Finally, something coming from somone. There seems to be a lot of punting back and forth amongst the world's governments and institutions. Finally, the ICC has opened an investigation into 51 suspected criminals. This, still, does nothing about the on going genocide in Darfur, but at least it should bring more attention to the crisis.
Court Investigates Sudan's Darfur Region
By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The International Criminal Court on Monday formally announced the opening of a war crimes investigation in Sudan's Darfur region after receiving a list of 51 potential suspects from U.N. investigators.
Prosecutors said in a statement their inquiries will be "impartial and independent, focusing on the individuals who bear the greatest criminal responsibility."
The court has been analyzing the situation in Darfur since the United Nations in April referred to it allegations of rape, murder and plunder, following a Security Council vote. Dozens of court officials are preparing for the investigation, the largest and most important to be handled by the fledgling body since it was established in July 2002.
"The investigation will require sustained cooperation from national and international authorities. It will form part of a collective effort, complementing African Union and other initiatives to end the violence in Darfur and to promote justice," Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in prepared comments.
Moreno-Ocampo will brief the United Nations in New York later this month about his plans to investigate Darfur.
A special U.N. commission of inquiry, which spent several months gathering evidence of war crimes, handed the court its findings, including a list of 51 potential suspects. The list has not been made public, but suspects could include Sudanese government leaders, rebels and militiamen allegedly acting with government approval against civilian tribes.
(Full Story)
Monday, June 06, 2005
GOP Ethic Woes Continue
Beyond the DeLay effect, there comes the Noe effect currently haunting Ohio Republicans. Tom Noe, a big time GOP contributor, was given the task of investing $50 million in Ohio State's Workers comp funds in... get this... rare coins. Not that investing in rare coins isn't risky in its own part, but now there is $10-13 million of the funds missing. Where did it all go? A good chunk of it appears to have been laundered into GOP campaign coffers. It appears that, to get around the $2000 cap on donations, Noe gave money to friends so they could turn around and donate it to the various election campaigns. Noe was one of Bush's Pioneers, raising between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Presidents re-election.
The recipients range from local GOP officials, such as the Ohio Governor, to far away GOPers, like Arnold Schwarzenegger ($10,000), to Bush himself (over $100,000). Arnold is refusing to return any of the funds, but Bush is being a little nice and returning $4000 of the over $100,000 raised by Noe.
So, what do the GOPers do when their donations come from illegally funneled state funds? Do they return it to the state where it belongs? No, they donate it to charity where it can be written off. So, not only was the taxpayer's money laundered in the first place, it still won't be returned now the crime has been uncovered. Instead, the politicians who took the illegal money will get a nice little plack from which ever charity they donated it to and look like a hero.
Bush to give back $4,000 in Noe cash; Dems want GOP to return over $100,000
Noe fallout taints early candidates to succeed Taft; Democrats take aim at GOP trio
California governor will not return Noe's donations
Local GOP struggles with issue of Noe's donations
The recipients range from local GOP officials, such as the Ohio Governor, to far away GOPers, like Arnold Schwarzenegger ($10,000), to Bush himself (over $100,000). Arnold is refusing to return any of the funds, but Bush is being a little nice and returning $4000 of the over $100,000 raised by Noe.
So, what do the GOPers do when their donations come from illegally funneled state funds? Do they return it to the state where it belongs? No, they donate it to charity where it can be written off. So, not only was the taxpayer's money laundered in the first place, it still won't be returned now the crime has been uncovered. Instead, the politicians who took the illegal money will get a nice little plack from which ever charity they donated it to and look like a hero.
Bush to give back $4,000 in Noe cash; Dems want GOP to return over $100,000
Noe fallout taints early candidates to succeed Taft; Democrats take aim at GOP trio
California governor will not return Noe's donations
Local GOP struggles with issue of Noe's donations
Friday, June 03, 2005
More Rush Limbaugh
after my last post, I just had to go back and look up some of Rush's old quotes on drug abuse in light of him being an addict himself and yet so harsh on others.
or
That's why you, Rush, should go into court and demand that the judge send you away for the maximum time allowed by law. You should take responsibility like you always claim everyone else should.
Wow, hear that conservitives. Take Rush down from your pedistals and get your priorities in whack and stop listening to him. Rush demands it of you.
I am just waiting for Rush to blame his addiction on liberal media bias and Bill Clinton.
