Nov 28, 2012

JFK at 49: What We Know for Sure

Jefferson Morley

GET UPDATES FROM Jefferson Morley

JFK at 49: What We Know for Sure

Posted: 11/22/2012 2:02 pm

November 22 marks the 49th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The memory of the tragedy in Dallas seems to be fading in America's collective consciousness. Few people younger than myself (I'm 54) have any memory of the day it actually happened. 9/11 has certainly replaced 11/22 as the time stamp of American catastrophic angst.
Yet the JFK story still acts as a gravitational vortex in America's pop culture galaxy. ABC News released of audio tapes of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy conversations shortly after her husband's death. The factually grounded but over the top Jesse Ventura blamed JFK's assassination on "the same old military industrial complex." Stephen King published a time-travel epiccalled November 22, 1963. Bill O'Reilly wrote an uncharacteristically wimpy JFK book. And next year, Tom Hanks plans to release a big-budget assassination drama called Parkland, the hospital where JFK died.
In this media spectacle, the Internet is a mixed blessing. The Web keeps the JFK story alive by providing a platform and audience for ever more fantastical theories about the death of the 35thpresident. More constructively, the Web has made the government's troubling records about JFK's death available for the first time to millions people outside of Washington and the federal government. I believe this diffusion of knowledge is slowly clarifying the JFK story for everybody.
Two years ago, I addressed the question, "What Do We Really Know About JFK?" Since then five new developments are worth noting.

1) American cultural elites continue to resist the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
Some of America's headiest popular culture thinkers have started weighing in on the conspiracy question. King told documentarian Errol Morris that he found JFK conspiracy scenarios aselusive as UFOs. Malcolm Gladwell endorsed statistician Bill James' probabilistic take on Kennedy's death.
Gladwell and James argue, in effect, that so many guns were fired in America in the 20th century that was only a matter of time before one of those many bullets would randomly intersect with the path of a passing president. (Thankfully Grantland editor Bill Simmons expressed some skepticism about this cheerful evasion of politics.)
Robert Caro, epic biographer of Lyndon Johnson, is more judicious. With the release of his fourth volume on LBJ, Caro said he had not found "a single hint" to implicate LBJ in Kennedy's death, as one popular and (I believe, unfounded) conspiracy theory holds. Caro, however, added that he did not attempt to reach a final judgment on whether somebody else besides LBJ might have been behind JFK's assassination.

2) Conspiratorial suspicions abound in popular opinion and on the Internet, but the fact remains there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of specific perpetrators of JFK assassination conspiracy.
The only JFK theory to have gained much attention in the past year is a variation on the unconvincing "Fidel Castro did it" theory. This scenario was first advocated by CIA sources within hours of JFK's death in 1963. Now it has been updated and modified by Brian Latell, a former Cuba specialist at the CIA.
Latell's scenario is actually more a criminal negligence theory, than a conspiracy theory. The Cuban leader played a "passive but knowing" role in JFK's assassination, he alleges. As I reported in Salon last spring, corroboration for these claims is lacking. Even the CIA's own in-house publication, Studies in Intelligence, agreed.
Latell is on firmer ground in suggesting that the prevailing media discourse of "conspiracy" serves to obscure other possible explanations of JFK's death, including negligence.
But his allegations advertently highlighted a truth that his admirers have overlooked:.

