EU starts probe into Apple's iTunes By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 3, 3:24 PM ET
BRUSSELS, Belgium - The deals Apple Inc. struck with record labels to stock its European iTunes stores may violate EU competition rules, regulators said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Apple and the record companies were notified of an investigation into their agreements after regulators built up a "very strong case," said European Union spokesman Jonathan Todd.
People can only download singles or albums from the iTunes store in their country of residence — a policy that amounts to unlawful "territorial sales restrictions," the Commission said.
"Consumers are thus restricted in their choice of where to buy music and consequently what music is available, and at what price," the Commission said in a statement.
But Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said the company wanted to operate a single store for all of Europe, but music labels and publishers said there were limits to the rights they could grant to Apple.
"We don't believe Apple did anything to violate EU law," he said. "We will continue to work with the EU to resolve this matter."
Investigators have been gathering evidence on Apple's deals with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and EMI Group PLC for the past two years, after Britain's Consumers' Association filed a complaint with the Commission in 2004.
"We do not believe we have breached European competition law and we will be making that case strongly," said Amanda Conroy, a spokeswoman for EMI in London.
Sony spokeswoman Sylvia Shin offered no immediate reaction to the investigation and a call made to Universal Music was not immediately returned.
Apple and the record companies have two months to answer questions in the "statement of objections" from regulators. If found guilty, a company could face hefty fines, which in theory could total up to 10 percent of the company's worldwide annual revenue.
The cost of buying a single song across the 27-nation bloc varies among the available iTunes stores in EU nations. For example, downloading a track in Britain costs $1.56, in Denmark $1.44, while in countries using the euro such as Germany and Belgium, a single costs $1.32.
Consumer groups welcomed the EU's move.
"As I can go from the U.K. to Germany to go into the shop to buy a CD there, which is cheaper or more expensive than in the U.K., I should have the same opportunity online; that is what we are asking for," said Cornelia Kutterer, senior legal adviser at the European consumer group BEUC.
The EU investigation comes amid moves by consumer rights groups in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Nordic countries to force Apple to change the rules it imposes on its online music store customers.
The groups are demanding Apple lift limits preventing consumers from playing their downloads on digital players other than Apple's iPod. In February, Norway, which is not a member of the EU, declared those limits illegal and gave Apple until Oct. 1 to change its compatibility rules or face legal action and possible fines.
The EU investigation does not deal with these concerns, however.
Apple has said it is willing to open iTunes to players other than iPods if the world's major record labels moved to change their anti-piracy technology.
Apple and EMI announced a deal on Monday that would allow EMI's music to be sold on iTunes minus anti-piracy software that limits its use on some players. The move is expected to be watched — and likely followed — by other record labels.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (67 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: European Union
Off the Wires
EU urged to try Rwanda genocide suspects Reuters, Tue Apr 3, 3:20 PM ET EU competition watchdog bites Apple over iTunes prices AFP, Tue Apr 3, 8:08 AM ET Feature Articles
The peculiar world of the European Union at BBC, Apr 02 On Its 50th, E.U. Faces an Identity Crisis at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 25 News Stories
EU price probe into Apple iTunes at BBC, Apr 03 EU Sues Record Labels Over Pricing PC World via Yahoo! News, Apr 03 Opinion & Editorials
Europe's Microsoft Case Goes Too Far BusinessWeek via Yahoo! News, Apr 03 Iran tests EU unity at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 29
Technology News
Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP FCC says 'no' to cell phones on planes AP Microsoft sues student software sellers AP Mexico City explores wireless Internet AP Studies Expose Online Video Gender Gap AdWeek.com Most Viewed - Technology
Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate USATODAY.com World Bank gives Africa $164.5 mln for internet connections Reuters Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP After search, Google finds snake in NY office Reuters Microsoft sues student software sellers AP
Technology & Health Video
Laser Barriers: A sign of the times? AP - Tue Apr 3, 10:41 AM ET Tech Buzz: Touch screen phones at CTIA AP - Tue Apr 3, 8:53 AM ET Debate over climate change heats up AP - Mon Apr 2, 9:23 PM ET Organize Your E-Mails ABC News - Mon Apr 2, 8:03 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_apple
Microsoft sues student software sellers By JESSICA MINTZ, AP Business Writer
Tue Apr 3, 3:25 PM ET
REDMOND, Wash. - Microsoft Corp. has filed five new lawsuits against U.S. companies and individuals it claims sold deeply discounted Windows and Office software intended for students.
ADVERTISEMENT
The company filed the suits Monday evening in federal courts in California, Nevada and Florida, alleging the parties infringed on Microsoft's copyright by importing and distributing versions of Windows and Office that were not meant to be sold through the retail channel.
"The defendants in these lawsuits and others are charged with profiting from selling clearly marked educational software to unsuspecting retail customers who were not licensed to use it," Bonnie MacNaughton, senior attorney at Microsoft, said in a statement.
Named in the lawsuits are EEE Business Inc., doing business as eBusZone.com; Eric Chan and Ruhui Li, both doing business as LCTech; and Intrax Group Inc. of California. Also named were Global Online Distribution LLC of Las Vegas and Big Boy Distribution of Florida.
"We're not selling counterfeit or stolen software," said Mike Mak, owner of Intrax, which is based in San Jose, Calif. "We bought software from legitimate sources in the U.S."
Mak said his company sold the discounted "Student Media" software, but stopped after Intrax learned about the lawsuit Tuesday morning.
"When we sell it, we disclose exactly what it is to our customers. We tell them it is academic software, that it may require a separate license," Mak said. He said that as far as he's concerned, that's not illegal.
He added that it's impossible for his business to sell boxed retail versions of Microsoft software and still make a profit. Instead, he said, "you try to seek out alternatives that are legal," including Student Media programs.
Dale Harelik, managing director of Global Online Distribution, said his company has never sold the discounted students-only software. He said the company received a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft in January, and that he spoke by phone with the software maker's lawyers, who assured him Global Online Distribution was not a target of an ongoing investigation.
"We're not the bad guys," Harelik said. "We agreed with Microsoft. We complied with Microsoft."
Lillian Shan, a manager at EEE Business, said the company had not seen the legal filings, and did not want to comment without having reviewed them. Big Boy Distribution did not return a call for comment.
Microsoft has pinpointed a handful of companies, including one in Jordan and one in Latvia, as sources for the discounted Student Media software sold illegally on U.S. Web sites, MacNaughton said in an interview Monday.
These education-only copies of Office and Windows, which universities around the world buy from academic resellers and offer to students at a fraction of the retail price, are a prime target for fraud, MacNaughton said.
"We knew we had to try to do something to maintain the integrity of our academic programs," she said.
MacNaughton said Jordan-based Educational Solutions had a contract to sell 150,000 copies of Windows and Office to Jordan's education ministry. It received the software from Microsoft but never paid for it, she said. Instead, it resold the disks to software retailers in the U.S., making between $3 million and $4 million in profit.
MacNaughton said a company in Latvia perpetrated a similar scam, but declined to give the company's name.
Microsoft also said Monday that EDirectSoftware.com, which it claimed was one of the largest sellers of the discounted student software, agreed to settle a lawsuit out of court. EDirectSoftware.com said it no longer sells Microsoft products, but would not comment on the settlement.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (28 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Technology News
Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP EU starts probe into Apple's iTunes AP FCC says 'no' to cell phones on planes AP Mexico City explores wireless Internet AP Studies Expose Online Video Gender Gap AdWeek.com Most Viewed - Technology
Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate USATODAY.com World Bank gives Africa $164.5 mln for internet connections Reuters Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP After search, Google finds snake in NY office Reuters Class Action Suit: Microsoft Used Deceptive Marketing PC World
Technology & Health Video
Laser Barriers: A sign of the times? AP - Tue Apr 3, 10:41 AM ET Tech Buzz: Touch screen phones at CTIA AP - Tue Apr 3, 8:53 AM ET Debate over climate change heats up AP - Mon Apr 2, 9:23 PM ET Organize Your E-Mails ABC News - Mon Apr 2, 8:03 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_lawsuits
Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record)'s trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.
ADVERTISEMENT
With Congress out of town, Bush tried to take the upper hand over Democrats who are making increasing forays into foreign policy as his term dwindles and his approval ratings remain low.
Democrats, buoyed by recent Republican defections from Bush on Iraq, shot back that they are the ones pursuing effective solutions overseas in response to a national desire for change from his approach.
"We are not going to allow the president to continue a failed policy in Iraq. We represent the American people's vision on this failed war," Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said at a ceremony for a new Nevada National Guard armory near Las Vegas. "We have said time and time again the troops will have everything they need."
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain timelines for American withdrawal.
Given his promised veto of anything containing a deadline — and the likelihood that his veto would be sustained on Capitol Hill — Bush said Democrats are merely engaging in games that "undercut the troops."
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Nearly two months ago, Bush asked for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Congress has approved the money, but the Senate added a provision also calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal.
These bills still must be reconciled before legislation can be sent to the president.
"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it," the president said. "And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."
Not so fast, Democrats responded.
"Americans want compromise, not a cowboy-style showdown," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn (news, bio, voting record), D-S.C.
Fresh from a briefing by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the president sought to put pressure on Democrats by detailing ways that delaying the money could harm troops and their families.
After the current $70 billion war appropriation runs out in mid-April, Bush said, the military would have to consider cutting back on equipment, repairs and training for National Guard and reserve forces. After mid-May, he said, more steps would be considered, such as delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces.
Despite Bush's warnings, dire consequences can be avoided even after the money starts to run out. It has become routine in recent years for Pentagon accountants to move money around in the department's half-trillion-dollar budget to make sure operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not disrupted. The money is repaid, usually with minimal disruption, when the president signs a new war spending bill.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Bush and Congress have about three months to resolve their standoff before Iraq operations would actually be affected.
Democrats told Bush to stop blaming them for being the ones to keep money from soldiers, and to start negotiating.
"If President Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he will be the one who is blocking funding for the troops. Nobody else," said presidential candidate John Edwards.