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up. " - Rush Limbaugh show 1995
or
"...too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too." - Rush Limbaugh show Oct. 5, 1995
That's why you, Rush, should go into court and demand that the judge send you away for the maximum time allowed by law. You should take responsibility like you always claim everyone else should.
"'When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks." - Rush Limbaugh show 1994
Wow, hear that conservitives. Take Rush down from your pedistals and get your priorities in whack and stop listening to him. Rush demands it of you.
I am just waiting for Rush to blame his addiction on liberal media bias and Bill Clinton.
Limbaugh Lies Again
Yes, another lie from the Limbaughstinator. As the right wing always tries to paint the media as this big left wing propaganda machine, they continually lie to their readers and listeners in order to make their agenda palatable. From the June 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: We had the news on the program yesterday that Felt had been pardoned, and I found it interesting that for most of yesterday and last night, no major media outlet or even cable news show mentioned his conviction for ordering illegal break-ins.
The truth:
NBC
MSNBC
ABC
PBS
CNN
CNN Headline News
The Washington Post
The New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Yes, even from the big bad liberal media of the New York Times and PBS, it was mentioned.
Source: MMFA
LIMBAUGH: We had the news on the program yesterday that Felt had been pardoned, and I found it interesting that for most of yesterday and last night, no major media outlet or even cable news show mentioned his conviction for ordering illegal break-ins.
The truth:
NBC
ANDREA MITCHELL (NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent): In 1980, Felt was convicted of illegal FBI break-ins against antiwar radicals and later pardoned by Ronald Reagan. Admirers say Felt was trying to protect the FBI. Writing about Watergate in a 1979 memoir, Felt wrote, "The reputation of the FBI is at stake." [Nightly News, 5/31/05]
MSNBC
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC analyst and former Nixon speechwriter): He [Felt] was later indicted and convicted of a matter which I thought he shouldn't have been. He was pardoned by Ronald Reagan. [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/31/05]
ABC
CHRIS BURY (Nightline correspondent): Ironically enough, Mark Felt shares one unusual connection with the president he helped bring down. Like Richard Nixon, Felt received a presidential pardon -- in his case, for a 1980 conspiracy conviction on illegal FBI break-ins against friends and relatives of the militant organization Weather Underground. In coming forward now, in the twilight of his life, Mark Felt and his family clearly felt that he had one final opportunity to define his Watergate legacy in his terms. That the mystery man known for all these years as Deep Throat be remembered not as a snitch, but a hero. [Nightline, 5/31/05]
PBS
DAVID GERGEN (former presidential adviser): I mean, Mark Felt, people say, well, he was a man of honor, but listen, Charlie, this was a fellow who was -- Mark Felt was a fellow who was pardoned -- pardoned -- by Ronald Reagan in 1981 for his part in burglaries undertaken by the FBI against the Weathermen and apparently against -- possibly against others. [The Charlie Rose Show, 5/31/05]
CNN
JUDY WOODRUFF (CNN host): In 1978, the former agent was indicted for approving other Nixon-era break-ins, raids on leftist antiwar groups. He was convicted and later pardoned by Ronald Reagan. And then, Mark Felt slipped into obscurity, until now. [Prerecorded segment shown on Anderson Cooper 360, 5/31/05, and Paula Zahn Now, 5/31/05]
BRIAN TODD (CNN correspondent): So Mark Felt may always be associated with a certain contradiction and irony. In the late '70s, he was charged with violating the constitutional rights of American citizens by authorizing government agents to break into the homes of bombing suspects. That case dated back to the early '70s, when he was still with the FBI. Felt was convicted on that charge, but later pardoned by President Ronald Reagan. [Wolf Blitzer Reports, 5/31/05]
CNN Headline News
A.J. HAMMER (co-host): So who is W. Mark Felt? We know that Felt was indicted in 1978 for approving some other break-ins during Nixon's administration. President Reagan later pardoned him for the 1978 indictment, and in 1999, Felt told The Hartford Courant he was not Deep Throat. [Showbiz Tonight, 5/31/05]
The Washington Post
In 1980, Felt and another senior FBI veteran were convicted of conspiring nearly a decade earlier to violate the civil rights of domestic dissidents in the Weather Underground movement; President Ronald Reagan then issued a pardon. [David Von Drehle, "FBI's No. 2 Was 'Deep Throat,'" published 6/1/05, before Limbaugh's broadcast]
The New York Times
But much of the most serious and informed speculation has long centered on the F.B.I., and on Mr. Felt, who was convicted in 1980 on unrelated charges of authorizing government agents to break into homes secretly, without search warrants, in a search for anti-Vietnam-War bombing suspects from the radical Weather Underground in 1972 and 1973. Five months later, President Ronald Reagan pardoned him on the grounds that he had "acted on high principle to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation." [Todd S. Purdum, "F.B.I. Official Revealed He Was Watergate Source in Interview," 5/31/05]
Los Angeles Times
In November 1980, Felt and Edward S. Miller, then head of the FBI's intelligence division, were convicted of authorizing break-ins without warrants into the homes of members of the Weathermen in the 1970s, a radical antiwar group. ... Although President Ronald Reagan later granted the two men full pardons, O'Connor, the attorney and author of the article, noted that Felt blamed the prosecution for contributing to the death of his wife in 1984. [Richard B. Schmitt, "Washington Post Confirms W. Mark Felt at FBI Was Watergate's 'Deep Throat," 5/31/05]
Yes, even from the big bad liberal media of the New York Times and PBS, it was mentioned.