3) There is more evidence of CIA negligence in JFK's death than Cuban complicity: A lot more.
The truth is this: Lee Harvey Oswald was well known to a handful of top CIA officials shortly before JFK was killed.
Read this internal CIA cable (not declassified until 1993) and you will see that that accused assassin's biography--his travels, politics, intentions, and state of mind--were known to top CIA officials as of October 10, 1963 six weeks before JFK went to Dallas for a political trip.
While Latell speculates about what Castro knew, CIA records document what Langley knew.
In the fall of 1963, Oswald, a 23-year old ex-Marine traveled from New Orleans to Mexico City. When he contacted the Soviet embassy to apply for a visa to travel to Cuba, a CIA surveillance team picked up his telephone calls. A tape recording indicated Oswald had been referred to a consular officer suspected of being a KGB assassination specialist.
Winston Scott, the respected chief of the CIA station in Mexico City, was concerned. He sent a query to CIA headquarters, asking who is this guy Oswald?
Scott's question was referred to the CIA's Counterintelligence (CI) Staff. With responsibility for detecting threats to the agency operations, the CI staff had been watching Oswald ever since he had defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959.
A senior official of the CI staff named Jane Roman retrieved the CIA's fat file on Oswald, which contained dozens of documents including intercepted correspondence and FBI reports. Roman and other senior staffers drafted a response which said, in effect, don't worry: Oswald's marriage and two year residence in the Soviet Union had helped him grow up. Oswald was "maturing."
This optimistic assessment was personally read and endorsed by no less than five senior CIA officers. They are identified by name on the last page of the cable. Their names--Roman, Tom Karamessines, Bill Hood, John Whitten (identified by his pseudonym "Scelso"), and Betty Egeter--were kept from the American public for thirty years. Why? Because all five reported to deputy director Richard Helms or to Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton in late 1963. Because of "national security."
Their inaccurate and complacent assessment of Oswald had real world consequences.
In Mexico City, Win Scott never learned about Oswald's recent arrest or the fact that he gone public with his support for Castro. He stopped investigating Oswald. In Washington, the FBI responded to the CIA cable to taking Oswald off an "alert" list of people of special interest to the Bureau. The Oswald cable contributed to the breakdown of presidential security in Dallas.
After JFK's death, Angleton and Helms kept mum about their subordinates' pre-assassination interest in Oswald. They responded airily or inaccurately to inquiries from the Warren Commission. Of the CIA hands who had vetted Oswald before JFK's death only one, John Whitten, attempted to find out what had gone wrong.
Whitten is a rare hero in the JFK assassination story. He was chief of the Mexico Desk in the clandestine service in 1963, and by all accounts "a good spy." His specialty was counterespionage investigations--how to determine someone's ultimate allegiances. That was exactly what the U.S. government needed to know about Oswald after JFK was killed.
Whitten tried to mount an internal CIA investigation into the accused assassin, especially his contacts among pro-and anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans. As Whitten later recounted to Congress, he was blocked by Angleton's hostility and then effectively fired by the icy Helms.
Whitten retired and moved to Europe. He died in a Pennsylvania nursing home in 2001, his sacrifice in service to truth forgotten by his country.

4) There is no proof of a CIA conspiracy in JFK's death. There is much evidence of CIA negligence.
The problem originated at the top of the CIA. Senior aides to Helms and Angleton had been tracking Oswald closely for years and failed to recognize the threat he posed to the president. When the Warren Commission started asking questions Helms and Angleton provided inaccurate or deceptive statements.
Both men came out ahead with the succession of Lyndon Johnson to the White House. In 1966, LBJ named Helms as CIA director, a job in which he gained a well-deserved reputation as The Man Who Kept the Secrets.
Helms played an inscrutable role in the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon and later pled guilty to lying to Congress.
This "gentlemanly planner of assassinations" died in 2002 leaving behind a posthumous memoir, co-written by William Hood, assuring readers that Oswald acted alone. To defend his good name, his widow, Cynthia Helms, has just published a memoir.
Angleton remained chief of the Counterintelligence Staff until 1974 when he was disgraced by the revelation he had overseen a massive illegal spying program on Americans and (with the FBI) a sinister program of political harassment known as COINTELPRO.
Angleton's exploits have inspired a small library of books and several Hollywood movies, including The Good Shepherd starring Matt Damon. Angleton's monitoring of Lee Harvey Oswald from October 1959 to October1963 was first documented in historian John Newman's groundbreaking 1995 book, Oswald and the CIA.
I'm not expert in law but I think Dick Helms and Jim Angleton and some their aides were guilty of criminal negligence in JFK's wrongful. It is hard to say for sure because:

