By Joe Conason
Not so long ago, the Republican right expected to dominate American politics for generations to come. Karl Rove, “boy genius” of the GOP, believed that his generation had achieved a partisan realignment that would overturn the progressive achievements of the past century.
Now those confident predictions have crashed with the failure of George W. Bush and the rise of a new progressive politics powered by the Internet. What traditional pundits once dismissed as the unwashed peasantry of the blogosphere has risen up to donate millions of dollars, elect Democratic candidates and demand real change. Having inflicted a terrible defeat on the Republicans last year, the “netroots” progressives are preparing to achieve historic victories in 2008.
Naturally, the would-be bullies of the right have not taken this development very well. As reactionaries tend to do, they have reacted with anger and attempted intimidation.
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel has mounted a crusade against DailyKos.com, the largest progressive political website, and YearlyKos, the site’s annual blogger convention, which will take place in Chicago next month. On his nightly broadcast, Fox News sage Bill O’Reilly charged that the proprietors of Daily Kos are “hatemongers” like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis—and targeted JetBlue for serving as the official airline of YearlyKos. O’Reilly’s ranting and raving frightened the JetBlue suits into withdrawing their sponsorship.
Then came Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, another Murdoch minion, who tried to frighten the Democrats away from Daily Kos. “Every Democratic presidential nominee is going to the Daily Kos convention,” he sniffed. “That’s the left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago. ... Now the whole party is going to pay court to him and to left-wing blogs.” Clearly he meant to warn that the Democrats would suffer from their association with those disreputable leftists—and that the netroots are a fringe, extremist element.
The most obvious answer is to urge them both to look in the mirror. To listen to O’Reilly—who has publicly urged the destruction of San Francisco and Iran, in addition to making thousands of other equally charming remarks—is to hear corrosive hatred distilled into a nightly dose of poison. The occasional outburst on a liberal blog, almost always in the anonymous comments section, cannot compare with the daily outpouring of vitriol on Fox.
As for Kristol, he is in no position to accuse anyone else of extremism. His chief allies have long been among the theocratic evangelical rightists. For years he has provided the worst possible advice to the Republicans, habitually promoting divisive and violent policies. During the Clinton administration, he led the drive for impeachment, urging the congressional majority to ignore public disapproval. This stupidity led to a Republican rout in the 1998 midterm election.
Having failed to learn that lesson, the Republicans listened to Kristol’s intense advocacy of invading Iraq, back when he assured everyone that war would be easy and fun and that any talk of Shiite-Sunni conflict was mere “pop sociology.” Liberals can only hope that crackpots like him maintain their influence over the Republicans for a few more years, reducing the right-wing party to a permanent minority.
But are the bloggers somewhere on the opposite extreme? For those who have yet to make his acquaintance, the creator of Daily Kos is Markos Moulitsas—a U.S. Army veteran of Salvadoran and Greek extraction who grew up in the Midwest and now lives in the Bay Area with his wife and two children. He is a business entrepreneur and a serious sports fan. He also happens to be a liberal Democrat with a determination to win and occasionally a hot temper.
He and the other leading voices in the netroots seek a Democratic politics that is both pragmatic and principled. Antiwar, but certainly not anti-military, they have fostered alliances with veterans of Iraq. They avoid rigidity, dislike identity politics and apply few litmus tests. In 2006 the bloggers raised money for many of the Democrats deemed “conservative” by the Washington press corps.
In truth, the bloggers share the values of most Americans, who also want to end the war in Iraq, establish universal health insurance, reduce global warming, increase the minimum wage and preserve Social Security. It is the ideologues such as O’Reilly and Kristol whose opposition to those values locates them on the fringe, despite their loud megaphones and corporate backing. And what the Murdoch bullies prove whenever they try to stigmatize the citizen bloggers is just how much they fear a fair (and balanced) fight.
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.
Standing Up To The Obstructionists (And The Pundits Who Love Them)
Submitted by Bill Scher
The blogosphere is abuzz this morning after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to task the Washington Post editorial board, in the paper's own pages. (DailyKos, Eschaton, TPMCafe, D-Day, Skewering The Chimp and Slow Roasted have praised Reid's letter to the editor.)
Last week, The Posties accused Reid of being "irresponsible" for "deny[ing] rather than nourish[ing] a bipartisan agreement" on Iraq:
The Senate Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy...
Putting aside the laughable claim that Bush wants to fundamentally change course in Iraq, what's also "far from the truth" is that a "large majority" of Republican Senators want the same.