Source: MMFA
WSJ Compares Clinton to Nixon
For anyone who complains about left wing media bias can find solitude in reading the Wall Street Journal for their fix of right wing media bias. They continued on with their Felt bashing by distorting the truth to compare Clinton with Nixon.
First, I don't recall Clinton 'abusing' the Justice Department. While Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating him, Clinton did not such thing. While 30 Nixon administration officials were tried and convicted of crimes during Watergate, 5 separate investigations of Whitewater exonerated the Clintons. Memogate, filegate, and ever other gate that the Republicans tried to throw at the Clintons fell flat on its face. If anyone abused justice authority during the Clinton years, it was Ken Star and the special prosecutors office.
Once again... maybe it was because, other than Clinton getting some nooky in the Oval Office, there was nothing. I would have to say this editorial is pretty partisan... ironically. As usual, it is just more Republican smear.
apparently that does not apply to the Wall Street Journal since they used no facts in this story.
Deep Throat's Legacy
All the more so because the larger story of Watergate was about holding the Presidency accountable for the misuse of that office's vast power. One lesson we learned from the Nixon and Bill Clinton eras is that it is both difficult and painful to check a President, especially one abusing the Justice Department.
First, I don't recall Clinton 'abusing' the Justice Department. While Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating him, Clinton did not such thing. While 30 Nixon administration officials were tried and convicted of crimes during Watergate, 5 separate investigations of Whitewater exonerated the Clintons. Memogate, filegate, and ever other gate that the Republicans tried to throw at the Clintons fell flat on its face. If anyone abused justice authority during the Clinton years, it was Ken Star and the special prosecutors office.
To the extent that the Washington Post's reporting influenced Judge Sirica [in the Nixon years], it played a critical if not decisive role. The reporters' task is of course to report what they can find out, and it's notable that in their Watergate coverage Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein played the role of old-fashioned diggers, not cable-TV partisans. The rest of the press corps ultimately joined their digging, and Nixon came to have few media defenders.
That was all very different from the Clinton era, when many good reporters did similarly important digging. (Susan Schmidt at the Washington Post and Jeff Gerth of the New York Times come to mind.) But far from being praised for their enterprise, they often became pariahs at their own newspapers and the targets of White House attacks. Much of the media took political sides, rather than stick to their higher obligation of ensuring that a President doesn't misuse his Constitutional authority. This was the motive for our own extended coverage of Whitewater and the other ethical corner-cutting of the Clinton years.
Once again... maybe it was because, other than Clinton getting some nooky in the Oval Office, there was nothing. I would have to say this editorial is pretty partisan... ironically. As usual, it is just more Republican smear.
The unveiling of Deep Throat, and the rediscovery of Watergate's history, will do some good if it reminds us that the Fourth Estate's first duty is to report the facts.
apparently that does not apply to the Wall Street Journal since they used no facts in this story.
Deep Throat's Legacy
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Noonan the Nut
Appearantly Peggy Noonan thinks Mark Felt is the cause of all things evil in the world since the watergate scandal. At least, that is her contention in today's Wall Street Journal.
I am surprised she didn't add he was also cause of the Son of Sam, disco, Ford Pintos, and the rise of Motley Crue and 'hair bands.'
Peggy really is a nut if she thinks that she can pin the pull out of Viet Nam and Pol Pot on Mark Felt, but that doesn't stop her from trying to blame the murder of children on Deep Throat.