On another topic, the president took issue with a two-day stay in Syria by Pelosi that began Tuesday.
As the speaker donned a head scarf and mingled with Syrians at a mosque and a market in Damascus' Old City, preparing for meetings Wednesday with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Bush said she was sending dangerous signals. State-run newspapers in Syria published news of the visit on their front pages, with one daily publishing a photograph of Pelosi next to the headline: "Welcome Dialogue."
Bush said meetings with many high-level Americans have done nothing to persuade Assad to control violent elements of the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, to halt efforts to destabilize Lebanon or to stop allowing "foreign fighters" from flowing over Syria's border into Iraq.
"Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror," he said.
When she visited Lebanon on Monday, Pelosi noted that Republican lawmakers had met Assad on Sunday without comment from the Bush administration.
"I think that it was an excellent idea for them to go," she said. "And I think it's an excellent idea for us to go as well."
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the U.S. begin direct and extensive talks with Syria and Iran over Iraq. The Bush administration has long rejected that idea, but recently agreed to allow U.S. representatives to talk with Syrian officials at an international conference in Baghdad.
Pelosi's office said her trip was appropriate.
"The Iraq Study Group recommended a diplomatic effort that should include 'every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq,'" said deputy press secretary Drew Hamill. "This effort should certainly include Syria."
On other matters, Bush:
_Said his administration "had a right to remove" eight U.S. attorneys. Bush added a note of concern about damage to the prosecutors' reputations: "I'm sorry it's come to this," he said.
_Refused to say whether he believes homosexuality is immoral, a characterization made recently by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation," he said.
_Rejected any "quid pro quo" to win the release of 15 British sailors captured by Iran, such as exchanging five Iranians arrested by the U.S. military in Iraq in January. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said there was no link "as far as we know" between the captured Britons and the release Tuesday of an Iranian diplomat missing for two months in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Journalist or Activist?
Video blogger Josh Wolf is free from jail. For Wolf, it's the end of a record-setting prison term. But the debate over his role as a journalist continues.
By Kevin Sites, Tue Apr 3, 10:58 PM ETEmail Story IM Story
SAN FRANCISCO -- Whether he is a journalist or not, as many debate, Josh Wolf believed strongly enough in the journalistic principle of protecting his sources that he was willing to spend seven and a half months in a federal prison being faithful to it.
Tuesday afternoon, he walked out of the Dublin Federal Correctional Institution in California a free man.
Wolf was in prison for refusing to hand over video he shot during a protest in San Francisco in 2005. In a deal brokered between his lawyers and federal prosecutors, Wolf posted the uncut video of the protest on his site, JoshWolf.net, gave prosecutors a copy, told them he had not witnessed any crimes and was released.
In interviews preceding his release, Josh Wolf's family and peers discuss his situation. » View
In exchange, prosecutors acceded to Wolf's key contention: that he not be made to appear before the grand jury and identify those on his videotape.
"Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement,'' Wolf told reporters outside the gates of the prison. "Otherwise, people will never trust journalists.''
Just as Wolf became a poster boy for the debate of whether bloggers are actually journalists and deserving the same legal protections, his status as an Internet icon may get another boost as likely the first federal prison inmate to be released for posting a video to his website.
Wolf, who calls himself and activist and anarchist on another one of his sites, "The Revolution Will Be Televised," filmed a July 2005 San Francisco protest against the World Trade Organization which turned violent. A police officer suffered a fractured skull and there were allegations of attempted arson.
Wolf provided some of the footage to local television stations, but refused to give the raw outtakes to a grand jury.
The standoff led to Wolf being jailed and sparked a heated debate about whether an activist blogger deserved the same protections as a professional journalist.
I spoke to Wolf by telephone while he was still in prison a few weeks ago and asked him if his advocacy made him selective in what he videotaped at the protest. Would he turn off the camera to protect his friends? A partial transcript of our conversation follows (Listen to the full interview).
Kevin Sites: If there had been a situation where you saw a protestor beating up a police officer, or you saw them committing arson, would you have shot that?
Josh Wolf: I wasn't there to shoot that.
Kevin Sites: No, but would you have shot that?
Josh Wolf: That's a question I would have made in that moment...
Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an activist.
"My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability."
— Josh Wolf
Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also...
Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist or a journalist?
Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the realm of journalism.
Kevin Sites: Right, but as an advocate, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be jailed and expect the consequences of your actions. As a journalist, you're asking for certain protections, you know, from those consequences. That's why I'm asking you, you know, which side do you want to step on at this point.
Josh Wolf: My role is to uncover the truth to deliver to the public. That is my number one accountability.
Kevin Sites: But that truth is through, as you said, a prism of your own political convictions.
Josh Wolf: The truth is biased by everyone's convictions, whether it's a corporate conviction of your employer, your own personal convictions that are left politically based from mainstream press perspective, or a more biased perspective [because of] which you won't be as open about as a journalist who does not put forward an impression that they are trying to be objective. If you watch the videotape, you'll see there are many things that make the protestors look bad and there are things that make the cops look bad. It is essentially a balanced report of what I saw. It's a bird's eye view.
Debra Saunders, a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, applauds Wolf's dedication, but doesn't believe he should be called a journalist.
"I think that you can be a blogger and be a journalist," Saunders tells me from her office at the Chronicle. "There are people who fit that [description], but when you're an activist cavorting with the people you're chronicling, then you are not a journalist."
Her own newspaper disagrees with that assessment and has supported Wolf on the Chronicle's opinion pages.
"The fact that Josh Wolf has strong political views does not disqualify him from being a journalist any more than the fact that I am an editorial page editor and have opinions disqualifies me from being a journalist," says John Diaz of the Chronicle. "The fact is, he was out at that rally, collecting information to disseminate to the public. I think that makes him a journalist."
Ultimately, Saunders says, it won't be journalists and bloggers who decide the issue, but the government.
"The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are, because, unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush administration," Saunders says. "It will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means the courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it, but that's the way it is."
Previous: Updates From the Hot Zone
Permalink:
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294 Email Story IM StoryRECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (1 vote)
Scheduled Conflict Coverage
Afghanistan
Cambodia
Chechnya
Colombia
Congo
Haiti
Iran
Iraq
Kashmir
Israel/Palestinians
Lebanon
2006 Mideast Crisis
Myanmar (Burma)
Nepal
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Uganda
Vietnam
Hot Zone Watch List
Algeria
Angola
Burundi
Chad
Ivory Coast
Korean Peninsula
Liberia
Nigeria
Peru
The Philippines
Thailand
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe
Comments
Join the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Sign in to Post a Comment
ALSO ON YAHOO!
ARCHEOLOGY
Ancient tsunami
Evidence of a Greek volcano found 530 miles away in Egypt.
View slideshow
Watch video Southeast Asia
Romance lost
A Thai zoo turns to artificial insemination for Panda breeding.
60 Minutes on Yahoo! News
Age of warming
Some dire predictions about what may lie ahead.
Video: Penguins die THE WEEK IN PHOTOS
March 23-March 29
View a selection of the week's best photos.
ARCHEOLOGY
Ancient tsunami
Evidence of a Greek volcano found 530 miles away in Egypt.
View slideshow
Watch video Southeast Asia
Romance lost
A Thai zoo turns to artificial insemination for Panda breeding.
Left ArrowRight ArrowPane 0 Pane 1
NEWS
Top Stories
World
U.S.
Politics
Most Popular
SPORTS
Top Sports News
Football
Basketball
Baseball
Golf
Entertainment
TV
Movies
Trailers
News
Music
Finance
Investing
News
Retirement
Banking
Loans
Games
Downloads
On Demand
Mobile Games
Video Games
Reviews
Health
Experts
News
Conditions
Drugs
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs28294
Clinton urges Dems to press Bush on Iraq By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago
IOWA CITY, Iowa - Democrats should pressure President Bush to agree to a withdrawal of troops from Iraq rather than concede that he will veto such a plan, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush has promised to veto House and Senate versions of a war spending bill that includes timetables for drawing down troops, but Democrats shouldn't give up, said Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
"I'm not ready to concede that," Clinton said. "We're actually back into a bipartisan government where we have a Democratic Congress and a Republican president. What has historically happened is there has to be some negotiation and compromise and we may not get it, but I'm not willing to concede."
Clinton, speaking with reporters during a campaign stop in Iowa, said she hadn't decided whether to support legislation calling for a cutoff in war funding — a move that would force withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"I'm looking at that," Clinton said. "I don't know anything about it."
Also campaigning in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani, the GOP front-runner in national polls, appeared to back Bush, and said he had reviewed the Constitution earlier in the day.
"Congress has to have power to declare war. Congress has the power of the purse. The president has the sole power to direct the war," Giuliani said at a stop in Cedar Rapids. He added that he hoped Congress and the president would "all get together and figure out how to kind of do it the way" the founding fathers wanted.
"This idea that I find the most difficult is this idea of announcing your retreat. I just think it's fundamentally irresponsible. I've never heard of a retreating army giving their enemy a schedule for retreat. I just doesn't make any sense to me," the former New York City mayor told reporters.
Clinton said that before taking on the funding question, Congress should pressure Bush to go along with the budget bills already approved.
Republican National Committee spokesman Chris Taylor said Clinton in the past has opposed setting a deadline for pulling out troops, and he was taken aback by her apparent support.
"It must be confusing for the voters of Iowa," said Taylor.
Clinton said her husband, former President Bill Clinton, managed to work with a Congress often opposed to his proposals.
"I saw a lot of what happened when my husband had a Republican Congress," said Clinton.
Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination on a two-day trip to Iowa, said Congress should assert its authority
"I've challenged the president not to veto this, but to sit down and work with a bipartisan, representative sampling of the House and Senate and see whether we could figure out what we're going to do going forward."
Democrats took control of Congress largely due to their opposition to the war, Clinton said, and the party must push that agenda.
"I'm challenging the president not to veto the will of the American people," she said.