This fiction was concocted earlier in the month by conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. The Post merely recycled the baseless assertion as fact, without any evidence.
If it actually was true, a majority of Republicans would have voted for the legislation Reid put on the floor, as the bill proposed all the strategic shifts listed above by the Post.
As they say, the Post has a right to its opinion, but not to its own facts.
Reid himself effectively laid out the facts in his letter. Clearly, Reid realizes that pressure can't be easily placed on the obstructionists if the traditional media won't tell the truth about who is obstructing the public will.
So, Reid took matters in his own hands. That was the necessary thing to do.
But what applies to the pundits applies to the obstructionists.
We have to continue taking matters in our own hands, force attention and direct public pressure on those standing in the way of real change. One day of pressure is not enough.
The blogosphere is abuzz this morning after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to task the Washington Post editorial board, in the paper's own pages. (DailyKos, Eschaton, TPMCafe, D-Day, Skewering The Chimp and Slow Roasted have praised Reid's letter to the editor.)
Last week, The Posties accused Reid of being "irresponsible" for "deny[ing] rather than nourish[ing] a bipartisan agreement" on Iraq:
The Senate Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy...
Putting aside the laughable claim that Bush wants to fundamentally change course in Iraq, what's also "far from the truth" is that a "large majority" of Republican Senators want the same.
This fiction was concocted earlier in the month by conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. The Post merely recycled the baseless assertion as fact, without any evidence.
If it actually was true, a majority of Republicans would have voted for the legislation Reid put on the floor, as the bill proposed all the strategic shifts listed above by the Post.
As they say, the Post has a right to its opinion, but not to its own facts.
Reid himself effectively laid out the facts in his letter. Clearly, Reid realizes that pressure can't be easily placed on the obstructionists if the traditional media won't tell the truth about who is obstructing the public will.
So, Reid took matters in his own hands. That was the necessary thing to do.
But what applies to the pundits applies to the obstructionists.
We have to continue taking matters in our own hands, force attention and direct public pressure on those standing in the way of real change. One day of pressure is not enough.
GREAT MOMENTS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
Submitted by Rick Perlstein
...from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Straightening up the apartment in anticipation of my KKK/Nazi guests in my hometown of Chicago next week, I came across this analysis in the July 13 edition about why Barack Obama needn't worry about racism hurting his presidential chances. "Americas have already weighed in on black leadership—and they like it enough to vote for it. More than 40% of the population lives in metropolitan areas that have had a black mayor in the core central city, or lived in states that have had a black governor..."
You see, rural Virginia is a multicultural paradise, and there is no racism on Long Island.
Wrong On The Right
Submitted by Robert Borosage
The corporate wing of the Democratic Party - the Democratic Leadership Council—will meet in its "National Conversation" this weekend in Nashville. The press is already noting that while all of the Democratic presidential hopefuls will appear at the YearlyKos progressive blogger gathering in Chicago, not one is slated to join the DLC in Nashville.
DLC head Al From suggests this is because the candidates have "tunnel vision," and, focused on the Iowa caucuses, are chasing liberal activists. But From is certain that the party's nominee will turn to the DLC and drift to the right when it comes to the general election. "It's sort of like you play on one end of the field to win the nomination," From said, "but if you want to win the game, you've got to play on both ends."
This has been the DLC's theme from its inception. Democrats, the group argued, had to distance themselves from "liberal interest groups," bite their tongues, and appeal to a center that, over the years, moved ever further to the right.
But that threadbare theory, dubious when it was initially aired a quarter century ago, is divorced from reality now. The "center" of American politics isn't on the right; the center is increasingly progressive in its views. The majority of Americans now oppose the Iraq War, oppose corporate trade policies, want big reforms in health care and energy policy, and are looking for a new deal in the economy. They aren't looking for the triangulated, modest reforms that Dick Morris and the DLC championed—school uniforms and computerized medical records—they are looking for bold changes and a very new direction.
From is partially right. The progressive base of the party is driving the debate. It has grown in sophistication and capacity, from labor's revived political program to Moveon.org and the new blogger energy. And it is buoyed by a sense that a majority of Americans are increasingly moving our way.
But the DLC—indelibly dubbed Democrats for the Leisure Class by the Rev. Jesse Jackson—has always had a base built on corporate money and lobbyists, not on activists. Its isolation isn't because it doesn't have troops in Iowa or New Hampshire. Its isolation comes because it simply has been wrong on the fundamental questions of our day.