5. Official secrecy still shrouds the CIA's role in the JFK tragedy.
One of the most promising JFK developments of the past two years is the Kennedy family's pledge to release 54 boxes of long-secret files held by Robert Kennedy, including those on Cuba. These records may well shed new light on JFK's private overtures to Castro in late 1963 and RFK's enduring suspicions of a CIA-Mafia conspiracy.
Otherwise, the situation concerning JFK records has actually worsened in the past two years. The Obama administration took office with ambitious plans to declassify some 404 million long-secret government documents by 2014 -- but some 1,100 secret JFK records now held by the CIA won't be among them.
The administration's National Declassification Center (NDC) announced on camera in August that they would not declassify this batch ancient JFK assassination records -- most of the 50 years old -- any time soon.
The CIA's priorities are peculiar but hardly surprising. The agency is releasing long-secret records about the Katyn Forest massacre in the Soviet Union in 1942 and UFO's -- but not an estimated 15,000 pages of material related to murder of a sitting American president. (As I reported in Salon last year, these 1,100 documents are extraordinarily sensitive. The CIA says they won't be made public until 2017 at the earliest.)
The CIA's extreme -- some would say suspicious -- claims of JFK secrecy have been defended by the Obama Justice Department and the some federal judges. Nine years after it was filed myFreedom of Information Action Act lawsuit for the records of George Joannides, a deceased counterintelligence officer who reported to Helms in 1963, is still pending in federal appeals court in Washington. In a September 2012 affidavit, information coordinator Michelle Meeks said the CIA will reveal nothing about Joannides' actions in the fall of 1963 -- for reasons of "national security."
Such is the state of JFK at 49. Official secrecy and conspiracy theories are prevalent. The CIA's responsibility is hidden. Accountability is thwarted. And historical truth is elusive.

Jefferson Morley is a former Washington Post reporter and author of Our Man in Mexico; Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA. He blogs at, a social media Web site aimed at improving online discussion of the JFK assassination story. For more information, visit "JFK at 50: Memory Truth and Meaning.

Follow Jefferson Morley on Twitter:

Nov 26, 2012

Rolling Stones Start Up Reunion With London Blowout Including Mick Taylor.....Everyone I Know Has Been Waiting For Mick Taylor

Rolling Stones play 'extraordinary show'

The Rolling Stones celebrated 50 years on the road with a concert at the O2 arena in London.
Neil McCormick of the Daily Telegraph was at the concert. Speaking about the band's history, he told The Today Programme: "They were the first rock group in a modern sense to have a singer that didn't play an instrument. That was very unusual.
"But also, they were playing for the love of the music - and they formed what is the idea of a modern rock group."
He added that Sunday evening's concert was "an extraordinary show".
"The playing was as good as ever... they played a fantastic selection of material," he said.


Rolling Stones Start Up Reunion With London Blowout

by Paul Sexton, London  |   November 26, 2012 11:30 EST
50th Anniversary Kicks Off at O2 ... Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor Make Rare Cameos ... Mary J. Blige and Jeff Beck Guest Star ... 150 Minutes of Sweaty Rock n' Roll
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 25:(EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE)    Mick Jagger, Ronnie Wood, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts of the Rolling Stones perform at 02 Arena on November 25, 2012 in London, England.  (Photo by Dave J Hogan/Getty Images)
Dave J Hogan/Getty Images

Artists in this Article

The Rolling Stones

Related Articles

Rolling Stones Rip Through Paris Club Set
The Rolling Stones warmed up for their upcoming string of arena dates with a raucous 12-song gig at the LaTrabendo club in Paris on Thursday.
Rolling Stones Q&A: 'This Juggernaut Is Almost Unstoppable'
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones talk to Billboard abour their upcoming live shows and their plans for 2013.
Rolling Stones Bringing Party to Brooklyn
As exclusively reported by Billboard back in August, the Rolling Stones will play a date at Brooklyn's Barclays Center next month - and it's the opening U.S. date of the group's "50 and Counting" celebration.
Rolling Stones Flee After Fans Invade Stage in 1965 'Charlie' Clip
In 1965, Rolling Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham commissioned director Peter Whitehead to shoot cinema verite footage of the group's two-day September Irish tour in an effort, as he put it, to let the lads get their "celluloid legs" and see who most captivated the camera offstage. The footage was collected into a slapdash film called "Charlie Is My Darling" (because the Stones' taciturn drummer was deemed most camera-friendly) that was shopped the following year but never officially released or aired -- although wobbly bootlegs have been circulating for decades -- and the reels sat in film cans, largely untouched, for more than 40 years.
Rolling Stones Arouse Madness in 'Doom and Gloom' Video
Still hell raising after all these years, the Rolling Stones unleashed a rawk-ous video this week for their "Doom and Gloom" single. Starring "Girl With a Dragon Tattoo" actress Noomi Rapace as a zombie-shooting, breast-flashing bad girl who appears to be losing her mind, the video was shot in a Paris warehouse and directed by Swedish filmmaker Jonas Akerlun.
"It took us 50 years to get from Dartford to Greenwich," said Mick Jagger to 20,000 close friends on Sunday night, at what you might call the lip of the 02 Arena stage. The Rolling Stones were in the process of laughing in the face of logic with an extraordinary, 150-minute celebration of their 50 peerless years.