Clinton also criticized Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, whom she said have questioned the patriotism of war opponents.
"They have been very vocal in impugning the patriotism of members of Congress and citizens who disagree with them, and I don't think that's a very useful approach to take," said Clinton.
Clinton said she's launched a petition drive to gather signatures calling for Bush to go along with Congress.
Democrats will suffer if they don't assert themselves after winning control of Congress, she argued.
"We are now a Democratic majority and we are continuing in a very responsible manner to make it clear to the president that we are a coequal branch of government," said Clinton.
On her Iowa trip, Clinton was joined by former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie, both of whom have endorsed Clinton's presidential bid. Clinton started her day with a breakfast at Vilsack's Mount Pleasant home, mingling with local activists and sounding an anti-war theme.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq
Britain calls for direct talks with Iran By TARIQ PANJA, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago
LONDON - Britain called for direct talks with Iran to resolve a dispute over 15 captive Britons Tuesday after its first contact with the chief Iranian negotiator. The announcement followed the sudden release of an Iranian diplomat in Iraq that raised new hope for resolving the standoff.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a statement late Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said there had been "further contacts" between the two countries, including with chief international negotiator Ali Larijani.
"The UK has proposed direct bilateral discussions and awaits an Iranian response on when these can begin," Blair's office said. "Both sides share a desire for an early resolution to this issue through direct talks."
British officials say there has been intense diplomatic activity, including meetings in London with Iran's ambassador. But reports of contacts with officials in Tehran have been sketchy. The Downing Street statement did not say whether the contact with Larijani came in person or by phone.
Blair said earlier in the day that the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" to resolving the standoff over the British personnel, who have been held by Iran since March 23.
The call for talks came hours after Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi was freed by his captors in Iraq. He had been seized Feb. 4 by uniformed gunmen in Karradah, a Shiite-controlled district of Baghdad.
His release raised hope for an end to the standoff and suggested the possibility of a de facto prisoner swap — something both Tehran and London have publicly discounted.
Iran alleged the diplomat had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by U.S. forces — a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said the Iraqi government had exerted pressure on those holding Sharafi to release him — but he would not identify who had held Sharafi.
But another senior government official said Iraqi intelligence had been holding him. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information.
Sharafi was a second secretary at the Iranian Embassy involved in plans to open a branch of the Iranian national bank. U.S. officials allege that Iran provides money and weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias.
Sharafi was abducted a month after the U.S. military arrested five other Iranians in northern Iraq. The U.S. described one of those captives as a senior officer of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said his government also was working "intensively" for the release of the five other Iranians to "help in the release of the British sailors and marines."
Neither Iran nor Iraq nor Britain has said explicitly that a prisoner swap was in the works. Iran has denied it seized the Britons to force the release of Iranians held in Iraq, and Britain has steadfastly insisted it would not negotiate for the sailors' freedom.
In Washington, President Bush signaled the same. "I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages," Bush said.
It was unclear whether the Iraqis had won Sharafi's freedom on their own initiative to encourage a settlement, which would ease tension without endangering their own claim to the waters where it occurred.
Nevertheless, the release of Sharafi and efforts to free the five other Iranians suggested that the parameters of a deal might be taking shape.
Iran maintains the British sailors had encroached on Iranian territory when they were seized by naval units of the Revolutionary Guards on March 23. Britain insists its sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters and has demanded their unconditional release.
Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted First Vice President Parviz Davoodi as saying that "Britain should accept that it has invaded Iranian waters and guarantee that it will not be repeated."
"The violation was clear and obvious and all evidences and documents were suggesting occurrence of the violation," Davoodi added. "Britain has recently changed its approach and shifted toward legal and diplomatic negotiations."
With the standoff at a sensitive stage, Britain reacted with caution to the release Tuesday of new pictures of the British captives on the Web site of Iran's Fars News Agency. The images showed six sailors sitting on a carpet in a room, wearing blue, black and red tracksuits. Two sailors were shown playing chess.
Faye Turney, the only woman among the captured, was shown without a head scarf. She had worn one in initial images released of the Royal Navy crew.
Britain has expressed outrage over the airing of earlier videos in which Turney and others "confessed" to violating Iranian territorial waters.
The latest pictures did not show any further confessions. And as tensions have escalated, the Iranians have appeared to back off somewhat.
Larijani's suggestion Monday of talks over territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf had offered the hope of an end to the crisis, the British premier acknowledged. But if negotiations to win the quick release of the 15 sailors and marines stalled, Britain would "take an increasingly tougher position," Blair said.
Larijani said Monday that Iran sought "to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels" and proposed having a delegation determine whether British forces had strayed into Iranian territory in the Gulf. He did not say what sort of delegation he had in mind.
Larijani told Britain's Channel 4 news Monday through an interpreter that Iranian officials believed there was no need for any trial of the navy crew.
___
Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Robert H. Reid in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (90 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Iran
Off the Wires
Britain calls for direct talks with Iran AP, 24 minutes ago Former FBI agent missing in Iran AP, 2 hours, 38 minutes ago Feature Articles
On Iran streets, diverse views on clash over British captives The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News, Apr 03 U.S. strategy on Iran may have backfired at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Apr 03 News Stories
British captives need not be tried, Iranian says at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Apr 03 U.S. Sends Query to Iran About Ex-FBI Agent's Disappearance at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Apr 03 Opinion & Editorials
What does Iran want? at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Apr 02 Bullying, manipulative Iran? No change there, then at The London Times, Apr 02
World News
Solomon tsunami victims receive some aid AP Baghdad authorities shorten curfew AP U.S. agents visit Ethiopian secret jails AP French set rail speed record: 357.2 mph AP Beijinger buying flies to help clean up city Reuters Most Viewed - World
Iran dailies see British plot in captives saga Reuters Cuba, Spain take steps to refresh relations AFP Smith baby paternity dispute to continue AP U.S. agents visit Ethiopian secret jails AP Pelosi visits market, mosque in Syria AP
World Video
Troops will suffer over funding delays: Bush CBC.ca - Tue Apr 3, 9:29 PM ET Britain wants direct talks with Iran to end sailor standoff CBC.ca - Tue Apr 3, 9:29 PM ET No answer for paternity question AP - Tue Apr 3, 8:56 PM ET The Josh Wolf Dilemma Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone - Tue Apr 3, 8:44 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_eu/iran_britain
Couple fights to name baby 'Metallica' Tue Apr 3, 4:15 PM ET
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Metallica may be a cool name for a heavy metal band, but a Swedish couple is struggling to convince officials it is also suitable for a baby girl.
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael and Karolina Tomaro are locked in a court battle with Swedish authorities, which rejected their application to name their six-month-old child after the legendary rock band.
"It suits her," Karolina Tomaro, 27, said Tuesday of the name. "She's decisive and she knows what she wants."
Although little Metallica has already been baptized, the Swedish National Tax Board refused to register the name, saying it was associated with both the rock group and the word "metal."
Tomaro said the official handling the case also called the name "ugly."
The couple was backed by the County Administrative Court in Goteborg, which ruled on March 13 that there was no reason to block the name. It also noted that there already is a woman in Sweden with Metallica as a middle name.
The tax agency appealed to a higher court, frustrating the family's foreign travel plans.
"We've had to cancel trips and can't get anywhere because we can't get her a passport without an approved name," Tomaro said.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (551 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Odd News
Kinkajou flees zoo, bites bus passenger AP Ala. woman on horseback charged with DUI AP Coyote visits Chicago sandwich shop AP Deputies put toe and tow together AP Don't make me axe you again Reuters Most Viewed: Odd News
Woman loses battle to turn dead dad into diamond Reuters Liquor is banned, so order cola with a wink Reuters Kinkajou flees zoo, bites bus passenger AP Prisoner fights her way to freedom? Reuters Ala. woman on horseback charged with DUI AP
Odd News - Video
Coyote Wolfs Out at Sub Shop ABC News - Tue Apr 3, 6:34 PM ET Last Standing China House Torn Down ABC News - Tue Apr 3, 9:32 AM ET Sweet Jesus CNN - Tue Apr 3, 5:07 AM ET 'Bunny Bunch' to the Rescue ABC News - Mon Apr 2, 10:32 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_fe_st/baby_metallica
Pet owners making own dog and cat food By DORIE TURNER, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago
ATLANTA - Some dog and cat owners frightened by a contamination scare are forsaking the pet-food aisle and grinding up meat in their own kitchens instead. Sales of pet food recipe books have also shot up since the nationwide pet-food recall began two weeks ago.
ADVERTISEMENT
Amy Parish, 40, stopped giving her two aging chow chows canned food. Instead, Parish mixes dry food with a mash of chicken, rice, oatmeal and cottage cheese that she prepares twice a week.
"I'm very suspicious of any large-brand manufactured dog food," said Parish, who lives in the Atlanta suburb of Tucker.
But veterinarians warn that making balanced meals for pets can be complicated and should only be a temporary remedy until the scare passes.
Nearly 100 store and major-brand pet foods were recalled by manufacturer Menu Foods Inc. on March 16. Three other companies have recalled some foods since then.
Food and Drug Administration testing found that wheat gluten imported from China was contaminated with a chemical used in the manufacture of plastics. The FDA has confirmed about 15 pet deaths, and anecdotal reports suggest hundreds of cats and dogs may have died.
Some pet owners are not taking any chances.
After Hills Pet Nutrition Inc. recalled one of its cat products, John Slavens, 41, of San Diego, started making homemade food for his two border collies.
He spent five hours in the kitchen Sunday, grinding beef and boiling potatoes and pasta for a week's worth of stew, supplemented with an all-in-one vitamin-mineral powder.
"These dogs are my family," Slavens said.
The FDA and the American Veterinary Medical Association are urging pet owners to switch brands if they are worried. The veterinarian group also warned that many common foods are not safe for pets, including salt, garlic, onions, grapes and chocolate.
Making pet food at home is "kind of like canning: You have to think about bacterial contamination. And how do you make sure it's nutritionally appropriate and balanced for the animal?" said FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza. She added: "We wouldn't object. We'd say be knowledgeable about what you need."