Led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the DLC was the raucous cheerleader for Bush's war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. They lauded the corporate trade policies that have left us with the largest trade deficits in the annals of time, and contributed to stagnant wages, growing inequality and a declining middle class. They championed fiscal austerity—even when the budget was in surplus—leaving us with a looming deficit in vital investments from new energy to modern schools to basic infrastructure. "Inequality doesn't matter," they argued, even as we moved into an economy in which the wealthy few captured all of the benefits from growth. One of their first policy papers was an attack on the minimum wage, which went a decade without being raised.
No Democratic presidential candidate—including, notably, Sen. Hillary Clinton—is prepared to stand on that agenda. The DLC is now led by a cautious, if attractive, politician who lost a Senate race in a Democratic year. Lieberman, its past chair, isn't even a Democrat anymore. "We're all populists now," says the DLC's Will Marshall, but the organization still scorns the populist economics that was central to Democratic election victories across the county last year.
But From needn't worry; corporate money will insure that the DLC remains well-heeled, even if it is increasingly out of step with the country.
How Can I Control My Spending?
“I often catch myself making plans to buy something that I really don’t need, and likely can’t afford, simply because it’s on sale.”—Anna,* Brazil.
“Sometimes my friends invite me to do things socially that are expensive. I want to be with my friends, having fun. Nobody wants to say, ‘Sorry, I can’t afford to go.’”—Joan, Australia.
DOES it seem that you never have quite enough spending money? If only your allowance were a little larger, you could buy that game you want. If only your wages were higher, you could buy those shoes you “need.” However, rather than fret about the money you don’t have, why not learn to control the money that does pass through your hands?
If you are a young person living with your parents, you could wait until you leave home to learn how to manage money. But that would be like jumping out of an aircraft without first learning to use a parachute. True, a person might be able to figure out what to do while hurtling to the earth. How much better, though, if he learned the basic principles of using the device before jumping!
Similarly, the best time for you to learn to manage money is before the harsh financial realities of life confront you. Money is for a protection. But it will only protect you if you learn how to control your spending. Doing so will boost your confidence and will increase your parents’ respect for you.Have you ever asked your parents to explain what is involved in maintaining a household? For instance, do you know how much electricity, heat, and water cost each month and how much it costs to run a car, to buy food, and to pay the rent or the mortgage? You might think such details would be boring. Remember, though, that you help incur those bills. Besides, if you leave home, you will have to start paying for these things yourself. So you might as well learn about them. Ask your parents if you can see some of the bills, and listen closely as they explain how they budget for them.A wise person will listen and take in more instruction, and a man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction.Recognize the Challenges.
Admittedly, controlling your spending is easier in theory than in practice, especially if you live at home and receive an allowance or earn money from a job. Why? Because your parents are likely paying most of the bills. So a large percentage of your money may be available for you to spend at will. And spending money can be fun. “Spending is very easy for me, and it is enjoyable “Among my peers, shopping has become a major form of entertainment. When I’m out with them, there seems to be an unwritten rule that you must spend money if you’re going to have fun.”
It is natural for you to want to fit in with your friends. But ask yourself, ‘Am I spending money with my friends because I can afford to or because I feel I have to?’ Many people spend money in an attempt to boost their reputation with friends and associates. Would just having more money be the solution to your spending problems? “We all think that a bigger paycheck would be the answer to our financial woes, but that is rarely the case.To illustrate: If you were driving and did not have control of your car or were in the habit of steering with your eyes closed, would putting more fuel in your tank make you more comfortable? Would you be more likely to reach your destination safely? Likewise, if you do not learn how to control your spending, earning more money will not improve your situation.Even if you do not receive an allowance or money from a job, you can still learn valuable lessons about money while you are living at home. For example, when you ask your parents for money or ask them to buy you some item, they may say no. Why? One reason might be that your wants cost more than the family budget can bear. By saying no to your request—although they might prefer to say yes—your parents are setting you a fine example in self-control. And self-control is vital to good money management.
Suppose your parents can afford to say yes to your requests. Even then, they may still say no. You may think that they are just being mean. But consider: They may be trying to teach you the important lesson that your happiness is not dependent on obtaining everything you want. The truth of those words is borne out by the experience of many youths whose parents buy them everything they want. Soon youths discover that they are never truly content. No matter how many things they accumulate, they always feel the need to add just one more purchase to the pile. In time, youths who expect to receive their every request may become unappreciative adults. Money Is Time
Some cultures have the saying, Time is money. This emphasizes that people must spend time to earn money and wasting time is wasting money. The converse of this saying is also true—money is time. If you waste money, you are really wasting the time it took to earn that money. Learn how to control your spending and you learn how to control your time. How so?How much money have you spent over the past month? What did you spend it on? You don’t know? Here’s how to take control of your spending before your spending takes control of you.