Roll With It

This was the first of two 02 dates, with a second on Thursday, that have been widely pilloried in the British press for their exorbitant ticket prices. Jagger would soon acknowledge that discussion by looking to the top tiers of the arena and asking "How you doing up in the cheap seats? They're not that cheap though are they, that's the trouble."

For all the controversy, the fact is that you never hear anyone coming away from a Stones gig complaining that they didn't get value for money, and so it was again here. Eventually, that is. Despite some engaging guest performances including the much-reported reunions with former bandmates Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor, the core quartet didn't hit top speed until the show's second half. When they did, they were untouchable.

They were introduced by an irreverent film tribute featuring both "punters" and famous fans like Johnny Depp, Iggy Pop and Elton John, then by two files of black-clad drummers marching through the aisles. Augmented initially only by stalwart companions Chuck Leavell (keyboards) and Darryl Jones (bass), it was a delight to hear the Stones travelling back to their first first year of recording, 1963, to revive their second-ever single, "I Wanna Be Your Man." Dartford rhythm and blues was alive and well again.

Performing under a giant red lip, with a giant video screen behind them and a semi-circular walkway out front to stretch out on, they continued in '60s vein with "Get Off Of My Cloud," "It's All Over Now" and "Paint It Black."

Vocalists Lisa Fischer and Bernard Fowler joined the line-up stage left, and before long Mary J. Blige was making the first of the evening's cameos to recreate Merry Clayton's soulful wail on "Gimme Shelter." If the overall performance was somewhat rough and ready, she and Jagger shared some impassioned vocal empathy.

Perhaps the most noticeable aspect of the opening exchanges was the role of Keith Richards, playing mainly rhythm as Ronnie Wood frowned in concentration at taking so many lead lines. That began to change on "All Down The Line," before their contemporary Jeff Beck came on for a full-throttle, first-ever performance of Don Nix's blues favorite previously recorded by Beck, "I'm Going Down." Suddenly the 02 was a sweaty R&B club.

In a middle section of depth and variety, the "Bridges To Babylon" track "Out Of Control" packed a powerful punch, the new songs "One Last Shot" and "Doom & Gloom" held up well, and Wyman joined the proceedings for both "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll" and "Honky Tonk Women." Richards, in supple vocal form, seemed to take great confidence from his familiar mid-set spotlight for "Before They Make Me Run" and "Happy" and, at last, became the Human Riff we yearned for.

Perhaps the unique highlight, though, came when Mick Taylor, the guitarist who helped change the very fabric of the Stones in just five years with them from 1969, rejoined for an exciting, epic version of "Midnight Rambler." The grins and pats on the back from Messrs Richards and Wood were heartfelt proof that it was pretty special for them too.

With Charlie Watts keeping up an almost impossibly vigorous backbeat, the show was now en route to glory. That was thanks in disproportionate measure to the incredible showmanship of a frontman who roared like a vocal leviathan and sprinted back and forth in as brilliant a display of gymnastic showmanship as he has ever given.

They performed the closing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" like a band playing for their lives, and with so much still in the tank that one thing became clear: the Stone age does not end here.
Subscribe to Billboard magazine today!

  • This is some terrible reporting.  Hate to nitpick, but it's not the "02" arena, it's the letter "O" and the number "2" - "O2".  And the new RS song isn't called "One Last Shot," it's "One MORE Shot".
    Then you write, "the Stones travelling back to their first first year of recording."  Their first FIRST year?  Not their first SECOND year?  What the hell, man!?  Who's proofreading this shit? This was one of the clunkiest articles I've ever read.  The Stones deserve better.