Hmmm... and I wonder where my feeling that Republicans never take personal responsibility for their action comes from? Maybe from the fact that they can't see beyond the fact that their president was a crook. If they are blaming all of the problems of the 70's on Mark Felt, then I am blaming 9/11 on Ken Star and the Republicans.
The Legend of Deep Throat
H/T The Ward Report
What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon's ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events--the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions--millions--killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness.
I am surprised she didn't add he was also cause of the Son of Sam, disco, Ford Pintos, and the rise of Motley Crue and 'hair bands.'
Peggy really is a nut if she thinks that she can pin the pull out of Viet Nam and Pol Pot on Mark Felt, but that doesn't stop her from trying to blame the murder of children on Deep Throat.
Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.
Hmmm... and I wonder where my feeling that Republicans never take personal responsibility for their action comes from? Maybe from the fact that they can't see beyond the fact that their president was a crook. If they are blaming all of the problems of the 70's on Mark Felt, then I am blaming 9/11 on Ken Star and the Republicans.
The Legend of Deep Throat
H/T The Ward Report
Bush Still Stonewalling Congress on Releasing Bolton Papers
Bush is once again trying to reverse the table on Senate Democrats who have been asking the White House for months to release papers to the Senate so they can finish up evaluating Bolton's alleged misuse of classified documents. Bush is claiming it is Senate Democrats who are delaying the floor vote, when it is actually Bush who is doing it. Democrats have pledged to have an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as the papers are released, but the White House refuses to budge. People continue to speculate that the papers, which deal with companies dealing with China, would be highly embarrassing to the Bush administration. You want an up or down vote Mr. President? Well, then stop stalling the nomination and release the papers.
Bush Says Democrats Stalling on Bolton
Bush Says Democrats Stalling on Bolton
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Shizzolator
For anyone who may have problems understanding my posts, try translating it by the shizzolator. Then everything should make perfect sense.
Self Esteem or Self Marginalization
SC&A about the state of our self esteem educational system
(Here and Here) and the disaster that it is bringing upon us. This article about how teachers are changing the color of their pens so as not to damage their precious little egos just re-enforces my belief that we are raising a generations of marginalized kids. We have replaced achievement with just "showing up" as a mark of excellence.
Enough already with kid gloves
By Christina Hoff Sommers
Wed Jun 1, 6:33 AM ET
Purple is replacing red as the color of choice for teachers. Why, you may ask? It seems that educators worry that emphatic red corrections on a homework assignment or test can be stressful, demeaning - even "frightening" for a young person. The principal of Thaddeus Stevens Elementary in Pittsburgh advises teachers to use only "pleasant-feeling tones."
Major pen manufacturers appear to agree. Robert Silberman, vice president of marketing at Pilot Pen, says teachers "are trying to be positive and reinforcing rather than harsh." Michael Finn, a spokesperson for Paper Mate, approves: "This is a kinder, more gentle education system." Which color is best for children? Stephen Ahle, principal at Pacific Rim Elementary in Carlsbad, Calif., offers lavender "because it is a calming color."
A calmer, gentler grading color? Are schoolchildren really so upset by corrections in primary red? Why have teachers become so careful?
It seems that many adults today regard the children in their care as fragile hothouse flowers who require protection from even the remote possibility of frustration, disappointment or failure. The new solicitude goes far beyond blacklisting red pens. Many schools now discourage or prohibit competitive games such as tag or dodge ball. The rationale: too many hurt feelings. In May 2002, for example, the principal of Franklin Elementary School in Santa Monica, Calif., sent a newsletter to parents informing them that children could no longer play tag during the lunch recess. As she explained, "In this game, there is a 'victim' or 'It,' which creates a self-esteem issue."
Is anything OK?
Which games are deemed safe and self-affirming? The National PTA recommends a cooperative alternative to the fiercely competitive "tug of war" called "tug of peace." Some professionals in physical education advocate activities in which children compete only with themselves, such as juggling, unicycling, pogo sticking, and even "learning to ... manipulate wheelchairs with ease."
But juggling, too, poses risks.
A former member of The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports suggests using silken scarves rather than, say, uncooperative tennis balls that lead to frustration and anxiety. "Scarves," he points out, "are soft, non-threatening, and float down slowly."