On Amazon.com, the cookbook "Real Food for Dogs" moved into the list of top 200 best-sellers this week. Other authors were finding instant success, too.
Dr. Donald Strombeck said the Amazon.com sales rank for his book "Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets: The Healthful Alternative" jumped from below 60,000 to about 1,000 after the recalls.
The retired professor of veterinary nutrition at the University of California, Davis, challenged the common assertion that owners should not feed their pets table food.
When he began practicing veterinary medicine in the 1950s, he said, most pet owners fed their pets scraps from the table, keeping the risk of contamination low.
"The pet food industry doesn't want people competing with them," Strombeck said. "An animal can basically eat the same things we eat. They're not going to develop a deficiency."
Robert Van Sickle, co-owner of the Polka Dog Bakery in Boston, said he has received many inquiries from customers on advice for making their own dog food. For his German short-haired pointer, Van Sickle blends carrots, spinach, salmon oil, apple cider vinegar and whatever meat is in his freezer.
"What this scare has shown me is that it's amazing how many people don't know what they are feeding their dogs," he said. "The bright side, for me, as someone interested in animal wellness, is people are asking questions now."
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Bridges in Washington, Jesse Harlan Alderman in Boston, and Marcus Wohlsen in San Francisco contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
FDA pet food recall information: http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_us/homemade_pet_food
Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Tue Apr 3, 8:21 AM ET
Parents fork over billions of dollars for CDs, DVDs, toys and other products that promise to make their babies smarter - and governments invest in programs to maximize children's brain development from birth through age 3. But many efforts to build "brighter babies" are doomed to failure because they are built on misinterpretations and misapplications of brain research, a report says.
ADVERTISEMENT
"While neural connections in babies' brains grow rapidly in the early years, adults can't make newborns smarter or more successful by having them listen to Beethoven or play with Einstein-inspired blocks," says Sara Mead, a senior policy analyst with Education Sector, a centrist Washington think tank.
That a baby's first three years are key for brain development is beyond dispute; scientists know that babies' brains change rapidly, growing and pruning synapses. But Mead says a few early childhood advocates have misinterpreted or misused research to suggest that if parents don't sufficiently stimulate children's brains before age 3, they'll do irreparable harm. There is no evidence that the first three years "are a singular window for growth that slams shut once children turn 3," Mead says.
She says researchers don't know enough about brain growth to say whether educational toys or lessons help: We are "far from knowing how to build a better brain."
But that hasn't stopped parents from spending billions on infant brain-building products. In 2005, the market was $2.5 billion, according to Fortune.
It also hasn't stopped lawmakers from getting involved. In 1998, Georgia Gov. Zell Miller persuaded hospitals to send home classical music CDs with every newborn. Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt persuaded lawmakers last year to spend $2 million to support Parents as Teachers, a non-profit that publishes a curriculum for children as young as newborns.
Such efforts teach parents helpful skills, says Jonathan Plucker, professor of cognitive science at Indiana University. "People are starting to almost universally acknowledge that those years are critically important."
But there's no evidence that playing your baby a Mozart CD or sitting her down in front of a Baby Einstein DVD makes a difference, he says. Research suggests stimulation is essential for early brain development, but "we don't know nearly enough to be applying it."
Officials from Baby Einstein and The Smart Baby did not respond to interview requests.
Tammy Mann, a clinical psychologist and deputy director of Zero to Three, an early-childhood advocacy group, agrees that it's an overstatement of brain research to say we can make babies smarter. But she says evidence shows that good, intensive programs, such as Early Head Start, which was developed for at-risk infants, toddlers and preschoolers, yield solid, cost-effective results.
"There is something to say about investing earlier when you're talking about children who are in particularly high-risk situations," she says.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (313 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Brain Research
News Stories
Report puts a pacifier on 'smarter baby' debate USATODAY.com via Yahoo! News, Apr 03 Brain Can Learn Fear By Seeing Others' Fears LiveScience.com via Yahoo! News, Mar 20 Playing Music Makes You Smart LiveScience.com via Yahoo! News, Mar 19 Controversial New Idea: Nerves Transmit Sound, Not Electricity LiveScience.com via Yahoo! News, Mar 17 Feature Articles
How does human memory work? at USATODAY.com, Mar 12 Technology Review: Fueling Brain Research at Technology Review, Feb 06 Opinion & Editorials
Fighting memory loss through brain games, exercise and rest at Seattle Times, Feb 06 Perhaps this 'miracle drug' can wake brain-damaged patients. But what kind of life awaits them? at The Guardian (UK)., Nov 23
Technology News
Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP EU starts probe into Apple's iTunes AP FCC says 'no' to cell phones on planes AP Microsoft sues student software sellers AP Mexico City explores wireless Internet AP Most Viewed - Technology
World Bank gives Africa $164.5 mln for internet connections Reuters Microsoft patches Windows vulnerability AP After search, Google finds snake in NY office Reuters Microsoft sues student software sellers AP British hacker loses U.S. extradition appeal Reuters
Technology & Health Video
Laser Barriers: A sign of the times? AP - Tue Apr 3, 10:41 AM ET Tech Buzz: Touch screen phones at CTIA AP - Tue Apr 3, 8:53 AM ET Debate over climate change heats up AP - Mon Apr 2, 9:23 PM ET Organize Your E-Mails ABC News - Mon Apr 2, 8:03 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070403/tc_usatoday/reportputsapacifieronsmarterbabydebate
Keith Richards: 'I snorted my father' 16 minutes ago
LONDON - Keith Richards has acknowledged consuming a raft of illegal substances in his time, but this may top them all. In comments published Tuesday, the 63-year-old Rolling Stones guitarist said he had snorted his father's ashes mixed with cocaine.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father," Richards was quoted as saying by British music magazine NME.
"He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared," he said. "... It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive."
Richards' father, Bert, died in 2002, at 84.
Richards, one of rock's legendary wild men, told the magazine that his survival was the result of luck, and advised young musicians against trying to emulate him.
"I did it because that was the way I did it. Now people think it's a way of life," he was quoted as saying.
"I've no pretensions about immortality," he added. "I'm the same as everyone ... just kind of lucky.
"I was No. 1 on the `who's likely to die' list for 10 years. I mean, I was really disappointed when I fell off the list," Richards said.
___
On the Net:
Rolling Stones:
http://www.rollingstones.com/home.php
NME:
http://www.nme.com/
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (48 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Entertainment News
Keith Richards: 'I snorted my father' AP 'Dancing With the Stars' drops Finnessey AP Halle Berry gets star on Hollywood Walk AP The end is near for '7th Heaven' AP Heather Mills says she's no gold digger AP Most Viewed: Entertainment
My Sister-In-Law, Little Mary Sunshine Dear Margo He's Texting for Sex? Dear Margo 'Dancing With the Stars' drops Finnessey AP Keith Richards: 'I snorted my father' AP PEOPLE WHO SLUR THE DISABLED NEED COURSE IN BASIC MANNERS Dear Abby
Entertainment Video
SHOPAHOLIC Shops For Two Expanded Books - Tue Apr 3, 9:52 PM ET Celeb Car Race Fueled by Girl Power ABC News - Tue Apr 3, 9:34 PM ET Tony Bennett Coaches 'Idol' Hopefuls AP - Tue Apr 3, 9:33 PM ET This is what meth does CNN - Tue Apr 3, 9:05 PM ET
AP Photo: Keith Richards appears in the press room of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame...
Slideshow: Rolling Stones
Add headlines to your personalized My Yahoo! page
(About My Yahoo! and RSS)
Gossip/Celebrity News - AP
» More News Feeds
NEWS ALERTS
Get an alert when there are new stories about:
Keith Richards
» More Alerts
Elsewhere on the Web
CNN.com
Looking for the next 'Stacy's Mom'
ABC News
Move Over, Monday ... Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking Is a Lot More Fun
USATODAY.com
Insider novels push the envelope
ADVERTISEMENT
On Yahoo! TV
THE 9
Find out what's heating up the Web.
ON YAHOO! MOVIES
'Pirates' preview
View the "At World's End" trailer.
USATODAY Blog
Pop Candy
Whitney Matheson blogs on showbiz.
» Entertainment on USAToday
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_en_ce/people_keith_richards
FCC says 'no' to cell phones on planes By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 3, 7:20 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Striking a blow for cell phone haters everywhere, a government agency on Tuesday said it will keep a rule in place that requires the divisive devices to be turned off during airline flights.
ADVERTISEMENT
The reasoning behind the decision was technical. But the avalanche of comments the Federal Communications Commission has logged from airline travelers have been nothing short of visceral.
"These days it's impossible to get on a bus without at least one person hollering into their cell phone, invading the private space of everyone around them," one member of the public wrote in an e-mail to the FCC. "That's bad enough when one can get off in 10 minutes. To have to suffer through HOURS of such torture, with nowhere to go and miserably cramped conditions — someone is going to explode."
The agency has been considering lifting its ban on cell phone usage on airplanes since 2004. Unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, which bans the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices for fear they will interfere with navigational and communications systems, the FCC's concern is interference with other cell phone signals on the ground.
Airphones installed in cabins use a special FCC frequency that operates outside the range of regular cellular phones.
In an order released Tuesday, the agency noted that there was "insufficient technical information" available on whether airborne cell phone calls would jam networks below.
Regardless of the reasoning, some passengers are no doubt pleased with the agency's decision. In an e-mail to the FCC, one person related the story of a "dimwitted young lady" who had a "most inane conversation" after his flight had landed.
"The idea of a person being a captive audience to someone yapping on the phone is simply a recipe for a lot of anger and a fair share of conflicts," he wrote.
The phones have been snapped shut for now, at least as far as the FCC is concerned. But the issue may come up again. The agency said it may "reconsider this issue in the future if appropriate technical data is available for our review."