  • Allen Levi
    Nov 26 (Reuters) - The Rolling Stones reunited for their first gig in more than five years late on Sunday and played over 20 hits, from their 1963 hit "I Wanna Be Your Man" to this year's "Doom and Gloom".Following is their full set list:
    1. I Wanna Be Your Man
    2. Get Off of My Cloud
    3. It's All Over Now
    4. Paint It Black
    5. Gimme Shelter (with Mary J. Blige)
    6. Wild Horses
    7. All Down The Line
    8. I'm Going Down (with Jeff Beck)
    9. Out Of Control
    10. One More Shot
    11. Doom and Gloom
    12. It's Only Rock'n'Roll (with Bill Wyman)
    13. Honky Tonk Women (with Bill Wyman)
    14. Before They Make Me Run
    15. Happy
    16. Midnight Rambler (with Mick Taylor)
    17. Miss You
    18. Start Me Up
    19. Tumbling Dice
    21. Sympathy For The Devil

Sharing Successful!

Share again!You've successfully shared using!
Welcome to!

Molly Rielley: Beautiful Lady, Beautiful Soul and Beautiful Friend...remembered today by her friends at the Grape Street Dog Park in San Diego

Sunday morning, November 25, 2012---Grape Street Dog Park San Diego, California.

Molly Rielley: beautiful lady, beautiful soul and beautiful friend...remembered today by her friends at the Grape Street Dog Park in San Diego.

On a cloudy morning in San Diego at one of Molly's favorite places her friends were remembering her passionate and friendly spirit as they admired the memorial for her today at the Grape Street Dog Park in the South Park section of San Diego. 

Everyone remarked how well the pictures posted on one of the stately Eucalyptus tree in the park showed off Molly's friendly smile and spirit.  She was not just attractive to look at on the outside but her personality was magnificent, as well.  Her friends were sad and asking themselves what clues they missed as they spoke of her passing earlier this week.  She had given everyone she knew friendship and compassion and the friends admiring the memorial and her memory wanted to give the same back to her. 

All of the people spoke of her immense consideration for her friends and for everyone she knew.  "She was really very considerate, she never wanted to cause any problem or worry for anyone; she was just a great friend," everyone agreed.

Her friends wanted to have a memorial for her today at one of her favorite places as her family will be having a private remembrance later on this week.

Molly recently moved back to San Diego from Orange County and she always enjoyed going to the dog park with her dog, Daffy.  She was a regular fixture there, going almost every day.  Everyone knew her and her fabulous smile--everyone is sad. 

The pictures of her depicted her infectious smile.  I particularly liked the one of her holding her dog as if it was her baby and her pride and joy.  It is easy to see they were a regular couple and in the picture both of them were smiling ear to ear, the white feet posed perfectly for the camera.  One of her good friends will be looking after her beloved companion.  Daffy is a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, also called a "toller."

The flowers in vases, the pictures on the tree--her radiant smiling face--it was easy to see she was well liked.  A perfect setting for a beautiful memorial for a beautiful lady.  My heart goes out to her, her family and her friends...and her doggy, Daffy.

Nov 24, 2012

Steve Pauling Shirt Class---I Want to Go!!!


 I've copied this class information from the internet and pasted it in my blog.  I can see from my search stats many people are looking for it.  I would also like to take this class but I do not know if I am qualified.  As I have said many times I am getting pretty good at constructing a shirt but it is not even close to the "fine" category.

I am going to go and see this place.

for Adults


Adult classes are open to people ages 13 and older while the minimum age for Sewing Labs and Open Sewing Labs is 8. By registering for a class it is assumed you have read and agree to the Lounge's Registration and Cancellation Policies.