Is the kind of overprotectiveness these educators counsel really such a bad thing? Sooner or later, children will face stressful situations, disappointments and threats to their self-esteem. Why not shield them from the inevitable as long as possible? The answer is that children need challenge, excitement and competition to flourish. To treat them as combustible bundles of frayed nerves does them no favors.
(Full Story)
H/T Linnet
Update: Mommak commented about this story over at Michele's place about this and how maybe it should apply to other things in life. Especially stop lights. We shall now change red lights to lavender lights so you feel much better about yourself when you get a ticket for running it.
(Here and Here) and the disaster that it is bringing upon us. This article about how teachers are changing the color of their pens so as not to damage their precious little egos just re-enforces my belief that we are raising a generations of marginalized kids. We have replaced achievement with just "showing up" as a mark of excellence.
Enough already with kid gloves
By Christina Hoff Sommers
Wed Jun 1, 6:33 AM ET
Purple is replacing red as the color of choice for teachers. Why, you may ask? It seems that educators worry that emphatic red corrections on a homework assignment or test can be stressful, demeaning - even "frightening" for a young person. The principal of Thaddeus Stevens Elementary in Pittsburgh advises teachers to use only "pleasant-feeling tones."
Major pen manufacturers appear to agree. Robert Silberman, vice president of marketing at Pilot Pen, says teachers "are trying to be positive and reinforcing rather than harsh." Michael Finn, a spokesperson for Paper Mate, approves: "This is a kinder, more gentle education system." Which color is best for children? Stephen Ahle, principal at Pacific Rim Elementary in Carlsbad, Calif., offers lavender "because it is a calming color."
A calmer, gentler grading color? Are schoolchildren really so upset by corrections in primary red? Why have teachers become so careful?
It seems that many adults today regard the children in their care as fragile hothouse flowers who require protection from even the remote possibility of frustration, disappointment or failure. The new solicitude goes far beyond blacklisting red pens. Many schools now discourage or prohibit competitive games such as tag or dodge ball. The rationale: too many hurt feelings. In May 2002, for example, the principal of Franklin Elementary School in Santa Monica, Calif., sent a newsletter to parents informing them that children could no longer play tag during the lunch recess. As she explained, "In this game, there is a 'victim' or 'It,' which creates a self-esteem issue."
Is anything OK?
Which games are deemed safe and self-affirming? The National PTA recommends a cooperative alternative to the fiercely competitive "tug of war" called "tug of peace." Some professionals in physical education advocate activities in which children compete only with themselves, such as juggling, unicycling, pogo sticking, and even "learning to ... manipulate wheelchairs with ease."
But juggling, too, poses risks.
A former member of The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports suggests using silken scarves rather than, say, uncooperative tennis balls that lead to frustration and anxiety. "Scarves," he points out, "are soft, non-threatening, and float down slowly."
Is the kind of overprotectiveness these educators counsel really such a bad thing? Sooner or later, children will face stressful situations, disappointments and threats to their self-esteem. Why not shield them from the inevitable as long as possible? The answer is that children need challenge, excitement and competition to flourish. To treat them as combustible bundles of frayed nerves does them no favors.
(Full Story)
H/T Linnet
Update: Mommak commented about this story over at Michele's place about this and how maybe it should apply to other things in life. Especially stop lights. We shall now change red lights to lavender lights so you feel much better about yourself when you get a ticket for running it.
Big Sister is Watching
I guess when the government watches us, it is Big Brother, then when business watch us, it is Big Sister. I found this article about how online merchants will alter the price of their products by watching your shopping habits from behind the scenes. By placing cookies and other little bits of spyware on your computer, they determine if you are a 'loyal' customer or a 'bottom feeder' and adjust the price they offer you accordingly. It is a very interesting piece and a must read for any on line shopper.
Study: Shoppers Naive About Online Prices
By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer
Wed Jun 1,12:38 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Most American consumers don't realize Internet merchants and even traditional retailers sometimes charge different prices to different customers for the same products, according to a new survey.
The study, "Open to Exploitation," found nearly two-thirds of adult Internet users believed incorrectly it was illegal to charge different people different prices, a practice retailers call "price customization." More than two-thirds of people surveyed also said they believed online travel sites are required by law to offer the lowest airline prices possible.
The study, expected to be released Wednesday by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, is the latest to cast doubt on the notion of sophisticated consumers in the digital age.
It said 87 percent of people strongly objected to the practice of online stores charging people different prices for the same products based on information collected about their shopping habits.
