text:
Paul Pillar
Leaks, Privacy and Journalism
Public discussion of the subpoena of telephone records of Associated Press reporters as part of a leak investigation has been impaired by widespread ignorance or misunderstanding of what is going on with this case, as well as by the political environment in which the issue has surfaced. To begin with, none of us on the outside have any good basis for assessing the importance or potential importance of the phone records to this particular investigation. We don't know what other leads the investigators have, and we don't know the breadth of follow-up implied by whatever leads they do have. We thus have little or no ground as uninformed critics for second-guessing how the FBI is handling the case, in terms of obtaining the records at all or of the extent of the records that were subpoenaed.
The damage of leaks appears to be widely misunderstood, given how swiftly many commentators are brushing aside the issue of damage in the current case. Leaking of classified information significantly harms national security because it is awfully hard to run an effective national security operation if what stays secret and what becomes public is determined by any individual with an ax to grind or a personal agenda to push and enough of a wild streak to break the rules. Some commentary has offered opinion on how much the particular leak that is apparently in question in the current case was or was not damaging, but that is too narrow a perspective. Any leak is a blow to the discipline needed to keep secret information secret.
Those focusing narrowly on this single leak ought to think more about what it means in terms of political incentives and what is right or wrong regarding the behavior of political leaders. Although neither the attorney general nor any other official has publicly identified the leak in question, nearly all speculation centers on AP's reporting on an overseas terrorist plot that the United States evidently was able to infiltrate and thus to neutralize. For the Obama administration, this was a good news story; the United States prevented a terrorist attack through effective counterterrorist work. Outsiders would have had stronger grounds for criticism if the administration were not vigorously investigating a leak that had worked in its favor.
A commonly stated myth is that the AP is a "target" of this investigation, or even more preposterously, that it is being "punished." The actual target of any leak investigation is the leaker; obtaining information about the contacts and activity of journalists is only a way to try to identify that target. It is a simple matter of relative numbers. There are many potential leakers, among the many people inside government who typically have access to information about even fairly sensitive secret subjects—which is why so many leak investigations fail to come up with the culprit. But there is only one news organization that got the scoop.
Political exploitation by domestic adversaries of the administration is a major part of this story, and of course such exploitation is nothing new. This pattern has been intensified by concatenation of the latest leak case with a couple of other developments that have been making the White House's political life more complicated lately. One is a kerfuffle over some talking points composed by committee amid a confusing situation overseas, with the kerfuffle begun during the 2012 election campaign and being dragged out indefinitely to try to damage a possible candidacy in the 2016 election. Another is an inept job by a unit in the Internal Revenue Service in trying to deal with a confusing legal situation regarding political activity and tax exemption. None of these matters have anything to do with each other, but that does not stop those who smell political blood from doing the concatenating. One story is an event, two is a pattern, and three, if you work for Fox News, is a wave of scandals.
The leak case, as with any leak case, also has a broader constituency that is making a fuss and on which Fox and the New York Times are on the same side. Leaks are red meat to journalists, especially ones who work on any kind of a national security beat. And so journalists in general, and the news organizations for which they work, tend to be pro-leak. This means that readers of those organizations' products are reading articles, not to mention editorials, that are slanted in the direction of criticizing vigorous investigation and prosecution of leaks.
This constituency tries to suggest there is a First Amendment issue involved. There isn't. There is much talk of how something like the subpoenaing of reporters' phone records has a "chilling" effect on the work of journalists, but no one explains exactly how and why that should be the case. It is not apparent why even journalistic exploitation of leaks would be chilled, and there certainly is no reason to expect any effect on vigorous reporting of other sorts, including on national security matters.
Finally, discussion of the seizure of AP phone records seems to go on without reflecting on who has access to such things in the private or public sectors and how this ought to affect how we think about privacy. Phone companies have complete records of how you, I, the AP reporters and everyone else have used their telephones. Internet service providers have complete access to people's Internet searches and email. Financial institutions have to-the-penny records of people's financial assets and transactions. Some would say that giving access to the government—with the ultimate coercive power of the state—is a different matter from having a voluntary relationship with a commercial enterprise. But short of relying on smoke signals and face-to-face barter, one has to deal with some such businesses. Sometimes even the choice of a particular business is not all that voluntary. As a land-line user, for example, there is one phone company I really have to use. Moreover, when we think about institutional motivations, which should worry us more: the actions of a government institution subject to public oversight and political checks and balances, or a private sector institution motivated by profit?
