for him to flee in the absence of combat.) There is no official corroboration of their claims. The group consists of conservative Vietnam veterans who believe the war was justified and winnable. Despite his record of heroism, Kerry came to oppose the war. Veterans who served with Kerry, including the crew of his swift boat, support his accounts of how he came to be a decorated veteran.

Politics: Smear campaigner retracted remarks

Considering that we are continually treated to the mud slinging of Vietnam veterans who oppose John Kerry (pictured) and also just happen to be operatives of the GOP, why we haven't we heard much about a former member of the smear campaign who has recanted? Richard Einhorn at Tristero tells us about Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, who had second thoughts after doing his duty as a conservative. After refuting attempts to discredit Kerry in 1996, Elliott succumbed to pressure from very conservative Vietnam veterans to aid them in their latest assault. He now regrets having given in and performed according to their script.

. . . a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. . .

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star...Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. . .

Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Readers will note that I removed as many of the lies as I could from the article in quoting these excerpts. I did so for a reason.

The people trying to slime Kerry are doing so not because they have a legitimate point of view but because they hate Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War. They are deliberately spreading falsehoods in order to muddy the discourse, to turn a clearcut case of heroism into a he said/she said "debate."

But it isn't working. The Bush campaign has publicly repudiated them and McCain has reamed both them and the Bush campaign.

More importantly, the facts speak for themselves. Those who were most in a position to know, Kerry's boatmates, stand by Kerry. As do contemporary Army records.

There is no he said/she said "debate." Kerry deserved his Silver and Purple stars.

End of story.

I haven't said much about the Right's 'swift boaters' because to refute a lie one must repeat it, thereby spreading the falsehood. Furthermore, much of the material being disseminated by these folks, who are bankrolled by a wealthy reactionary in Texas, makes no sense. My hope is that reasonable people will see right through it without having to be convinced that the swift boaters lack credibility. For example, the Southern doctor who claims to have removed shrapnel from Kerry's hand and to have applied a Band-Aid, missed something obvious, or perhaps he expects civilians to be too ignorant to realize his account defies logic. Physicians are not allowed on the front lines. They are too valuable to risk to close enemy fire. Medics supply the only medical care on the front lines. He would not have even have been where he says he was. Furthermore, his account does not match military records. And, it is unbelievable that he would have a clear memory of giving a Band-Aid to someone who wanted to run for president 35 years later. (Assuming, of course, that the young Kerry wanted to run for president then and told everyone, including strangers, that he did.) Hopefully, most people are not so vacuous as to credit such obvious fabrication. The group's book, which is apparently rife with similar lies, will be released by the Right Wing publishers at Regnery next week.

It is a good thing George Elliott has decided not to participate in the smear campaign. However, it would be a better thing if he had refused to participate from the beginning. His false assertions are included in the book and in a television ad promoting it. Elliott has done too little, too late.

Reasonably related

Elliott backed down from his earlier position in the Boston Herald.

News: Revisited and reconsidered

•Beheading faker is a candidate

I predicted some people would try to excuse the behavior of the man who pretended he was beheaded by Iraqi militants on political grounds. It turns out I overestimated human nature. The fellow was running for office in California and apparently thought the stunt would enhance his electability. The Desert Suneditorializes.

Misguided Benjamin Vanderford, 22, originally staged his own beheading to draw attention to his campaign for a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He eventually decided to distribute the video on Kaaza, a Web site that trades millions of software files daily. It crossed over to the major media and aired on Arab television. He later said that he was making a statement against the war in Iraq.

This incident is even more troubling because Vanderford has shown no remorse for his disgusting act.

No matter what type of statement he was trying to make, he showed absolute disrespect for those who died this agonizing death -- and for those who have to live forever with the horrid images of their loved ones suffering.

I am no Right Wing editorialist, but I agree. Perhaps we've sent a message to American youths that any kind of stunt is acceptable if the objective is marketing oneself. T'aint so. Does it matter that Vanderford is coming from the Left of the political spectrum? Not a whit. His actions were irresponsible regardlessly.

•"Wake Up Everybody" is a a timely tune

Who says Old School rock and soul are necessarily 'old'? I recently wrote about Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, whose fame peaked in the 1970s, though their lead singer, Teddy Pendergrass remained popular. The group was part of the history making Sound of Philadelphia, which fell on hard times after CBS stopped distributing the artists of Philadelphia International Records. Now we learn that one of the group's best known songs, "Wake Up Everybody," will be used to launch, hopefully, a million votes, in 2004.

Add Babyface and Missy Elliot to the growing list of artists looking to get out the vote in the months before the Nov. 2 presidential election.

The R&B star and hip-hop queen lead a cavalcade of music superstars--Brandy, Mary J. Blige, Wyclef Jean, Eve, Ashanti and Jadakiss, among them--who have come together to record a new all-star version of the classic hit "Wake Up Everybody" to benefit voter initiatives.

The anthem, recorded by Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, was used by Democrats in 1976 during Jimmy Carter's run for the presidency to mobilize black voters.

Now Kenneth "Babyface" Edmunds, who produced the new cover, hopes to do the same and win the hearts and minds of Americans in an effort to unseat President Bush from office.

The lyrics to the original "Wake Up Everybody," on which Pendergrass, who has a remarkable baritone voice, sings lead, are sympatico. Here's the first stanza:

Wake up everybody, no more sleepin in bed
No more backward thinkin,'
Time for thinkin' ahead.
The world has changed so very much
From what it used to be
So there is so much hatred war and poverty.
Wake up all the teachers time to teach a new way.
Maybe then they'll listen to whatcha have to say.
Cause they're the ones who's coming up
And the world is in their hands
When you teach the children, teach'em the very best you can.

No message could be more on point at this time in history than the chorus.

The world won't get no better if we just let it be
The world won't get no better
We gotta change it, yeah, just you and me.

Old School is not so old after all. Efforts to reform much of what is wrong with America began in the 1960s and 1970s, but the work is far from done.

•Real reduces price, ups ante against Apple

Real Networks has decided, "in for a dime, in for a dollar." It has slashed the price of downloads from its online music store to 50 cents per tune. The effort is an attempt to attract Windows users from Apple's iTunes Music Store.

RealNetworks will slash its song and album prices in half Tuesday in an attempt to lure music fans to buy its music downloads, which play on a slew of portable music players, including Apple iPods.

At 50 cents a song and $5 an album, the prices are the lowest yet offered by a mainstream digital music service. The bargain prices will last for "multiple weeks," according to Dan Sheeran, a senior vice president at RealNetworks.

Real's promotion is the latest volley by the company to pressure Apple Computer into opening up its music format to interoperate with other players. Several weeks ago, Real unveiled its Harmony technology, which allows music bought from Real to be played on more than 100 different portable players, including Apple's iPod.

Ironically, I anticipated this change for all online music stores in comments at another blog. But, I did not expect it to happen so soon or as part of a price war. If this is a war. We will not know until we see whether Apple, or other competitors, respond in kind. The more likely result is that Apple will attempt to expedite its lawsuit against Real claiming opening the iPod's software violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Reasonably related

•Many of the current reports about the Blue Notes contain inaccurate information. Harold Melvin died in 1997. The present group, which performed at the 2000 Republican Convention, does not include any of the members from its hit-making epoch with Philadelphia International Records. Read a history of the Blue Notes.

•Mac-a-ro-nies previously considered Real's 'trespassing' on Apple's turf.