"I don't think people understand this is being done," said Willi Stabenau, 23, a musician in New York who participated in the survey. "We don't let ourselves be tracked that way in any other facet of our lives. Why would you want that to happen while you're shopping?"
The Internet empowers careful shoppers to conveniently compare prices and features across thousands of stores. But it also enables businesses to quietly collect detailed records about a customer's behavior and preferences and set prices accordingly. Changing prices is generally lawful unless doing so discriminates against a consumer's race or gender or violates antitrust or price-fixing laws.
Stabenau said he shops online frequently but always remembers: "They're after your money, and you want to spend as little as possible."
"People are fooling themselves if they believe otherwise," Stabenau said.
Stores aggressively try to retain loyal customers who generate the highest sales while discouraging bargain-hunter shoppers who are less profitable because they check many sites for the same product at the lowest price. They are known within the industry as "bottom feeders" who don't show any brand or merchant loyalty.
First-time buyers at a retailer could see higher prices than a firm's repeat customers, and retailers may not offer discounts to consumers who buy the same brands regularly without even looking at alternative products on the same site.
"It's really murky because companies are so loathe to discuss this," said researcher Joseph Turow. "This is a new model of shopping reality. The question becomes, what do people feel is right? Can't more openness be the order of the day?"
The study urged government to require retailers to disclose exactly what information is collected about customers and how the data is used, and it urged schools to teach students better how to protect themselves as consumers.
(Full Story)
Study: Shoppers Naive About Online Prices
By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer
Wed Jun 1,12:38 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Most American consumers don't realize Internet merchants and even traditional retailers sometimes charge different prices to different customers for the same products, according to a new survey.
The study, "Open to Exploitation," found nearly two-thirds of adult Internet users believed incorrectly it was illegal to charge different people different prices, a practice retailers call "price customization." More than two-thirds of people surveyed also said they believed online travel sites are required by law to offer the lowest airline prices possible.
The study, expected to be released Wednesday by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, is the latest to cast doubt on the notion of sophisticated consumers in the digital age.
It said 87 percent of people strongly objected to the practice of online stores charging people different prices for the same products based on information collected about their shopping habits.
"I don't think people understand this is being done," said Willi Stabenau, 23, a musician in New York who participated in the survey. "We don't let ourselves be tracked that way in any other facet of our lives. Why would you want that to happen while you're shopping?"
The Internet empowers careful shoppers to conveniently compare prices and features across thousands of stores. But it also enables businesses to quietly collect detailed records about a customer's behavior and preferences and set prices accordingly. Changing prices is generally lawful unless doing so discriminates against a consumer's race or gender or violates antitrust or price-fixing laws.
Stabenau said he shops online frequently but always remembers: "They're after your money, and you want to spend as little as possible."
"People are fooling themselves if they believe otherwise," Stabenau said.
Stores aggressively try to retain loyal customers who generate the highest sales while discouraging bargain-hunter shoppers who are less profitable because they check many sites for the same product at the lowest price. They are known within the industry as "bottom feeders" who don't show any brand or merchant loyalty.
First-time buyers at a retailer could see higher prices than a firm's repeat customers, and retailers may not offer discounts to consumers who buy the same brands regularly without even looking at alternative products on the same site.
"It's really murky because companies are so loathe to discuss this," said researcher Joseph Turow. "This is a new model of shopping reality. The question becomes, what do people feel is right? Can't more openness be the order of the day?"
The study urged government to require retailers to disclose exactly what information is collected about customers and how the data is used, and it urged schools to teach students better how to protect themselves as consumers.
(Full Story)
Post Confirms Deep Throat
In today's Washington post, they confirm that W. Mark Felt was indeed Deep Throat. It is a rather good article that unravels the mystery, but yet leaves many questions still unanswered.
FBI's No. 2 Was 'Deep Throat'
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 1, 2005; Page A01
Deep Throat, the secret source whose insider guidance was vital to The Washington Post's groundbreaking coverage of the Watergate scandal, was a pillar of the FBI named W. Mark Felt, The Post confirmed yesterday.
As the bureau's second- and third-ranking official during a period when the FBI was battling for its independence against the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, Felt had the means and the motive to help uncover the web of internal spies, secret surveillance, dirty tricks and coverups that led to Nixon's unprecedented resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, and to prison sentences for some of Nixon's highest-ranking aides.