In this regard it is interesting that the attention to the leak investigation has coincided with another story about journalists and about people involuntarily surrendering some of the privacy surrounding their professional activity. In this latter story, reporters for Bloomberg News were found to have exploited access to information about the activities of subscribers to Bloomberg's financial data service, including when the subscribers were logging in and logging out and what types of data they were accessing. As for how much of a subscriber's relationship with Bloomberg is voluntary, Neil Irwin notes that "if you are a high-grade financial professional, Bloomberg does everything possible to make it hard for you not to subscribe to its roughly $20,000-a-year data terminal." As for motivation of the institution, Irwin goes on to observe that for Bloomberg, "the terminal business is so lucrative and so important that it can spare no expense to make sure" that when an event happens with any possible business or financial implication, "the news will pop up on a Bloomberg terminal first." Evidently Bloomberg News was sparing not only no expense but also no qualms about snooping on the activities of its customers.
It would be especially interesting to get AP reporters and Bloomberg reporters into the same room to discuss the techniques and ethics of information-gathering and how they relate to the journalism profession.
A Worthwhile Redirection in Pakistan
The victor in the recent Pakistani elections, Nawaz Sharif, has indicated he places high priority on improving relations between Pakistan and India. Sharif made some significant strides in promoting detente between the two South Asia powers during a previous stint as prime minister, and he wants to recoup ground that was later lost after the terrorist attack in Mumbai in 2008 by a Pakistani-based group. Wasting no time, Sharif has invited Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Pakistan to attend Sharif's swearing-in.
This is all to the good, and has received recognition as such in India (although with caution in the case of the right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party). Americans, however, need to be prepared for how a successful Sharif may bring about some changes in Pakistani-U.S. relations that may not seem so good in Washington. This is suggested by an editorial earlier this week in a major Indian daily, the Hindustan Times. The editorial said that part of what Indians ought to hope for from a new administration in Islamabad is "a government that will understand that cutting dependence on the United States and China is only possible if Pakistan has a modus vivendi with India." Note the implication that understandably can raise American eyebrows: a looser Pakistani relationship with the United States may accompany a less hostile Pakistani relationship with India.
Sharif is indeed likely to do a good number of things that will not sit well in Washington. Some of these things he would be doing anyway, but some of them will be related to his attempted rapprochement with India. The political realities he faces include, besides the Islamist militants who have become a bigger part of Pakistani affairs in recent years, a Pakistani military that ended his last prime ministry with a coup and whose main reason for existence is to defend the country against arch-adversary India. The more political risks Sharif takes in improving relations with that adversary, the more he will have to bolster his nationalist credentials elsewhere, including on matters involving relations with the United States.
There will be a tendency in Washington to judge Sharif's performance piecemeal, involving whatever is the latest concern about security in northwest Pakistan or something else. It would be better to take a more strategic view with the big lines of conflict in South Asia in mind. Indian-Pakistani rapprochement is still worthwhile and very much in U.S. interests, even if it is accompanied by greater nationalist testiness in U.S.-Pakistani relations. It is worthwhile partly because stability in the relationship between the region's two nuclear-armed powers is important in its own right. It also is worthwhile because improvement in that relationship will make it easier for Washington to deal with some other regional issues important to it.
The most prominent of those issues involves Afghanistan. The background to just about every Pakistani policy and action about Afghanistan that is unhelpful, including ones involving the continued Pakistani relations with the Afghan Taliban, is Pakistani concern about India. To Pakistan, Afghanistan is its strategic depth in the standoff with India, and it gets apoplectic over any inroads that India itself makes in Afghanistan. The more that the Indian-Pakistani relationship improves, the less intense will be the apoplexy and the less troublesome a player Pakistani is likely to be on issues involving Afghanistan.
Image: Tore Urnes, CC BY 2.0.
More Costs of a Pseudo-Scandal
If I were a political adviser to those relentlessly pushing recriminations about the attack last year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, I think my advice would be, "Give it a rest." This pseudo-scandal has become so forced, so contrived, and so blatantly driven by motives other than safeguarding the security of U.S. interests that the unending push has already passed the point where it serves any identifiable objectives, even partisan political ones. The subject, about which a panel of inquiry has completed its work and issued its report, is already tiresome; imagine how much more tiresome it will be to voters by 2016 after three more years of it.