Fine Shirt Making

A fine shirt is a classic dress shirt made by using the traditional methods of fine tailors around the world. Students will take a typical shirt pattern and elevate construction methods to the highest level, employing techniques used to assemble the most exquisite custom-made dress shirts rather than follow pattern instructions.The techniques you learn in this class can be applied to other types of clothing thus enhancing your garment construction skills. Please note the following:
•This is an intensive five-session class with additional work required outside of each class to complete a fine shirt.
•Students must use an appropriate instructor-approved pattern which they will alter for fine tailoring techniques.
•This is a class for intermediate to advanced sewers. Students MUST be familiar with reading a pattern, adjusting tension and, in particular, precision sewing.
Minimum Skill Level: Intermediate
Times: September 25 & October 2, 9, 16 and 23 from 6 - 9 (4 openings) or
October 10, 17, 24, 31 and November 7 from 10 - 1 (2 openings)
Cost: $180
Instructor: Steve Pauling

Nov 23, 2012

Showing sympathy for Palestinians is career suicide for western journalists

Showing sympathy for Palestinians is career suicide for western journalists

Events are sanitized so as not to be controversial and upset the wrong people by humanizing the conflict -- for fear that it will make you look sympathetic to the Palestinians.

By Sherine Tadros
20 November 2012

The biggest problem for journalists is in fact that it is so obviously an unbalanced conflict -- there is no equating Israel with Gaza, Palestinian fighters with the Israeli Army and rockets with missile strikes.
IT'S INCREDIBLE to watch this war being covered on the inside, as it should have been during the previous war, by hundreds of foreign as well as local journalists. In 2008 Israel and Egypt sealed their borders confining the journalists to the outskirts of the war inside the Strip. Myself and Ayman Mohyeldin (now NBC Foreign Affairs Correspondent) were left to describe what was happening to the outside world.
We couldn't cover every strike, every tragedy, we couldn't be everywhere and we weren't awake 24 hours a day. Now, Gaza is under the microscope, whether via social media, print, radio, TV -- there is no ignoring what is raging within.
I have my own theories as to why Israel decided not to lock out the journalists this time around, but that is for another post.
Gaza is not a particularly hard story to cover; it's happening all around you. The biggest problem for journalists is in fact that it is so obviously an unbalanced conflict -- there is no equating Israel with Gaza, Palestinian fighters with the Israeli Army and rockets with missile strikes.
But it's precisely that which journalists struggle with. We are taught to be neutral, impartial, balanced. But this is not a balanced conflict and in the pursuit to even things out, some have ended up reporting the wrong story, emphasizing things they would normally not emphasize in the interest of looking balanced.
This week I heard a TV correspondent, who I very much respect and admire, throw back to the studio with the words "as Palestinians call it, the Israeli siege on Gaza." She was standing in Gaza City where Israeli ground forces were surrounding the perimeter of the Strip. Warships surrounded the sea and drones and F16s patrolled the skies above. If there was ever a time to call Gaza under siege with certainty, it was then.
Yet as she stood talking about the strikes and the people killed, her need to be balanced at the end made her unable to tell the cold bold truth.
There is a general problem with media when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The need to sanitize events so as not to be controversial and upset the wrong people, the lack of humanizing the conflict for fear that it will make you look sympathetic or worse empathetic to the Palestinians, which could be career suicide. But not being bold and telling it how it is ultimately is a disservice to the truth and to journalism.
There are some simple facts about this story that I challenge anyone to disagree with yet are so often missing from coverage:
Hamas is not Gaza. Gaza has over 1.5 million Palestinians living in it. There are mothers and fathers and brothers and babies. There are people that have no interest in politics. Gaza is a society, not an island of terrorists. You cannot use the words Gaza and Hamas interchangeably.
Similarly, Hamas is the ruling authority in Gaza -- there is no such thing as a Hamas school, or a Hamas police station or a Hamas ministry. These are adjectives are used by Israel to justify the targeting of these sites. Many if not most who work in these institutions are not members of the Hamas organization. There is also a difference between a member of Hamas and a Palestinian fighter. Again a distinction is so often lost.
But the thing journalists seem to be struggling most with right now is what constitutes a legitimate target. A house with 10 family members, including kids, women and old people is struck with a missile. They all die. There is initial outrage. But then the Israeli army says it was targeting a "Hamas official."
Suddenly the coverage is different. The line about the Hamas official is put into every script without question or context -- all is well now because initially the story seemed unbalanced, too risky to report because it sounded too bad to be true (even though in 2008 Israel shelled the Samouni house killing over 25 members of the same family).
Does anyone stop and ask: even if there was a Hamas official inside the house, is killing ten innocent civilians to take out one official who is obviously under Israeli surveillance justified? Isn't that exactly what the Goldstone report highlighted? Israel has a choice when it decides to hit whether this strike is worth the gain -- if the aim is to take the target out, can they achieve it another time when he is not with his entire family?
If the situation was reversed and Palestinian fighters struck a house of an Israeli Army commander, killing him, his mother, his wife and four children, would the media so blindly accept the justification of this being a legitimate target?
The missing context is key. Hamas rocket fire is not a response to the last missile; it's a reaction to six years of siege, bombardment, assassinations, entrapment. The missiles from Israel are not in response to today's rocket fire at Ashkelon; it's the years of rocket fire on communities in Southern Israel. The trigger to this war was an assassination, but the war has been coming for at least two and a half years.