Felt's identity as Washington's most celebrated secret source had been an object of speculation for more than 30 years until yesterday, when his role was revealed by his family in a Vanity Fair magazine article. Even Nixon was caught on tape speculating that Felt was "an informer" as early as February 1973, at a time when Deep Throat was supplying confirmation and context for some of The Post's most explosive Watergate stories.
But Felt's repeated denials, and the stalwart silence of the reporters he aided -- Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein -- kept the cloak of mystery drawn up around Deep Throat. In place of a name and a face, the source acquired a magic and a mystique.
He was the romantic truth teller half hidden in the shadows of a Washington area parking garage. This image was rendered indelibly by the dramatic best-selling memoir Woodward and Bernstein published in 1974, "All the President's Men." Two years later, in a blockbuster movie of the same name, actor Hal Holbrook breathed whispery urgency into the suspenseful late-night encounters between Woodward and his source.
For many Americans under 40, this is the most potent distillation of the complicated brew that was Watergate. Students who lack the time or interest to follow each element of the scandal's slow unraveling in comprehensive history books can quickly digest the vivid relationship of a nervous elder guiding a relentless reporter.
As dramatic as those portrayals were, they hewed closely to the truth, Woodward said.
"Mark Felt at that time was a dashing gray-haired figure," Woodward recalled, and his experience as an anti-Nazi spy hunter early in his career at the FBI had endowed him with a whole bag of counterintelligence tricks. Felt dreamed up the signal by which Woodward would summon him to a meeting (a flowerpot innocuously displayed on the reporter's balcony) and also hatched the countersign by which Felt could contact Woodward (a clock face inked on Page 20 of Woodward's daily New York Times).
"He knew he was taking a monumental risk," said Woodward, now an assistant managing editor of The Post whose catalogue of prizewinning and best-selling work has been built on the sort of confidential relationships he maintained with Deep Throat.
(Full Story)
For the full chronology of the Nixon scandal, see this link
FBI's No. 2 Was 'Deep Throat'
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 1, 2005; Page A01
Deep Throat, the secret source whose insider guidance was vital to The Washington Post's groundbreaking coverage of the Watergate scandal, was a pillar of the FBI named W. Mark Felt, The Post confirmed yesterday.
As the bureau's second- and third-ranking official during a period when the FBI was battling for its independence against the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, Felt had the means and the motive to help uncover the web of internal spies, secret surveillance, dirty tricks and coverups that led to Nixon's unprecedented resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, and to prison sentences for some of Nixon's highest-ranking aides.
Felt's identity as Washington's most celebrated secret source had been an object of speculation for more than 30 years until yesterday, when his role was revealed by his family in a Vanity Fair magazine article. Even Nixon was caught on tape speculating that Felt was "an informer" as early as February 1973, at a time when Deep Throat was supplying confirmation and context for some of The Post's most explosive Watergate stories.
But Felt's repeated denials, and the stalwart silence of the reporters he aided -- Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein -- kept the cloak of mystery drawn up around Deep Throat. In place of a name and a face, the source acquired a magic and a mystique.
He was the romantic truth teller half hidden in the shadows of a Washington area parking garage. This image was rendered indelibly by the dramatic best-selling memoir Woodward and Bernstein published in 1974, "All the President's Men." Two years later, in a blockbuster movie of the same name, actor Hal Holbrook breathed whispery urgency into the suspenseful late-night encounters between Woodward and his source.
For many Americans under 40, this is the most potent distillation of the complicated brew that was Watergate. Students who lack the time or interest to follow each element of the scandal's slow unraveling in comprehensive history books can quickly digest the vivid relationship of a nervous elder guiding a relentless reporter.
As dramatic as those portrayals were, they hewed closely to the truth, Woodward said.
"Mark Felt at that time was a dashing gray-haired figure," Woodward recalled, and his experience as an anti-Nazi spy hunter early in his career at the FBI had endowed him with a whole bag of counterintelligence tricks. Felt dreamed up the signal by which Woodward would summon him to a meeting (a flowerpot innocuously displayed on the reporter's balcony) and also hatched the countersign by which Felt could contact Woodward (a clock face inked on Page 20 of Woodward's daily New York Times).
"He knew he was taking a monumental risk," said Woodward, now an assistant managing editor of The Post whose catalogue of prizewinning and best-selling work has been built on the sort of confidential relationships he maintained with Deep Throat.
(Full Story)
For the full chronology of the Nixon scandal, see this link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