A poll on Benghazi released this week by Public Policy Polling suggests that the agitation on the subject is keeping a Republican base agitated but not making wider inroads on public opinion. One has to ask what good it does Republicans to dwell on something that keeps one segment of the population angry about Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) when that segment was already angry about Obama anyway. When asked whom the respondent trusted more on the issue of Benghazi, 49 percent said Hillary Clinton and 39 percent said Congressional Republicans. On other questions asking for an overall favorable or unfavorable rating, Clinton enjoys an eight-point margin over Congressional Republicans, the same margin as in a similar poll in March.
The poll did show that the angry base has gotten the intended message that there is supposedly a scandal involved. A plurality of Republicans (but only small percentages of either Democrats or independents) said yes to the question of whether this was the "biggest scandal in American history." By margins of greater than three to one, Republicans polled said it was a worse scandal than Watergate, Iran Contra, or Teapot Dome. That's an interesting result given that in one case the issue involved nuances conveyed in some talking points, while each of the others involved criminal behavior in the form of attempted subversion of an American election with a subsequent cover-up, illegal diversion of arms into a foreign war, or bribery of a cabinet officer to get preferred exploitation of publicly owned natural resources.
The customary ignorance of the American public is no doubt at play. Probably the proportion of the general population that could say today what Teapot Dome was about measures in the single digits. A scandal seems worse if you've actually heard about it. The ignorance factor was suggested by another question in the poll asking where Benghazi is. Ten percent believe it is in Egypt, nine percent in Iran, six percent in Cuba, five percent in Syria, four percent in Iraq, and one percent each in North Korea and Liberia, with another four percent being unwilling to guess. Maybe those who said Cuba have Benghazi confused with Guantanamo. It would be interesting to know what those who said North Korea think the incident was about.
Probably the failure of the agitation about Benghazi to make wider inroads on public opinion is due not only to the tiresome, contrived and partisan nature of the agitation but also to the fact that it never had a logic in the first place. The message being promoted seems to be that the administration was shying away from describing the incident as terrorism in order not to undermine, during the 2012 election campaign, a claim to having success against international terrorists. But when did Barack Obama ever contend that international terrorism has been licked? When the presidential candidates were asked in one of the debates—several months after Osama bin Laden had been killed—what each believed to be biggest national security threat facing the country, Obama replied, "terrorism." However the incident in Benghazi is characterized, four Americans were killed. There is no way to sugar-coat that, whether the T-word is used or not.
The endless harping about Benghazi has costs beyond, and more important than, wasted time by Republicans who have better ways to try to win votes and defeat Hillary Clinton. Among those costs are the fostering of misunderstanding of some fundamental realities about such incidents and about terrorism. Shortly after the Benghazi attack I mentioned some of those realities, including the inherent hazards of overseas representation and the inability to protect every installation everywhere, and the fact that the details of such incidents are nearly always obscure initially and become clear only in hindsight. As the harping continued other costs grew. These included promoting yet another misunderstanding about terrorism: the idea that popular anger at the United States and the machinations of a group are somehow mutually exclusive explanations for any terrorist incident. Still another is the notion that nonstate violence is worth worrying about if it can be linked to al-Qaeda but is not much of a threat if it cannot. There also is the cost of inducing future secretaries of state and other officials to impair U.S. diplomacy by futilely pursuing a zero-risk approach to overseas representation.
As the pseudo-scandal continues to be pushed, other costs come to mind. An obvious one is the big distraction this entails from useful work Congress could otherwise be doing. Of course, we are no strangers to similarly ineffective use of Congressional time and attention. Probably the Benghazi kick has been no more of a distraction than the House of Representatives voting for the 33rd time (or maybe its more—it's so many there doesn't seem to be an accurate count) to repeal Obamacare. One also needs to consider, however, the drain on the time and attention of officials in the executive branch. Having five different House committees holding hearings on the same subject is an enormous diversion from the main duties of those who are responsible for diplomatic security.