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (36 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Wireless Technology
Off the Wires
Question: Do phone chargers waste power? AP, Tue Apr 3, 7:01 PM ET FCC kills plan to examine use of phones on planes Reuters, Tue Apr 3, 6:55 PM ET Feature Articles
Picture gets clearer for cellphone camera users at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Dec 28 IM Shorthand Slips Off Computer Screens And Into Schoolwork at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Dec 25 News Stories
Everest mobile call effort begins at BBC, Apr 02 Burgers paid for by mobile phone at BBC, Feb 27 Opinion & Editorials
Can you e-mail me now? at Boston Globe, Mar 15 A Cellphone With 'Talking' Emails at The Wall Street Journal, Mar 14
Politics News
Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq AP Clinton urges Dems to press Bush on Iraq AP Pelosi visits market, mosque in Syria AP Giuliani campaigns to win over Iowans AP Dems seek to interview Gonzales aide AP Most Viewed - Politics
Clinton urges Dems to press Bush on Iraq AP Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq AP Analysis: Funds separate '08 contenders AP Clinton backs public funds for campaigns AP Tax outlets cited for bogus returns AP
Politics News Video
Pelosi causes a stir in Syria BBC - 43 minutes ago Pelosi tours Damascus Reuters - 51 minutes ago Hinz Defeats Lasee In Brown County Executive Race CBS 5 Green Bay - 2 hours, 18 minutes ago Local Soldier Killed In Iraq CBS4 Miami - 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_go_ot/cell_phones_airplanes
Full Coverage: Wireless Technology
Off the Wires
Question: Do phone chargers waste power? AP, Tue Apr 3, 7:01 PM ET FCC kills plan to examine use of phones on planes Reuters, Tue Apr 3, 6:55 PM ET Feature Articles
Picture gets clearer for cellphone camera users at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Dec 28 IM Shorthand Slips Off Computer Screens And Into Schoolwork at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Dec 25 News Stories
Everest mobile call effort begins at BBC, Apr 02 Burgers paid for by mobile phone at BBC, Feb 27 Opinion & Editorials
Can you e-mail me now? at Boston Globe, Mar 15 A Cellphone With 'Talking' Emails at The Wall Street Journal, Mar 14
Politics News
Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq AP Clinton urges Dems to press Bush on Iraq AP Pelosi visits market, mosque in Syria AP Giuliani campaigns to win over Iowans AP Dems seek to interview Gonzales aide AP Most Viewed - Politics
Clinton urges Dems to press Bush on Iraq AP Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq AP Analysis: Funds separate '08 contenders AP Clinton backs public funds for campaigns AP Tax outlets cited for bogus returns AP
Politics News Video
Pelosi causes a stir in Syria BBC - 43 minutes ago Pelosi tours Damascus Reuters - 51 minutes ago Hinz Defeats Lasee In Brown County Executive Race CBS 5 Green Bay - 2 hours, 18 minutes ago Local Soldier Killed In Iraq CBS4 Miami - 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Reuters Photo: A man uses a cell phone in a file photo. Visa USA sees cell phones...
Add headlines to your personalized My Yahoo! page
(About My Yahoo! and RSS)
U.S. Government - AP
» More News Feeds
NEWS ALERTS
Get an alert when there are new stories about:
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
» More Alerts
Elsewhere on the Web
CNN.com
Pelosi gets warm welcome in Syria; admonition in D.C.
ABC News
Iowa, Meet Rudy
USATODAY.com
Both sides say other supports 'failure' in Iraq
WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER?
Barack Obama asks...
"How can we engage more people in the democratic process?" Submit your answer.
SEND US YOUR PHOTOS!
Campaign trail
Following the presidential campaign? Submit pictures of candidates, supporters, and events to You Witness News.
Featured IN YAHOO! NEWS
Election coverage and analysis from Congressional Quarterly.
» More from Congressional Quarterly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_go_ot/cell_phones_airplanes
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Debate Over .XXX
Vote on '.xxx' Internet address nears By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
Fri Mar 23, 6:31 PM ET
NEW YORK - Online pornographers and religious groups are in a rare alliance as a key Internet oversight agency nears a decision on creating a virtual red-light district through a ".xxx" Internet address. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which has already rejected similar proposals twice since 2000, planned to vote as early as next week on whether to approve the domain name for voluntary use by porn sites.
ADVERTISEMENT
The decision ultimately could hinge on whether ".xxx" has the support of the adult-entertainment industry — and many porn sites have been strongly opposed.
"One of the criteria is that it (must) have general support among the industry it's supposed to serve, and it does not," said Mark Kernes, a board member with the industry trade group Free Speech Coalition. "I have not met one single webmaster or adult video producer that is in favor of `.xxx,' and I've met a lot of them."
Porn sites are largely concerned that the domain name, while billed as voluntary, would make it easier for governments to later mandate its use and "essentially ghettoize sexual information on the Web," Kernes said.
ICM Registry Inc., the company behind the proposal, has vowed to fight any government efforts to compel its use and cited preregistrations of some 76,000 names as evidence of support. Kernes said many Web sites reserved names simply to prevent someone else from having it.
The Free Speech Coalition believes a domain name for kids-friendly sites would be more appropriate.
Given its voluntary nature, ".xxx" is unlikely to have much effect on parents' ability to block porn sites.
And because a domain name serves merely as an easy-to-remember moniker for a site's actual numeric Internet address, even if a government were to mandate its use, a child could simply punch in the numeric address of any blocked ".xxx" name.
Religious groups worry that ".xxx" would legitimize and expand the number of adults sites, which more than a third of U.S. Internet users visit each month, according to comScore Media Metrix. The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site.
"They will keep their `.com' domains, and I have no doubt they will buy their `.xxx' as well," said Patrick Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian public-interest law firm. "There will be twice as much pornography on the Internet."
Trueman and other critics say ICM will be the only beneficiaries.
The startup, founded and funded by four entrepreneurs with backgrounds in domain names and U.K. Internet companies, plans to charge $60 to register a name — 10 times the fees for ".com." Ten dollars of it would go to a companion nonprofit group that would set policies for ".xxx" use and recommend business practices for combating child pornography and promoting child safety.
ICANN tabled and effectively rejected a similar proposal in 2000 out of fear the ".xxx" domain would force the body into content regulation.
ICM resubmitted its proposal in 2004, this time structuring it with a policy-setting organization to free ICANN of that task. But many board members worried that the language of the proposed contract was vague and could kick the task back to ICANN. The board rejected the 2004 proposal last May.
ICANN revived the proposal in January after ICM agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.
ICM revised it again a month later to clarify ICANN's enforcement abilities and to underscore the independence of the policy-making body.
Despite the vocal opposition, ICM Chairman Stuart Lawley said he preferred a quick vote, adding that the complaints come from "the same people saying the same things time and time again."
"ICM has done more to demonstrate the existence of a strong community than any other application the (ICANN) board has approved," Lawley said. "We have been singled out for special treatment. From the word `go,' ... we were put in the slow lane."
If approved, ICM would be required to help develop mechanisms for promoting child safety and preventing child pornography, and porn sites using ".xxx" would have to participate in a self-rating system, labeling sites based on such criteria as the presence of nudity and whether it is in an artistic or educational context.
ICANN already has discussed the proposal during three, closed-door teleconference meetings this year. It indicated it would be ready to vote at a public meeting next Friday in Lisbon, Portugal.
But delays are possible if ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee raises last-minute objections when it meets next week. Last March, the committee called for stronger language in ICANN's contract with ICM, and Lawley said those points have been addressed in the latest version of the contract.
ICM believes the domain would help the porn industry clean up its act, and Lawley said he has gone through great lengths to put its promises into writing.
"We are confident we have dotted every `i' and crossed every 't,'" he said, "and the contract deserves ratification."
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (41 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Internet and WWW
Off the Wires
Judge hits Vonage with injunction Reuters, Fri Mar 23, 7:21 PM ET TV Guide to offer Web video search tool AP, Fri Mar 23, 6:35 PM ET Feature Articles
Bloggers: alternative voices on housing risks at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 24 Online Firms Boot Up for Political Campaigns at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 17 News Stories
Court Rejects Law Limiting Online Pornography at The New York Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Corp., NBC pull together to challenge YouTube at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 22 Opinion & Editorials
The case against YouTube at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 20 Wikipedia's sticky wicket The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News, Mar 09
Technology News
Mom donates laptops to wounded soldiers AP TV Guide to offer Web video search tool AP Questions on `.xxx' bid and domain names AP European Web sites go for long addresses AP Vonage Ordered To Stop Using Verizon VoIP Technology NewsFactor Most Viewed - Technology
Wii game console bowling over U.S. retirees Reuters Nintendo Wii Led the Pack in February NewsFactor Judge hits Vonage with injunction Reuters Mom donates laptops to wounded soldiers AP eBay software bargains and pitfalls Reuters
Technology & Health Video
Racing for the Environment ABC News - Fri Mar 23, 11:03 PM ET New Switch for Traditional Light Bulbs ABC News - Fri Mar 23, 10:04 PM ET Tech Buzz: Cablevision loses suit on network DVR AP - Fri Mar 23, 2:53 PM ET Tech Buzz: NBC, News Corp. Take on You Tube AP - Fri Mar 23, 2:33 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_hi_te/internet_pornography
Fri Mar 23, 6:31 PM ET
NEW YORK - Online pornographers and religious groups are in a rare alliance as a key Internet oversight agency nears a decision on creating a virtual red-light district through a ".xxx" Internet address. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which has already rejected similar proposals twice since 2000, planned to vote as early as next week on whether to approve the domain name for voluntary use by porn sites.
ADVERTISEMENT
The decision ultimately could hinge on whether ".xxx" has the support of the adult-entertainment industry — and many porn sites have been strongly opposed.
"One of the criteria is that it (must) have general support among the industry it's supposed to serve, and it does not," said Mark Kernes, a board member with the industry trade group Free Speech Coalition. "I have not met one single webmaster or adult video producer that is in favor of `.xxx,' and I've met a lot of them."