Keep a record. For at least one month, record the amount of money you receive and the date you receive it. Describe each item you buy and the amount it costs. At the end of the month, add up the amount received and the amount spent.
Make a budget. On a blank page, draw three columns. In the first column, list all income you expect to receive in a month. In the second column, list how you plan to spend your money; use the entries in your record as a guide. As the month progresses, write in the third column the amount you actually spend on each of the planned expenses. Also, record all unplanned spending.
Adjust your plan. If you are spending more than you anticipated on some items and are accumulating debt, adjust your plan. Pay your debts. Stay in control.
Remember, if you waste money, you are also wasting the time it took to earn that money
“Sometimes my friends invite me to do things socially that are expensive. I want to be with my friends, having fun. Nobody wants to say, ‘Sorry, I can’t afford to go.’”—Joan, Australia.
DOES it seem that you never have quite enough spending money? If only your allowance were a little larger, you could buy that game you want. If only your wages were higher, you could buy those shoes you “need.” However, rather than fret about the money you don’t have, why not learn to control the money that does pass through your hands?
If you are a young person living with your parents, you could wait until you leave home to learn how to manage money. But that would be like jumping out of an aircraft without first learning to use a parachute. True, a person might be able to figure out what to do while hurtling to the earth. How much better, though, if he learned the basic principles of using the device before jumping!
Similarly, the best time for you to learn to manage money is before the harsh financial realities of life confront you. Money is for a protection. But it will only protect you if you learn how to control your spending. Doing so will boost your confidence and will increase your parents’ respect for you.Have you ever asked your parents to explain what is involved in maintaining a household? For instance, do you know how much electricity, heat, and water cost each month and how much it costs to run a car, to buy food, and to pay the rent or the mortgage? You might think such details would be boring. Remember, though, that you help incur those bills. Besides, if you leave home, you will have to start paying for these things yourself. So you might as well learn about them. Ask your parents if you can see some of the bills, and listen closely as they explain how they budget for them.A wise person will listen and take in more instruction, and a man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction.Recognize the Challenges.
Admittedly, controlling your spending is easier in theory than in practice, especially if you live at home and receive an allowance or earn money from a job. Why? Because your parents are likely paying most of the bills. So a large percentage of your money may be available for you to spend at will. And spending money can be fun. “Spending is very easy for me, and it is enjoyable “Among my peers, shopping has become a major form of entertainment. When I’m out with them, there seems to be an unwritten rule that you must spend money if you’re going to have fun.”
It is natural for you to want to fit in with your friends. But ask yourself, ‘Am I spending money with my friends because I can afford to or because I feel I have to?’ Many people spend money in an attempt to boost their reputation with friends and associates. Would just having more money be the solution to your spending problems? “We all think that a bigger paycheck would be the answer to our financial woes, but that is rarely the case.To illustrate: If you were driving and did not have control of your car or were in the habit of steering with your eyes closed, would putting more fuel in your tank make you more comfortable? Would you be more likely to reach your destination safely? Likewise, if you do not learn how to control your spending, earning more money will not improve your situation.Even if you do not receive an allowance or money from a job, you can still learn valuable lessons about money while you are living at home. For example, when you ask your parents for money or ask them to buy you some item, they may say no. Why? One reason might be that your wants cost more than the family budget can bear. By saying no to your request—although they might prefer to say yes—your parents are setting you a fine example in self-control. And self-control is vital to good money management.
Suppose your parents can afford to say yes to your requests. Even then, they may still say no. You may think that they are just being mean. But consider: They may be trying to teach you the important lesson that your happiness is not dependent on obtaining everything you want. The truth of those words is borne out by the experience of many youths whose parents buy them everything they want. Soon youths discover that they are never truly content. No matter how many things they accumulate, they always feel the need to add just one more purchase to the pile. In time, youths who expect to receive their every request may become unappreciative adults. Money Is Time
Some cultures have the saying, Time is money. This emphasizes that people must spend time to earn money and wasting time is wasting money. The converse of this saying is also true—money is time. If you waste money, you are really wasting the time it took to earn that money. Learn how to control your spending and you learn how to control your time. How so?How much money have you spent over the past month? What did you spend it on? You don’t know? Here’s how to take control of your spending before your spending takes control of you.