Assemble 12 noon Downing St March to Israeli Embassy. Details here...


Please DONATE NOW whatever you can to Stop the War's Gaza Campaign Appeal. We need your help. DONATE HERE...

World's most expensive footballer Cristiano Ronaldo donates €1.5mn to children in Gaza

World's most expensive footballer Cristiano Ronaldo donates €1.5mn to children in Gaza

It's not the first time Ronaldo has given to Gaza. Last year he sold most of his sports shoes at a Real Madrid Foundation auction which was also dedicated to raising funds for schools in Gaza.

21 November 2012

Real Madrid iconic forward Cristiano Ronaldo has donated €1.5 million to Palestinian children in Gaza, the Arabic version of the club’s Classico network reports.
The star forward gave his Golden Boot which he earned in 2011 to the Real Madrid foundation. The Spanish giants in their turn sold it at auction and will now donate the funds to schools in Gaza
According to various reports, the Real Madrid Foundation has helped to build 167 schools in 66 countries.
It’s not the first time Ronaldo has given to Gaza. Last year he sold most of his sports shoes at a Real Madrid Foundation auction which was also dedicated to raising funds for schools in Gaza.
Ronaldo became the most expensive footballer in history after moving from Manchester United to Real Madrid in a transfer worth €93.9 million. In addition, his contract with Real Madrid, in which he is paid €12 million per year, makes him one of the highest-paid footballers in the world.

from  chloe louise.......

the children of Palestine want to sing "Happy," too..........

Nov 14, 2012

police chase in south park San Diego today--right through the dog park


The Grape Street Dog Park in the South Park area of San Diego, California, sees a police chase today, November 14, 2012

Right, I was sitting there, enjoying the sun, ready to read a page in my book but I had to look up as the police sirens kept getting closer and closer--dangerously loud and close.  It's time to get up and move!  Sitting at the south end, the next thing I knew here comes a white SUV turning towards the north end of the Grape Street Dog Park parking lot with 7 police black and whites in hot pursuit.  Really, there is no where to go, literally, except down the canyon---the road ends---its the Balboa Park Trails.

On one side I saw my friend walking towards me with his dog--I saw the SUV and the police heading towards me across the grass--it was surreal.  We got out of the way just in time--I curtailed my dog quickly by his collar as the white SUV plowed right through the fence and barely missed parked cars at he other end of the parking lot.  All of the police followed in a line, right through the park, sirens blaring, lights flashing.  One police car veered off towards the other end of the parking lot--also through parked cars--but the white SUV got  away.

Too bad the police did not block off the parking lot--the Grape Street is a dead end--Grape dead ends into 28th--about a 2 block length with perpendicular parking, then its the fence, the park, the golf course and the canyons.  But really, if the street had been blocked by cop cars would that have been even worse?  The out of control vehicle seemed to be driven by a desperate individual.

It was before rush hour...

That would be around three o'clock at the dog park when the after work crowd starts to come in.  As it was, I'm saying about 2:30--there park was sparsely populated--the dog walkers getting in their last digs before the evening gang and dogs come in.  I did feel so sad for one lady, one real good dog walker and regular--she was visibly shaken--her face showed an exhausted, traumatized, scared expression--so different from her usual calm and controlled composure. 

Gosh--when it was over everyone was pushed back up against the golf course fence just trying to regain their composure and figure out what happened.