The poll questions about the relative severity of different scandals brings to mind another cost: a debasing of the currency regarding what really is a scandal and what episodes in our nation's history ought to be thought about and have lessons extracted from them. Another example of this is found in a column this week by the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl. Diehl validly observes that the unending agitation over talking points about Benghazi is a misdirected digression from serious issues that ought to be addressed in a bipartisan manner, such as a failure to "adequately prepare for an emergency in post-revolution North Africa." One might broaden the point by saying that we also ought to be discussing, again in a bipartisan manner, what assumptions underlay the Western intervention in Libya and whether it ever was a good idea. But then in an apparent effort to achieve some kind of partisan balance, or just to scratch some old itch, Diehl contends there is equivalence between the folderol over Benghazi and the episode in which in the course of selling the invasion of Iraq the George W. Bush administration made a false claim about Iraqi purchases of uranium ore in Africa, with the office of Vice President Cheney doing battle with a former ambassador who investigated the matter.
There is no equivalence at all between these two episodes. The one involving the vice president's office—like Watergate, Iran Contra, and Teapot Dome, but unlike Benghazi—involved criminal behavior. Vice presidential aide I. Lewis Libby was convicted of perjury, providing false statements to investigators, and obstruction of justice. Diehl also gets the other essentials about the episode wrong. Although he writes that what the retired ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said was mostly "grossly exaggerated, or simply false," the principal thing Wilson said—that no such purchases of uranium ore were ever made—was absolutely correct, with the administration's claim being dead wrong. The reason the vice president's office got so deeply involved in the matter was to try to find ways to discredit Wilson and the agency that hired him because the truths they spoke were complicating the effort to sell the Iraq War.
Although Diehl says we should have had "a serious discussion of why U.S. intelligence about Iraq was wrong," he fails to mention that on this very matter U.S. intelligence was right, having repeatedly warned the White House against using the temptingly juicy tidbit about purchases of uranium ore. The episode was one of the most salient indications that far from being misled into Iraq by bad intelligence, the war-makers in the administration were determined for other reasons to launch the war and were only using intelligence selectively to try to bolster their campaign to sell the invasion.
And lest we forget, the damage to the national interest from that expedition was many, many times greater than anything involving Benghazi. Now that's scandalous.
The Red Line of Non-Aggression
Amid much talk lately about "red lines"—to the point that the term would be a strong candidate for cliché of the year—we should reflect on the relative inattention, as Richard Falk points out in a recent commentary, to what used to be one of the most fundamental and important red lines of all. The line in question, which Falk notes the United States once played a leading role in formulating, is "the prohibition of the use of international force by states other than in cases of self-defense against a prior armed attack."
Falk has been around long enough to rile adversaries on many issues about which he has been outspoken (and I have disagreed with some of his past positions). It was nearly forty years ago that I took a graduate course in international law from him, and he is now in his eighties. But he does speak some uncomfortable truths. Many he has spoken in connection with his current function as the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. Most recently he incurred irresponsible vitriol, including some from U.S. officials, when he noted—accurately—that U.S. policies have something to do with stimulating the kind of violent extremism exhibited by the Boston Marathon bombers. His observation about disregard for the once-prominent norm against aggression gets to another set of truths.
Erosion of respect for this norm, specifically in discussions of U.S. policy, is a recent phenomenon. Throughout the twentieth century the United States largely observed it, and as far as significant warfare is concerned rigorously observed it. Moreover, the United States expended much blood and treasure in campaigns that, whatever other U.S. interests they may have served, were responses to someone else's aggression and ensured that the aggression would not be allowed to stand. World War II was the largest such effort; Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990-91 were others. The U.S. response to the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956 was an example of upholding the norm of non-aggression even when it meant opposing close allies.
The big departure that led the United States astray from this path was the invasion of Iraq in 2003—the first significant U.S. war of aggression since the nineteenth century. Despite the costly unpleasantness that followed the invasion, this episode seems to have had a lasting effect on American debate in extending the range of respectable policy options to include ones that earlier would have been ruled out as being beyond the red line of non-aggression. Most Americans of just a couple of decades ago, even after the Soviet Union imploded, would have been taken aback by how much some beyond-the-line possibilities, such as an unprovoked attack on Iran, are deemed respectable enough to be seriously considered today.
Falk does not discuss non-aggression in absolute terms. He suggests that in individual cases other considerations, such as humanitarian ones, often appropriately come into play. He also appears to accept the frequently-advanced (though not necessarily valid) idea that we are living in an era in which the ubiquity of terrorism means some rules of international conduct need to be revised. His principal lament is that the rule of non-aggression is not being carefully updated but instead simply abandoned. That, he says, means "normative chaos," which "in a world where already nine countries possess nuclear weapons seems like a prescription for species suicide."