Keep a record. For at least one month, record the amount of money you receive and the date you receive it. Describe each item you buy and the amount it costs. At the end of the month, add up the amount received and the amount spent.
Make a budget. On a blank page, draw three columns. In the first column, list all income you expect to receive in a month. In the second column, list how you plan to spend your money; use the entries in your record as a guide. As the month progresses, write in the third column the amount you actually spend on each of the planned expenses. Also, record all unplanned spending.
Adjust your plan. If you are spending more than you anticipated on some items and are accumulating debt, adjust your plan. Pay your debts. Stay in control.
Remember, if you waste money, you are also wasting the time it took to earn that money
Boys Face Trial Over Slapping Charges
Boys Face Trial Over Slapping Charges
By SCOTT MICHELS,
Filed Under: Crime News
NEW YORK (July 25) -- Two middle-school students in Oregon are facing possible time in a juvenile jail and could have to register as sex offenders for smacking girls on the rear end at school.
By SCOTT MICHELS,
Filed Under: Crime News
NEW YORK (July 25) -- Two middle-school students in Oregon are facing possible time in a juvenile jail and could have to register as sex offenders for smacking girls on the rear end at school.
Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, were arrested in February after they were caught in the halls of Patton Middle School, in McMinnville, Ore., slapping girls on the rear end. Mashburn told ABC News in a phone interview that this was a common way of saying hello practiced by lots of kids at the school, akin to a secret handshake.The boys spent five days in a juvenile detention facility and were charged with several counts of felony sex abuse for what they and their parents said was merely inappropriate but not criminal behavior.The local district attorney has since backed off -- the felony charges have been dropped and the district attorney said probation would be an appropriate punishment. The Mashburns' lawyer said prosecutors offered Cory a plea bargain that would not require him to register as a sex offender, which the family plans to reject.But the boys, if convicted at an Aug. 20 trial, still face the possibility of some jail time or registering for life as sex offenders.The boys' families and lawyers said even sentencing them to probation would turn admittedly inappropriate but not uncommon juvenile rowdiness into a crime. If they are convicted of any of the misdemeanor charges against them, they would have to register as sex offenders.
"It's devastating," said Mark Lawrence, Cory Mashburn's lawyer. "To be a registered sex offender is to be designated as the most loathed in our society. These are young boys with bright futures, and the brightness of those futures would be over."Cory Mashburn said he and Ryan Cornelison slapped each others' and other kids' bottoms every Friday. "Lots of kids at school do that," he said.Cory and Ryan were brought to the principal's office Feb. 22, where they were questioned by school officials and a police officer. They were arrested that day and taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention facility.Court papers said the boys touched the buttocks of several girls, some of whom said this made them uncomfortable. The papers also said Cory touched a girl's breasts. But police reports filed with the court said other students, both boys and girls, slapped each other on the bottom."It's like a handshake we do," one girl said, according to the police report.The boys were initially charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse. At a court hearing, two of the girls recanted, saying they never felt threatened or inappropriately touched by the boys. The judge released the boys but barred them from returning to school and required that they be under constant adult supervision.District Attorney Bradley Berry has since dismissed the felony counts. The boys face 10 misdemeanor charges of harassment and sexual abuse. They face a maximum of up to one year in a juvenile jail on each count, though Berry said there was no way the boys would ever serve that much time."An appropriate sentence would be probation," he said. "These are minor misdemeanor charges that reflect repeated contact against multiple victims. We never intended for them to get a long time in detention.""We're not seeking major penalties," he said. "We're seeking change in conduct."'We Just Want This to Be Over' Tracie Mashburn, Cory's mother, said they will not accept plea and plan to fight the charges.The arrests, critics said, reflect a trend toward criminalizing adolescent sexual behavior. Between 1998 and 2002, juvenile arrests for sex offenses other than rape or prostitution rose 9 percent -- the only kind of juvenile arrests that rose during that time, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics."More and more, they are criminalizing normal adolescent or preadolescent behavior," said Chuck Aron, co-chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers juvenile justice committee.Even probation, the Mashburns and their attorney said, would be too severe a punishment.Julie McFarlane, a supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project in Portland, Ore., said, "Probation for a sex offense is very difficult thing, and there's a pretty high failure rate." Failing to meet the terms of probation could mean the boys would be sent to jail.Depending on the terms of probation, it's likely that the boys would not be allowed to have sexual contact with anyone or any contact with younger children, McFarlane said. For Cory Mashburn, that would mean he couldn't be left alone with his younger siblings."It's been awful," said Cory's mother. "We just want this to all be over. But it will never go away. We'll always remember it."Berry, the district attorney, said the victims -- the girls who were touched -- were being overlooked. "What's been lost in this whole thing are the victims, who have been pressured enormously by these boys' friends," he said.Cory, who said he now realizes what he did was inappropriate, spends his days playing video games and basketball. He said he's scared. "I could go to jail. I could be registered as a sex offender," he said. "I think it's all crazy."
