...operating performance for the month of May was lower than anticipated, with total advertising revenues down 8.5% year over year and newspaper ad revenues down 9.9%. We are increasingly concerned about the pace of decline for print advertising.

...

We believe that secular declines in the newspaper industry will continue to affect top-line growth during the intermediate term. The rating could be lowered if trends related to print advertising remain in line with what was reported in the past few months, suggesting that annual revenue declines may exceed the low single-digit area...

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods — like voluntary charity — are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.

"What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.

"John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.

Ali said people had been afraid in their own homes because of al Qaeda. I asked if he had fought Americans and Ali laughed and said through Wallach, "What kind of question is that?" I chuckled. Unfortunately, we had to go to other meetings, so the time for taping was short. In closing, I asked Abu Ali if there was something he would like to say to Americans. The markets that had been closed under al Qaeda were bustling around us.

Ali thought for a moment as some local people tried to interrupt him with greetings, and he said, "I ask one thing," and now I paraphrase Ali's words: "After the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces are ready, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces."

"I will tell the Americans this," I said. Ali seemed satisfied as he went off with another American unit. We loaded back into the Stryker and headed to other interesting meetings on other interesting matters, all dealing with the grinding gears of winning or losing this war, and with catching and killing al Qaeda.

Omar bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader's fourth son, has married a British woman he met in Egypt last fall, British media and colleagues of the bride said today.

Jane Felix-Browne, 51, of Moulton-Cheshire, in northwest England, was in Egypt for medical treatment of multiple sclerosis, the Times and Sun newspapers reported. She told the newpapers she met bin Laden, 27, while riding a horse near Egypt's Great Pyramid.

This would be her sixth marriage, and she has three children by previous marriages. It would be Omar bin Laden's second marriage.

She said Omar last saw his father in 2000 when they were both in Afghanistan, Felix-Browne said. "He left his father because he did not feel it was right to fight or to be in an army. Omar was training to be a soldier and he was only 19."

Felix-Browne was hoping to arrange a visa for her new husband to visit Britain, but acknowledged it would be difficult.

A new campaign has just begun, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.

An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a U.S. Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha, according to a report.

The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.

"Mr. Keen argues that what the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment. In his view Web 2.0 is changing the cultural landscape and not for the better. By undermining mainstream media and intellectual property rights, he says, it is creating a world in which we will live to see the bulk of our music coming from amateur garage bands, our movies and television from glorified YouTubes, and our news made up of hyperactive celebrity gossip, served up as mere dressing for advertising. This is what happens, he suggests, when ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.

By undermining mainstream media and intellectual property rights, he says, it is creating a world in which we will live to see the bulk of our music coming from amateur garage bands, our movies and television from glorified YouTubes, and our news made up of hyperactive celebrity gossip, served up as mere dressing for advertising.

Is Web 2.0 harming the establishment media, as Keen claims? Yep, you bet. Are we dumber as a result? Well, that's up to us finally, isn't it?

A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge's 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib's argument that Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.

According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.

Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Elkhatib's Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said "Meat Products Not Available."

"There is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts. It allowed other franchises in the area to refuse to carry any breakfast sandwiches at all, when merely relocating the stores, or in one case merely rearranging the displays, would have allowed them to carry the full line," Rovner wrote.

She added that "there is no evidence that there was any change in corporate policy, or even regional policy, on the matter."

But when the announcer declared that a choir would be singing "God Bless America" (which supplanted "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" for seventh inning stretches after 9/11), I faced a dilemma: Should I stand with my family or remain seated to protest the gratuitous patriotic cheerleading?

I read about the genocide against Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans, and learned how, even in current times, the U.S. armed and supported oppressive dictatorships from Southeast Asia to Latin America to the Middle East. The knowledge gave me headaches that crying didn't relieve, but I kept reading. And because school, church and government had covered over all the blood and injustice with pretty patriotic myths about a Good America blessed by an ethnocentric god, my youthful disappointment and anger blazed even hotter.

Once when I was a graduate student in philosophy at Duke, someone on my Durham summer league softball team inquired what I was doing for Independence Day.

"Asking forgiveness for a nation built on slavery, genocide, and war," I replied.

Our 40-something pitcher, who worked for the phone company and had taken me fishing a few times, glared at me. "If you hate America so much, why don't you just leave?"

"Because I want to watch this system burn."

I love the land and people and potential of America. But rather than worship this nation, I'm asking it to live up to its ideals and even embrace some new ones.

The Tribune carried an interesting story recently about a particularly heinous double murder in Knoxville, Tenn. The two young victims, who were kidnapped, raped and killed, were white. The three men and a woman who stand charged with the crime are black.

The story posed some difficult questions about how this country deals with crimes that have a racial overtone — when someone of one race kills someone of another race. And it asked the question: What is a hate crime?

The definitions in federal law and various state laws differ, but generally a hate crime is considered to be any crime that is motivated by bias based on race, religion or other factors. Hate crime laws permit tougher punishment based on the motivation and broader social impact of the offense.