Porn sites are largely concerned that the domain name, while billed as voluntary, would make it easier for governments to later mandate its use and "essentially ghettoize sexual information on the Web," Kernes said.
ICM Registry Inc., the company behind the proposal, has vowed to fight any government efforts to compel its use and cited preregistrations of some 76,000 names as evidence of support. Kernes said many Web sites reserved names simply to prevent someone else from having it.
The Free Speech Coalition believes a domain name for kids-friendly sites would be more appropriate.
Given its voluntary nature, ".xxx" is unlikely to have much effect on parents' ability to block porn sites.
And because a domain name serves merely as an easy-to-remember moniker for a site's actual numeric Internet address, even if a government were to mandate its use, a child could simply punch in the numeric address of any blocked ".xxx" name.
Religious groups worry that ".xxx" would legitimize and expand the number of adults sites, which more than a third of U.S. Internet users visit each month, according to comScore Media Metrix. The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site.
"They will keep their `.com' domains, and I have no doubt they will buy their `.xxx' as well," said Patrick Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian public-interest law firm. "There will be twice as much pornography on the Internet."
Trueman and other critics say ICM will be the only beneficiaries.
The startup, founded and funded by four entrepreneurs with backgrounds in domain names and U.K. Internet companies, plans to charge $60 to register a name — 10 times the fees for ".com." Ten dollars of it would go to a companion nonprofit group that would set policies for ".xxx" use and recommend business practices for combating child pornography and promoting child safety.
ICANN tabled and effectively rejected a similar proposal in 2000 out of fear the ".xxx" domain would force the body into content regulation.
ICM resubmitted its proposal in 2004, this time structuring it with a policy-setting organization to free ICANN of that task. But many board members worried that the language of the proposed contract was vague and could kick the task back to ICANN. The board rejected the 2004 proposal last May.
ICANN revived the proposal in January after ICM agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.
ICM revised it again a month later to clarify ICANN's enforcement abilities and to underscore the independence of the policy-making body.
Despite the vocal opposition, ICM Chairman Stuart Lawley said he preferred a quick vote, adding that the complaints come from "the same people saying the same things time and time again."
"ICM has done more to demonstrate the existence of a strong community than any other application the (ICANN) board has approved," Lawley said. "We have been singled out for special treatment. From the word `go,' ... we were put in the slow lane."
If approved, ICM would be required to help develop mechanisms for promoting child safety and preventing child pornography, and porn sites using ".xxx" would have to participate in a self-rating system, labeling sites based on such criteria as the presence of nudity and whether it is in an artistic or educational context.
ICANN already has discussed the proposal during three, closed-door teleconference meetings this year. It indicated it would be ready to vote at a public meeting next Friday in Lisbon, Portugal.
But delays are possible if ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee raises last-minute objections when it meets next week. Last March, the committee called for stronger language in ICANN's contract with ICM, and Lawley said those points have been addressed in the latest version of the contract.
ICM believes the domain would help the porn industry clean up its act, and Lawley said he has gone through great lengths to put its promises into writing.
"We are confident we have dotted every `i' and crossed every 't,'" he said, "and the contract deserves ratification."
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (41 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Internet and WWW
Off the Wires
Judge hits Vonage with injunction Reuters, Fri Mar 23, 7:21 PM ET TV Guide to offer Web video search tool AP, Fri Mar 23, 6:35 PM ET Feature Articles
Bloggers: alternative voices on housing risks at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 24 Online Firms Boot Up for Political Campaigns at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 17 News Stories
Court Rejects Law Limiting Online Pornography at The New York Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Corp., NBC pull together to challenge YouTube at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 22 Opinion & Editorials
The case against YouTube at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 20 Wikipedia's sticky wicket The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News, Mar 09
Technology News
Mom donates laptops to wounded soldiers AP TV Guide to offer Web video search tool AP Questions on `.xxx' bid and domain names AP European Web sites go for long addresses AP Vonage Ordered To Stop Using Verizon VoIP Technology NewsFactor Most Viewed - Technology
Wii game console bowling over U.S. retirees Reuters Nintendo Wii Led the Pack in February NewsFactor Judge hits Vonage with injunction Reuters Mom donates laptops to wounded soldiers AP eBay software bargains and pitfalls Reuters
Technology & Health Video
Racing for the Environment ABC News - Fri Mar 23, 11:03 PM ET New Switch for Traditional Light Bulbs ABC News - Fri Mar 23, 10:04 PM ET Tech Buzz: Cablevision loses suit on network DVR AP - Fri Mar 23, 2:53 PM ET Tech Buzz: NBC, News Corp. Take on You Tube AP - Fri Mar 23, 2:33 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_hi_te/internet_pornography
House Passes Withdrawal Deadline
Dems challenge Bush with Iraq timetable By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.
He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.
The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.
"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen," he said.
Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal — and also has drawn a Bush veto threat.
The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.
These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November — redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev.
While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him to sign such legislation.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail — a tall order because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.
And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override his veto — margins that neither seems likely to muster.
Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.
Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record) and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (news, bio, voting record), who say they do not want to tie the hands of military commanders.
The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring troops home immediately.
Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing a new course in Iraq — an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.
Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though they would oppose it themselves.
The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.
Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to oppose the bill.
"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.
The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.
"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.
"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs from his colleagues.
Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.
Sens. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., and Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal language from the Senate bill — which would probably require a difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.
"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (39 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Iraq
Off the Wires
Logistics problems slow Iraqi forces AP, 23 minutes ago Iraq, immigration threaten McCain bid AP, 41 minutes ago Feature Articles
Reconstruction in Iraq criticised at BBC, Mar 23 Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Stories
Shiite clash in Basra injures 9 at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Opinion & Editorials
Retreat and Butter at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Peanut politics at Charlotte Observer, Mar 23
Dems challenge Bush with Iraq timetable By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.
He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.
The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.
"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen," he said.
Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal — and also has drawn a Bush veto threat.
The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.
These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November — redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev.
While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him to sign such legislation.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail — a tall order because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.
And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override his veto — margins that neither seems likely to muster.
Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.
Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record) and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (news, bio, voting record), who say they do not want to tie the hands of military commanders.
The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring troops home immediately.
Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing a new course in Iraq — an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.
Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though they would oppose it themselves.
The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.
Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to oppose the bill.
"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.
The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.
"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.
"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs from his colleagues.
Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.
Sens. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., and Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal language from the Senate bill — which would probably require a difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.
"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (39 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Iraq
Off the Wires
Logistics problems slow Iraqi forces AP, 23 minutes ago Iraq, immigration threaten McCain bid AP, 41 minutes ago Feature Articles
Reconstruction in Iraq criticised at BBC, Mar 23 Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Stories
Shiite clash in Basra injures 9 at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Opinion & Editorials
Retreat and Butter at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Peanut politics at Charlotte Observer, Mar 23
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.
He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.
The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.
"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen," he said.
Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal — and also has drawn a Bush veto threat.
The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.
These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November — redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev.
While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him to sign such legislation.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail — a tall order because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.
And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override his veto — margins that neither seems likely to muster.
Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.
Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record) and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (news, bio, voting record), who say they do not want to tie the hands of military commanders.
The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring troops home immediately.
Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing a new course in Iraq — an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.
Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though they would oppose it themselves.
The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.
Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to oppose the bill.
"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.
The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.
"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.
"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs from his colleagues.
Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.
Sens. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., and Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal language from the Senate bill — which would probably require a difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.
"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (39 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Iraq
Off the Wires
Logistics problems slow Iraqi forces AP, 23 minutes ago Iraq, immigration threaten McCain bid AP, 41 minutes ago Feature Articles
Reconstruction in Iraq criticised at BBC, Mar 23 Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Stories
Shiite clash in Basra injures 9 at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Opinion & Editorials
Retreat and Butter at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Peanut politics at Charlotte Observer, Mar 23
Dems challenge Bush with Iraq timetable By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.
He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.
The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.
"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen," he said.
Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal — and also has drawn a Bush veto threat.
The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.
These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people asked for in November — redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev.
While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him to sign such legislation.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail — a tall order because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.
And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need two-thirds majorities to override his veto — margins that neither seems likely to muster.
Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.
Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall (news, bio, voting record), Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis (news, bio, voting record) and Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (news, bio, voting record), who say they do not want to tie the hands of military commanders.
The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring troops home immediately.
Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing a new course in Iraq — an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.
Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though they would oppose it themselves.
The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.
Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to oppose the bill.
"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.
The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.
"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.
"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the direction of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs from his colleagues.
Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.
Sens. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., and Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal language from the Senate bill — which would probably require a difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.
"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Email Story IM Story Printable View (What happened to the "Discuss" option?) RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:
Average (39 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Iraq
Off the Wires
Logistics problems slow Iraqi forces AP, 23 minutes ago Iraq, immigration threaten McCain bid AP, 41 minutes ago Feature Articles
Reconstruction in Iraq criticised at BBC, Mar 23 Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 News Stories
Shiite clash in Basra injures 9 at The Los Angeles Times (reg. req'd), Mar 23 House OKs Timetable for Troops in Iraq at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Opinion & Editorials
Retreat and Butter at The Washington Post (reg. req'd), Mar 23 Peanut politics at Charlotte Observer, Mar 23
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
AAMC on Current Status of the Higher Education Act
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
Related Resources
Compilation of Federal Education Laws (House Education and Workforce Committee)
May 26, 2004, ACE Letter to the House on Reauthorization
H.R. 609
S. 1614
AAMC Documents
AAMC Letter on Accreditation Provisions of HEA Reauthorization (PDF, 3 pages - 49KB)
AAMC Letter to the Senate on HEA Reauthorization (PDF, 3 pages - 47KB)
Medical Educational Costs and Student Debt: A Working Group Report to the AAMC Governance (PDF, 17 pages - 1.52MB)
This page contains documents in Portable Document Format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat® Reader® is required to view PDF documents. Download Acrobat® Reader®.