"It's devastating," said Mark Lawrence, Cory Mashburn's lawyer. "To be a registered sex offender is to be designated as the most loathed in our society. These are young boys with bright futures, and the brightness of those futures would be over."Cory Mashburn said he and Ryan Cornelison slapped each others' and other kids' bottoms every Friday. "Lots of kids at school do that," he said.Cory and Ryan were brought to the principal's office Feb. 22, where they were questioned by school officials and a police officer. They were arrested that day and taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention facility.Court papers said the boys touched the buttocks of several girls, some of whom said this made them uncomfortable. The papers also said Cory touched a girl's breasts. But police reports filed with the court said other students, both boys and girls, slapped each other on the bottom."It's like a handshake we do," one girl said, according to the police report.The boys were initially charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse. At a court hearing, two of the girls recanted, saying they never felt threatened or inappropriately touched by the boys. The judge released the boys but barred them from returning to school and required that they be under constant adult supervision.District Attorney Bradley Berry has since dismissed the felony counts. The boys face 10 misdemeanor charges of harassment and sexual abuse. They face a maximum of up to one year in a juvenile jail on each count, though Berry said there was no way the boys would ever serve that much time."An appropriate sentence would be probation," he said. "These are minor misdemeanor charges that reflect repeated contact against multiple victims. We never intended for them to get a long time in detention.""We're not seeking major penalties," he said. "We're seeking change in conduct."'We Just Want This to Be Over' Tracie Mashburn, Cory's mother, said they will not accept plea and plan to fight the charges.The arrests, critics said, reflect a trend toward criminalizing adolescent sexual behavior. Between 1998 and 2002, juvenile arrests for sex offenses other than rape or prostitution rose 9 percent -- the only kind of juvenile arrests that rose during that time, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics."More and more, they are criminalizing normal adolescent or preadolescent behavior," said Chuck Aron, co-chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers juvenile justice committee.Even probation, the Mashburns and their attorney said, would be too severe a punishment.Julie McFarlane, a supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project in Portland, Ore., said, "Probation for a sex offense is very difficult thing, and there's a pretty high failure rate." Failing to meet the terms of probation could mean the boys would be sent to jail.Depending on the terms of probation, it's likely that the boys would not be allowed to have sexual contact with anyone or any contact with younger children, McFarlane said. For Cory Mashburn, that would mean he couldn't be left alone with his younger siblings."It's been awful," said Cory's mother. "We just want this to all be over. But it will never go away. We'll always remember it."Berry, the district attorney, said the victims -- the girls who were touched -- were being overlooked. "What's been lost in this whole thing are the victims, who have been pressured enormously by these boys' friends," he said.Cory, who said he now realizes what he did was inappropriate, spends his days playing video games and basketball. He said he's scared. "I could go to jail. I could be registered as a sex offender," he said. "I think it's all crazy."
BEYONCE TO PERFORM IN ETHIOPIA
http://www.beyoncestar.com/
Beyoncé to Perform in Ethiopia
Beyoncé is slated to appear in Ethiopia on September 12, 2007. The day will mark a millenial celebration in Addis Ababa.
Beyonce, who won the Grammy Award in 2001 and 2002, has been invited by Sheraton Addis, a luxury hotel in the Ethiopian capital.
Sheraton Addis will pay Beyonce one million dollars and pay for the transportation of her band and equipment, APA learnt here on Monday.
The 26-year-old singer is expected to be accompanied by other singers from the United States whose identity has not yet been made public.
Sources told APA that Michael Jackson will also attend the Ethiopian millennium as a special guest together with other VIPs.
The Ethiopian millennium has been recognized by the African Union and United Nations as an African and worldwide celebration.
Over 400,000 Ethiopians from the diaspora, tourists and other invited guests are expected to come to Ethiopia for the millennium celebrations.
The Ethiopian calendar is eight years behind that used by most of the world. It is still 1999 in Ethiopia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)