So did the Knoxville case qualify? "There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, a special counsel to the Knox County prosecutor. "It was a terrible crime, a horrendous crime, but race was not a motive."

Yet Mary Newsom, the mother of one of the victims, told a Tribune reporter: "If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime."

Hate crime laws may be justified when the crime has a broad societal impact. A brick through the window of the first black family on a block is more than a prank. But hate crime laws raise concerns when they punish criminals differently not because of what they do, but because of what they think. In the view of Northwestern University law professor Martin Redish, it's the equivalent of tacking on extra punishment if a crime is meant to promote the cause of communism. Beat a man because he looks rich, or because he's got a Republican bumper sticker on his car, and there's no hate crime. Beat him because you think he's Jewish, or Cuban, or (under this bill) gay, and there is.

Violence ought to be punished regardless of the motive. Hate crimes are not acceptable — but neither is any other crime.

A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

FILIBUSTERS....I wonder how many Americans understand that you can't pass legislation in America with 50% of the votes in Congress? How many of them understand that, outside of budget resolutions, you need 60 votes in the Senate? That a filibuster isn't a matter of Jimmy Stewart talking himself ragged for hours on end, but of merely declaring an intention to filibuster? And that this is done for all but the most routine matters? With the result that the 60-vote minimum is no longer reserved for occasional high-profile issues, but has been institutionalized for virtually all legislation of any consequence?

I figure maybe 2%. What's your guess?

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the group Islamic State in Iraq , said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.

"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," he said in the 50-minute audiotape released Sunday. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.

Iraq's Shiite-led government is backed by the U.S. but closely allied to Iran. The United States accuses Iran of arming and financing Shiite militias in Iraq - charges Tehran denies.

In the recording, al-Baghdadi also gave Sunnis and Arab countries doing business in Iran or with Iranians a two-month deadline to cease their ties.

"We advise and warn every Sunni businessman inside Iran or in Arab countries especially in the Gulf not to take partnership with any Shiite Iranian businessman - this is part of the two-month period," he said.

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."

Yet even now, federal law enforcement agents raid the homes of terminally ill patients who use marijuana for relief from suffering in states where medical marijuana use is permitted. These federal raids have become an issue in the 2008 presidential race as candidates have been asked to take a position. A summary is available on the Marijuana Policy Project Web site (mpp.org).

Beyond the medical issue is the practical question of criminalizing otherwise good citizens for consuming a nontoxic substance — described by the British medical journal Lancet as less harmful to health than alcohol or tobacco — at great economic and social cost. Each year, more than 700,000 people are arrested for marijuana-related offenses at a cost of more than $7 billion, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.

If marijuana were legalized, regulated and taxed at the rates applied to alcohol and tobacco, revenues would reach about $6.2 billion annually, according to an open letter signed by 500 economists who urged President Bush and other public officials to debate marijuana prohibition. Among those economists were three Nobel Prize winners, including the late Milton Friedman of Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Friedman and others were acting in response to a 2005 report on the budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition by Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard. By Miron's estimate, regulating marijuana would save about $7.7 billion annually in government prohibition enforcement — $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels.

All eight Democratic candidates have taken positive positions on medical marijuana. Six candidates have publicly promised to end the federal raids, including Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), John Edwards (D-NC), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), who in April signed legislation making New Mexico the 12th state to protect residents who use medical marijuana. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have yet to clearly state their support for ending the raids, but along with Sen. Dodd, they voted in opposition to federal legislation in committee that would have increased the penalties for growing and distributing medical marijuana in states that have approved its use.

Many of the Republican candidates have also taken compassionate positions on medical marijuana, including former secretary of Heath and Human Services Tommy Thompson, who recently stated on two separate occasions that he would end the raids on patients. Last year, Reps. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted with Kucinich in support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would have cut off funding for federal raids on states with medical marijuana programs.

McCain and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore have both taken positions protecting states' rights, with McCain saying he would, "let states decide" the medical marijuana issue.

[...]

Neither former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts nor former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have taken a clear position one way or another. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) have all stated that they would continue having cancer and AIDS patients arrested for their use of medical marijuana.

Yes, the Bush administration was too damned arrogant in its relations with other countries during its first term especially and has all along simply sucked at waging the "information war". And, yes, various of its actions and omissions were destined to damage the reputation of the United States, especially among Muslims. It is not, however, at all obvious that this decline in popularity is of the great geopolitical significance that Glenn Greenwald (and, to be sure, many others on the left and in the permanent "foreign policy establishment") believes that it is. It did not prevent the election of the most overtly pro-American president France has ever produced, for example. More importantly, dislike of the United States has not prevented steep declines in the global public's regard for the likes of Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, or Osama bin Laden. American transnational progressives may prefer to claim they are Canadian at their confabs, but are we actually finding it harder to recruit enemies of our enemies? There is much less evidence of that.