It was too much excitement--sometimes that place is packed and there are families with little kids and babies and dogs and older people.  I hope people were not hurt anywhere.  Thank goodness for the SDPD

What a scary scene!

 this is basically where the guy came careening across the lawn of the park
chloelouise--I should have tried to take a picture or a movie with my phone but I literally did not have time--the people were terrorized--I felt sorry for them.

pony tailed women:  grey hair, over 50 with bangs.......why do men cheat

Blogger Blames Holly Petraeus' Hair for Sex Scandal: The Worst Take on Anything Ever

(Getty Images)There are so many questions that need to be answered in this whole Petraeus scandal. There's the hard news question: "Why didn't we know about this sooner? And the tabloid question: "Were the Whistleblower and the Biographer both in love with Petraeus?" And the human interest question: "Why do women love in men in power?" And the rhetorical question: "Wait, that guy is a womanizer?"

And then there's the question that nobody, save for one blogger, would ever think to ask: "Did General Petraeus stray because of his wife's hair?"

A writer called "Blonde Bombshell," who is smartly remaining anonymous, posted a "thinkpiece" about the scandal today. It required multiple readings to verify it wasn't satire, and still I'm still not 100 percent.

You have to go deep into the internet mines to find Blonde Bombshell's words of wisdom. I had entered in a search engine "Petraeus" and "Hair"--two terms I will never put together again--when I found on this story on page three of the search results. Blonde Bombshell's op-ed appears on a blog belonging to a guy named William Briggs, a self-titled "Statistician to the Stars." The blog's' readership, based on the comments, is decent and includes at least once person who's really paranoid about the KBG. The site itself appears to mix opinion, with news stories, and the occasional guest blogger. That's where Blonde Bombshell comes in, an anonymous "guest-blogger" (sure) with hot-tempered opinions on hair, and its marriage-ruining properties.
She begins:
"My heartfelt condolences extend to Mrs. Patraeus, who seems to be, judging from the pictures obtained by the press, a cheery, good-natured woman."
Snap. That's like calling a woman "handsome." You see where she's going here and it isn't nice.

"The paramour of General Petraeus wears a low chignon which indicates that her hair has some length. The wife has a chin-length cut that is ubiquitous among professional women.
When she was younger, she had beautiful long straight locks typical of the time."

Never mind you that Blonde Bomshell writes like Buffallo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, she's also spent her Monday morning hunting down old pictures of Holly Petraeus with long hair. Somebody's hobby is sound-proofing dungeons. (Ahem, electric neon finger points to Blonde Bombshell.)

While BB admits that it's "crass and unfair" to suggest that General Petraeus was driven to long-haired mistresses because of his wife's bob, that is exactly what she's suggesting. In case you don't get that, she posts a picture of Paula Broadwell with the caption "Paula Broadwell with long hair."

Listen up people, she's only going to break it down once:

A young woman may cut and grow her hair experimentally, but she is often 'growing it out for the wedding' so she has more 'styling options' for the big day. After the wedding, and sometimes before the honeymoon, many women submit to the barber shears. After baby is born, many more go in for 'mom hair' (yes, it's a term, like 'mom jeans') that is wash-and-go. If a woman wears her hair incorrectly out of cycle, she will start hear people asking about when is she going to donate it to one of the organizations that collect hair to make wigs for cancer patients."
What is happening.

A few weeks ago I saw a woman on the street dressed in business clothes with thinning hair, but she kept it long. She was able to devise a flattering hairstyle that didn't make her look like a plucked mole...My advice to women is to go ahead and grow your hair if you'd like. Maintaining long hair is not difficult or expensive."
So to backpedal, with regards to that question in the headline, I think B.B. is saying, "Yes, Petraeus cheated on his wife because of her hair."
On the bottom of Blonde Bombshell's guest post is an editor's note that reads: "The well-married Bombshell has lovely long hair." Someone seems hell-bent on sticking it to Holly Petraeus, which is unnecessary, unkind, and most of all, really, really weird. 

speaking of the power of the hairdo:  does this philosophy also apply to donald trump and the Republican party ?

pony tailed women:  grey hair, over 50 with bangs.......why do men cheat