Current Status
Current authority for the Higher Education Act (HEA) expired on Sept. 30, 2003, however several extensions have been enacted, making no policy changes but allowing uninterrupted administration of the programs. President Bush Sept. 30 signed the "Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2006" (P.L. 109-238) to extend temporarily HEA through June 30, 2007. The House and Senate education committees are expected to resume consideration of HEA reauthorization in 2007.
The President Feb. 8, 2006, signed the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" (S. 1932, P.L. 109-171), which includes many of the student loan provisions from HEA reauthorization (H.R. 609, S. 1614). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the changes to the higher education programs in P.L. 109-171 will generate a net $11.9 billion in savings between 2006 and 2010 and $29.0 billion in savings between 2006 and 2015. While the law's provisions mandate savings of over $20 billion between 2006 and 2010 from higher education programs, $9 billion is recycled back into student aid. A majority of the savings are generated through increases to borrowers' interest rates and changes to lender-yield formulas.
Of particular interest to medical schools, the new law:
extends authority for Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFELP) through 2012;
expands the loan eligibility for the federal Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) loan program to include graduate and professional students;
increases annual unsubsidized Stafford loan limits for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,000;
increases the interest rate for a PLUS loan in the FFELP from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent;
creates a parallel fee structure for the FFELP and Direct Loan (DL) programs, incrementally reducing net borrower loan fees in both the FFELP and DL over the next 5 years to 1 percent in 2010;
prevents reconsolidation of previously consolidated loans under both the FFELP and DL programs unless they are being consolidated with additional student loans;
repeals spousal and in-school consolidation of FFELP and DL loans;
limits "School as Lender" programs to Stafford Loans to graduate and professional students;
allows the one time cost of obtaining the first professional credentials to be included in total cost of attendance for students enrolled in a program requiring professional licensure or certification;
disqualifies students from eligibility for FFELP or DL student aid if they have committed a crime involving fraud in obtaining Title IV funds and have not fully repaid those funds; and
limits the suspension of eligibility for students convicted of drug offenses to those that occurred during the period the student received FFELP or DL student aid.
The President June 15 signed a FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 4939), repealing the single-holder rule. The single-holder rule restricted consolidation of loans under the Federal Family Educational Loan Program (FFELP) by prohibiting borrowers whose FFELP loans are currently with a single lender from consolidating under different lenders.
Congressional Activity
The House March 30 approved the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609), which reauthorizes HEA through 2012. The night before its consideration on the House Floor, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chair Howard "Buck" McKeon struck two provisions from the bill. One provision would have revised the formula used to allocate funds for the government's campus-based student-aid programs. The other would have allowed the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General to audit the financial records of institutions that repeatedly raise their tuition by more than twice the rate of inflation.
H.R. 609 includes two studies on medical education. A provision introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), an orthopedic surgeon, requires the "Secretary of Education to conduct a study of the indebtedness of medical students, asking the question of whether the cost of medical school is becoming prohibitive and whether the best and brightest individuals are not choosing careers in medicine because of the potential debt burden." Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a heart surgeon, and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) sponsored a second study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate and determine reasons for the decline in the number of medical school graduates entering residency programs lasting more than 5 years.
Rep. Boustany and Rep. Andrews also sponsored an approved amendment that adds "medical specialists" to a new loan forgiveness program for service in "areas of national need." Eligible medical residents must be enrolled in a residency program that requires more than 5 years of graduate medical education training and has fewer US medical school graduate applicants than the total number of training and fellowship positions available. Participants in the loan forgiveness program will be eligible for $5,000 each year of training after their 5th year.
H.R. 609 also requires that accrediting associations or agencies enforce standards that "consider the stated missions of institutions of higher education, including religious missions."
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions unanimously approved without amendment its version of HEA reauthorization Sept. 8, 2005. It is unclear whether this bill will be considered for a Senate vote this year.
AAMC Activity
With the high debt levels of medical school graduates, many medical students come up against the annual and even the aggregate limits for federal Stafford education loans. Because the current limits have not been raised in over a decade, the Association believes that these limits should be adjusted to have at least kept up with the cost of inflation. Additionally, the unique nature of residency training makes repayment of these high debt burdens difficult in the years immediately following medical school graduation. Specifically, the AAMC advocacy agenda for the HEA reauthorization has been to support increasing the annual limit on subsidized Stafford loans from the current $8,500 to at least $12,000, and to extend the Economic Hardship Deferment throughout the initial residency period for individuals that continue to qualify. The Association also supports including all school-certified educational debt in the calculation used to determine eligibility for the deferment.
The AAMC sent a comment letter Nov 15, 2005, to the House and Senate Education Committees expressing concerns regarding the accreditation provisions of the HEA reauthorization bills (H.R. 609, S. 1614). The letter focuses on several changes in accrediting bodies' reporting requirements and recommends that public disclosure of sensitive findings remain at the discretion of the institution. Additionally, the AAMC recommends the deletion of provisions that require accrediting associations or agencies to enforce standards based on the institution's mission.
Contact
Matthew Shick, Legislative Analyst
AAMC Office of Governmental Relations
mshick@aamc.org
(202) 828-0525
Related Resources
Compilation of Federal Education Laws (House Education and Workforce Committee)
May 26, 2004, ACE Letter to the House on Reauthorization
H.R. 609
S. 1614
AAMC Documents
AAMC Letter on Accreditation Provisions of HEA Reauthorization (PDF, 3 pages - 49KB)
AAMC Letter to the Senate on HEA Reauthorization (PDF, 3 pages - 47KB)
Medical Educational Costs and Student Debt: A Working Group Report to the AAMC Governance (PDF, 17 pages - 1.52MB)
This page contains documents in Portable Document Format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat® Reader® is required to view PDF documents. Download Acrobat® Reader®.
Current Status
Current authority for the Higher Education Act (HEA) expired on Sept. 30, 2003, however several extensions have been enacted, making no policy changes but allowing uninterrupted administration of the programs. President Bush Sept. 30 signed the "Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2006" (P.L. 109-238) to extend temporarily HEA through June 30, 2007. The House and Senate education committees are expected to resume consideration of HEA reauthorization in 2007.
The President Feb. 8, 2006, signed the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005" (S. 1932, P.L. 109-171), which includes many of the student loan provisions from HEA reauthorization (H.R. 609, S. 1614). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the changes to the higher education programs in P.L. 109-171 will generate a net $11.9 billion in savings between 2006 and 2010 and $29.0 billion in savings between 2006 and 2015. While the law's provisions mandate savings of over $20 billion between 2006 and 2010 from higher education programs, $9 billion is recycled back into student aid. A majority of the savings are generated through increases to borrowers' interest rates and changes to lender-yield formulas.
Of particular interest to medical schools, the new law:
extends authority for Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFELP) through 2012;
expands the loan eligibility for the federal Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) loan program to include graduate and professional students;
increases annual unsubsidized Stafford loan limits for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,000;
increases the interest rate for a PLUS loan in the FFELP from 7.9 percent to 8.5 percent;
creates a parallel fee structure for the FFELP and Direct Loan (DL) programs, incrementally reducing net borrower loan fees in both the FFELP and DL over the next 5 years to 1 percent in 2010;
prevents reconsolidation of previously consolidated loans under both the FFELP and DL programs unless they are being consolidated with additional student loans;
repeals spousal and in-school consolidation of FFELP and DL loans;
limits "School as Lender" programs to Stafford Loans to graduate and professional students;
allows the one time cost of obtaining the first professional credentials to be included in total cost of attendance for students enrolled in a program requiring professional licensure or certification;
disqualifies students from eligibility for FFELP or DL student aid if they have committed a crime involving fraud in obtaining Title IV funds and have not fully repaid those funds; and
limits the suspension of eligibility for students convicted of drug offenses to those that occurred during the period the student received FFELP or DL student aid.
The President June 15 signed a FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 4939), repealing the single-holder rule. The single-holder rule restricted consolidation of loans under the Federal Family Educational Loan Program (FFELP) by prohibiting borrowers whose FFELP loans are currently with a single lender from consolidating under different lenders.
Congressional Activity
The House March 30 approved the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005 (H.R. 609), which reauthorizes HEA through 2012. The night before its consideration on the House Floor, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chair Howard "Buck" McKeon struck two provisions from the bill. One provision would have revised the formula used to allocate funds for the government's campus-based student-aid programs. The other would have allowed the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General to audit the financial records of institutions that repeatedly raise their tuition by more than twice the rate of inflation.
H.R. 609 includes two studies on medical education. A provision introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), an orthopedic surgeon, requires the "Secretary of Education to conduct a study of the indebtedness of medical students, asking the question of whether the cost of medical school is becoming prohibitive and whether the best and brightest individuals are not choosing careers in medicine because of the potential debt burden." Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a heart surgeon, and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) sponsored a second study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate and determine reasons for the decline in the number of medical school graduates entering residency programs lasting more than 5 years.
Rep. Boustany and Rep. Andrews also sponsored an approved amendment that adds "medical specialists" to a new loan forgiveness program for service in "areas of national need." Eligible medical residents must be enrolled in a residency program that requires more than 5 years of graduate medical education training and has fewer US medical school graduate applicants than the total number of training and fellowship positions available. Participants in the loan forgiveness program will be eligible for $5,000 each year of training after their 5th year.
H.R. 609 also requires that accrediting associations or agencies enforce standards that "consider the stated missions of institutions of higher education, including religious missions."
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions unanimously approved without amendment its version of HEA reauthorization Sept. 8, 2005. It is unclear whether this bill will be considered for a Senate vote this year.
AAMC Activity
With the high debt levels of medical school graduates, many medical students come up against the annual and even the aggregate limits for federal Stafford education loans. Because the current limits have not been raised in over a decade, the Association believes that these limits should be adjusted to have at least kept up with the cost of inflation. Additionally, the unique nature of residency training makes repayment of these high debt burdens difficult in the years immediately following medical school graduation. Specifically, the AAMC advocacy agenda for the HEA reauthorization has been to support increasing the annual limit on subsidized Stafford loans from the current $8,500 to at least $12,000, and to extend the Economic Hardship Deferment throughout the initial residency period for individuals that continue to qualify. The Association also supports including all school-certified educational debt in the calculation used to determine eligibility for the deferment.