Finally, Greenwald's argument that the errors of the Bush administration are the "one" reason for the decline in standing of the United States strikes me as a huge stretch and in any case not supported by the Pew Study. As the Pew Study makes clear, there are at least two other factors at work — the declining popularity of all great powers and an increasing difference of opinion between the American public and much of the rest of the world about which threats are the most pressing. That difference of opinion may one day narrow — Al Gore is working his tail off to see that it does — but until then not even a Democratic president will be able to cater to the world's preferences over those of his own electorate.

Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7million.

And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

Skepticism about the participants may have been a factor in creating this low level of interest. Most Americans (52%) believe the performers take part in such events because it is good for their image. Only 24% say the celebrities really believe in the cause while another 24% are not sure. One rock star who apparently shared that view is Matt Bellamy of the band Muse. Earlier in the week, he jokingly referred to Live Earth as "private jets for climate change."

Only 34% believe that events like Live Earth actually help the cause they are intended to serve. Forty-one percent (41%) disagree. Those figures include 10% who believe the events are Very Helpful and 20% who say they are Not at All Helfpul. Adding to the skepticism, an earlier survey found that just 24% of Americans consider Al Gore an expert on Global Warming.

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate those outcomes - and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.

"I am going to take whatever I have left, and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children, and try to regain some of what I have lost."
— Cindy Sheehan, May 28, 2007

Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

I have been a Sprint customer for over 5 years now. Just shortly after my unit returned from Iraq, we recieved notification that we would be redeployed to West Point to train cadets over the summer. With almost 1/3 of the unit being Sprint customers, almost 200 soldiers, one of the first things we did was get online and consult Sprints coverage map to ensure that we would have service once we arrived. We where relieved to see that we would in fact have service and did not take any preventive measures in making sure that we would be able to maintain a reliable means of communication to our families back home. The area we would be staying in was actually catagorized as having "best" coverage.

After we arived however, we where disgruntled to find that the service was not "best", there was no service at all. A few of us that used Sprints free roaming feature informed others of this service Sprint offered, and many called and enrolled. Even with roaming, calls are sketchy at best, and very unreliable, but we where satisfied to at least be able to call home for a few minutes an evening and let our families know that we where well.

And now comes the kicker. Many of us Sprint customers recieved a letter at the begining of this month declaring that our Sprint account will be cancelled on July 30th due to the amount of roaming we are doing. The letter stated that they believe that another carrier will be able to serve us better and that we are recieving the boot. Keep in mind, we are not here permanently, or by choice. This is a two month obligation that we had to fulfil, and because of it, Sprint is telling us good bye. We will be returning to our home station, where we have clear Sprint service, FIFTEEN days after the cancellation of our accounts. I personally know at least 10 soldiers that called and explained this situation to Sprint and was told everything was fine.

I don't know what you expect. The fine print says not to use more than 50% roaming, and you used 100%. I can see being upset about not having coverage, when it was advertised as such, but sprint has the right to enforce their terms and conditions. The lack of coverage might even have something to do with the military not allowing sprint repeaters on the base, so if you are in the middle, you are far away from a repeater, if thats the case.

Here's what Sprint's customer tossing says to me:

* Call centers are so maxed out that it can't deal with a few stray high maintenance customers. Can the network be in much better shape?
* Sprint is simply idiotic about public relations.
* The customer isn't always right.

What's truly comical is that Sprint is trying to court higher-margin customers. You know the ones that keep up with the news and are now stunned at Sprint's customer treatment.

This morning on ABC's This Week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) highlighted the new American Research Group poll showing that nearly half of Americans want the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, and 54 percent favor impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Conyers today about new reports that the White House will refuse new congressional requests for documents about the U.S. Attorney firings.

Conyers decried the administration's stonewalling, adding, "We're hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent [sic - 54 percent], respectively, for impeachment that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters."

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

It is, in fact, a large-scale experiment in libertarianism. Its residents can do and be anything they wish. There are no binding forms of community, no responsibilities that aren't freely chosen and no lasting consequences of human actions. In Second Life, there is no human nature at all, just human choices.

And what do people choose? Well, there is some good live music, philanthropic fundraising, even a few virtual churches and synagogues. But the main result is the breakdown of inhibition. Second Life, as you'd expect, is highly sexualized in ways that have little to do with respect or romance. There are frequent outbreaks of terrorism, committed by online anarchists who interrupt events, assassinate speakers (who quickly reboot from the dead) and vandalize buildings. There are strip malls everywhere, pushing a relentless consumerism. And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires, generally not a sign of community health.

Libertarians hold to a theory of "spontaneous order" — that society should be the product of uncoordinated human choices instead of human design. Well, Second Life has plenty of spontaneity, and not much genuine order. This experiment suggests that a world that is only a market is not a utopia. It more closely resembles a seedy, derelict carnival — the triumph of amusement and distraction over meaning and purpose.

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?