The AAMC sent a comment letter Nov 15, 2005, to the House and Senate Education Committees expressing concerns regarding the accreditation provisions of the HEA reauthorization bills (H.R. 609, S. 1614). The letter focuses on several changes in accrediting bodies' reporting requirements and recommends that public disclosure of sensitive findings remain at the discretion of the institution. Additionally, the AAMC recommends the deletion of provisions that require accrediting associations or agencies to enforce standards based on the institution's mission.
Contact
Matthew Shick, Legislative Analyst
AAMC Office of Governmental Relations
mshick@aamc.org
(202) 828-0525
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Watch CSI online
CSI
Season 1
Episode 1 - Pilot (Click Here)
Episode 2 - Cool Change (Click Here)
Episode 3 - Crate 'n Burial (Click Here)
Episode 4 - Pledging Mr. Johnson (Click Here)
Episode 5 - Friends & Lovers (Click Here)
Episode 6 - Who Are You? (Click Here)
Episode 7 - Blood Drops (Click Here)
Episode 8 - Anonymous (Click Here)
Episode 9 - Unfriendly Skies (Click Here)
Episode 10 - Sex, Lies and Larvae (Click Here)
Episode 11 - I-15 Murders (Click Here)
Episode 12 - Fahrenheit 932 (Click Here)
Episode 13 - Boom (Click Here)
Episode 14 - To Halve and to Hold (Click Here)
Episode 15 - Table Stakes (Click Here)
Episode 16 - Too Tough to Die (Click Here)
Episode 17 - Face Lift (Click Here)
Episode 18 - $35K O.B.O. (Click Here)
Episode 19 - Gentle, Gentle (Click Here)
Episode 20 - Sounds of Silence (Click Here)
Episode 21 - Justice is Served (Click Here)
Episode 22 - Evaluation Day (Click Here)
Episode 23 - The Strip Strangler (Click Here)
http://www.watchtvonline.ws/index.php?params=media/49/
http://www.watchtvonline.ws/tv/csi.html
Season 1
Episode 1 - Pilot (Click Here)
Episode 2 - Cool Change (Click Here)
Episode 3 - Crate 'n Burial (Click Here)
Episode 4 - Pledging Mr. Johnson (Click Here)
Episode 5 - Friends & Lovers (Click Here)
Episode 6 - Who Are You? (Click Here)
Episode 7 - Blood Drops (Click Here)
Episode 8 - Anonymous (Click Here)
Episode 9 - Unfriendly Skies (Click Here)
Episode 10 - Sex, Lies and Larvae (Click Here)
Episode 11 - I-15 Murders (Click Here)
Episode 12 - Fahrenheit 932 (Click Here)
Episode 13 - Boom (Click Here)
Episode 14 - To Halve and to Hold (Click Here)
Episode 15 - Table Stakes (Click Here)
Episode 16 - Too Tough to Die (Click Here)
Episode 17 - Face Lift (Click Here)
Episode 18 - $35K O.B.O. (Click Here)
Episode 19 - Gentle, Gentle (Click Here)
Episode 20 - Sounds of Silence (Click Here)
Episode 21 - Justice is Served (Click Here)
Episode 22 - Evaluation Day (Click Here)
Episode 23 - The Strip Strangler (Click Here)
http://www.watchtvonline.ws/index.php?params=media/49/
http://www.watchtvonline.ws/tv/csi.html
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Court Upholds CA Stem Cell Agency
Court upholds Calif. stem cell agency
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer Tue Feb 27, 9:07 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - California's $3 billion stem cell agency withstood another challenge to its constitutionality when a state appeals court rejected claims by abortion foes and anti-tax advocates that the agency's managers had conflicts of interest.
The 1st District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by a lower court judge who last year ruled in favor of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was created when Proposition 71 was passed by 59 percent of the electorate in 2004.
Opponents of the stem cell agency said after Monday's ruling that they likely would appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Until the lawsuits are resolved, the agency can't borrow any money from Wall Street bond dealers. The state has loaned the agency $150 million, and philanthropic organizations have loaned it another $45 million to fund research.
On Feb. 16, the agency doled out nearly $45 million in research grants to about 20 state universities and nonprofit research laboratories, far exceeding the federal government's annual outlays for the work, which is opposed by social conservatives because human embryos are destroyed during research.
In issuing the first significant research grants in its two-year history, the agency became the nation's biggest financial backer of human embryonic stem cell research.
The California Family Bioethics Council argued that the stem cell agency is rife with conflicts of interest, saying officials from three university systems who sit on the board overseeing the agency could benefit because their various schools are applying for millions in research funds from the agency.
As written, Proposition 71 dictates that those officials must recuse themselves when the board is considering an application from their schools.
"Proposition 71 suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity," the court ruled, 3-0.
The court heard oral arguments on Feb. 14 and had 90 days to rule.
"Once again, the judiciary has upheld the constitutionality of California's innovative stem cell research project in its entirety, without equivocation, and with absolutely no room for further argument," said Robert Klein, who chairs the committee that oversees the institute.
Robert Tyler, an attorney for Advocates of Faith and Freedom who helped the plaintiffs craft the lawsuit, and Dana Cody, who represented anti-abortion group Life Legal Foundation in the lawsuit, both agreed that an appeal to the state's high court was likely.
"It's so obvious that there are conflicts of interest between those who are responsible for distributing funding and those who receive the funds," Tyler said.
The appeals court was skeptical of claims that Proposition 71 violated the state's "single subject" law for ballot initiatives. Opponents said the proposition allows for more than just stem cell funding.
The appeals court found that the ballot measure's general language appeared to ensure that all stem cell research funding wouldn't be hindered if it overlapped with other kinds of medical research.
The court also balked at arguments that the agency isn't under the "exclusive control and management" of the state.
The People's Advocate and National Tax Limitation Foundation argued that since the University of California officials on the agency's oversight board weren't appointed by elected officials — they were appointed by their chancellors — they aren't public officials and had no authority to spend state money. But the court noted that chancellors of those schools are appointed by regents, who are appointed by the governor.
Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Arnold Schwarzenegger, who authorized the $150 million state loan last year on the same day
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush vetoed federal legislation supporting the research, hailed Monday's ruling and has said he will authorize more loans as necessary.
Human embryonic stem cells are created in the first days after conception and give rise to all the organs and tissues in the human body. Scientists hope they can someday use stem cells to replace diseased tissue.
Proposition 71 came as a reaction to Bush administration's decision to cap federal funding for stem cell research at about $25 million annually, and impose strict research guidelines that scientists say limit advances.
___
AP Biotechnology Writer Paul Elias also contributed to this report.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_hi_te/stem_cell_lawsuits
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer Tue Feb 27, 9:07 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - California's $3 billion stem cell agency withstood another challenge to its constitutionality when a state appeals court rejected claims by abortion foes and anti-tax advocates that the agency's managers had conflicts of interest.
The 1st District Court of Appeal upheld a decision by a lower court judge who last year ruled in favor of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was created when Proposition 71 was passed by 59 percent of the electorate in 2004.
Opponents of the stem cell agency said after Monday's ruling that they likely would appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Until the lawsuits are resolved, the agency can't borrow any money from Wall Street bond dealers. The state has loaned the agency $150 million, and philanthropic organizations have loaned it another $45 million to fund research.
On Feb. 16, the agency doled out nearly $45 million in research grants to about 20 state universities and nonprofit research laboratories, far exceeding the federal government's annual outlays for the work, which is opposed by social conservatives because human embryos are destroyed during research.
In issuing the first significant research grants in its two-year history, the agency became the nation's biggest financial backer of human embryonic stem cell research.
The California Family Bioethics Council argued that the stem cell agency is rife with conflicts of interest, saying officials from three university systems who sit on the board overseeing the agency could benefit because their various schools are applying for millions in research funds from the agency.
As written, Proposition 71 dictates that those officials must recuse themselves when the board is considering an application from their schools.
"Proposition 71 suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity," the court ruled, 3-0.
The court heard oral arguments on Feb. 14 and had 90 days to rule.
"Once again, the judiciary has upheld the constitutionality of California's innovative stem cell research project in its entirety, without equivocation, and with absolutely no room for further argument," said Robert Klein, who chairs the committee that oversees the institute.
Robert Tyler, an attorney for Advocates of Faith and Freedom who helped the plaintiffs craft the lawsuit, and Dana Cody, who represented anti-abortion group Life Legal Foundation in the lawsuit, both agreed that an appeal to the state's high court was likely.
"It's so obvious that there are conflicts of interest between those who are responsible for distributing funding and those who receive the funds," Tyler said.
The appeals court was skeptical of claims that Proposition 71 violated the state's "single subject" law for ballot initiatives. Opponents said the proposition allows for more than just stem cell funding.
The appeals court found that the ballot measure's general language appeared to ensure that all stem cell research funding wouldn't be hindered if it overlapped with other kinds of medical research.
The court also balked at arguments that the agency isn't under the "exclusive control and management" of the state.
The People's Advocate and National Tax Limitation Foundation argued that since the University of California officials on the agency's oversight board weren't appointed by elected officials — they were appointed by their chancellors — they aren't public officials and had no authority to spend state money. But the court noted that chancellors of those schools are appointed by regents, who are appointed by the governor.
Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Arnold Schwarzenegger, who authorized the $150 million state loan last year on the same day
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush vetoed federal legislation supporting the research, hailed Monday's ruling and has said he will authorize more loans as necessary.
Human embryonic stem cells are created in the first days after conception and give rise to all the organs and tissues in the human body. Scientists hope they can someday use stem cells to replace diseased tissue.
Proposition 71 came as a reaction to Bush administration's decision to cap federal funding for stem cell research at about $25 million annually, and impose strict research guidelines that scientists say limit advances.
___
AP Biotechnology Writer Paul Elias also contributed to this report.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_hi_te/stem_cell_lawsuits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)