That's probably putting the point too strongly, but such a world is nonetheless not in U.S. interests. The United States, despite (and as the Iraq War experience suggests, perhaps even because of) its standing as the militarily most powerful state, has more to lose than to gain in such a world.
Restoring, respecting, and fostering a norm of non-aggression is in the interest of the United States even if one does not approach the subject, as Falk does, with an emphasis on international organizations and international law. Even the most hard-boiled realist, focused like a laser on U.S. national interests, can see the benefit to the United States of having such a norm. This leads to part of an answer to the question that Danielle Pletka posed and Jacob Heilbrunn highlighted as a fair question to realists: what do they want, as distinct from what are they against? They ought to want a world in which states do not start wars whenever and wherever they feel like it.
Take the Middle East Plunge, President Xi
China this week got about as far as it ever has gotten into the Middle East peace process by hosting back-to-back visits by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was still only, as the New York Times coverage put it, a dipping of China's toe into that process. The odds are that Beijing will not be wading much farther into that water any time soon. The new Chinese leadership certainly has plenty on its plate right at home, including uncontrolled corruption, near-catastrophic environmental degradation, and the need to adapt to a slowdown in economic growth. Moreover, continued festering of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not hurt Chinese interests as severely and directly as it hurts the interests of the United States, because of the latter's association with the Israeli occupation and other controversial Israeli actions.
But if President Xi Jinping and his colleagues nonetheless were to involve themselves more deeply in efforts to resolve this conflict, we should applaud them, for several reasons. The principal reason is that the outside power that has now been looked to for decades as the peace process's deus ex machina—i.e., the United States—continues to demonstrate that it is too politically crippled to perform that role. The combination of an Israeli government devoted to continued colonization of conquered and occupied territory and of political forces in the United States devoted to an unquestioning, right-or-wrong backing of that government have had this crippling effect. Barack Obama has already dispelled any hope that things would be appreciably different in his second term. His secretary of state clearly wants to try to make new things happen, but the president seems in effect to have told him, "Good luck, my friend, in seeing what you can do, but don't expect much help from me with the heavy lifting."
A second reason to welcome greater involvement by the Chinese is that their own positions and posture toward the conflict are substantively very sensible, reasonable, and in line with the characteristics that any plausible settlement of the conflict would require. Prime Minister Li Keqiang was on target when he told Netanyahu that "the Palestinian issue is a core issue affecting the peace and stability of the Middle East. When Li said, "As a friend of both Israel and the Palestinians, China has always maintained an objective and fair stance," he was more truthful than if a similar claim were made by the United States, which as Aaron David Miller has accurately put it, has more often functioned as Israel's lawyer. Xi presented to Abbas a "plan" that called for establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries and with East Jerusalem as its capital, with full respect for "Israel's right to exist and its legitimate security concerns." About the only editing one might want to do to the Chinese formulation would be to refer explicitly to the possibility of land swaps, as in a recently restated version of the Arab League peace plan.
A further, subsidiary reason greater Chinese involvement with this issue would be good is that it is the type of constructive global engagement that it would be good to see China practicing in general. It would bring China closer to carrying its fair share of the weight of dealing with sticky international issues, and might encourage positive habits that would have spillover effects on otherwise unrelated issues.
Another outside power that one might expect to take up the peace process slack that the United States has proven unable to take up is the European Union. Some of the possibilities were raised by an open letter published last month by the collection of former senior officials known as the European Eminent Persons Group. The letter is admirably clear and blunt in detailing what needs to be done—and the deficiencies in what has been done so far, including by Europe. But there are limitations to what the Europeans are ever likely to do, some of which are mentioned in Mitchell Plitnick's look at the eminent persons' initiative. The letter-writers are only former officials, after all.
The EU has the impediments to action that come from still being a collection of governments and something less than a full federation. The Europeans also have some historical baggage of their own on Arab-Israeli issues that may make it easier for the Israel lobby to reach across the Atlantic and slap them down, as in a derisive dismissal by Elliott Abrams of the eminent persons' letter as a "useful reminder of European attitudes." A similar dismissal would be more difficult to direct at China.
In any case, anyone looking for leadership on this issue from a non-U.S. outside power should not place all his hopeful eggs in one basket. An earlier phase of the endless and fruitless Middle East peace process involved a "quartet." Maybe it's time to try a European-Chinese duet.
If President Xi needs additional incentive to take some action and some risks on this subject, how about this for a motivation: personal leadership on this subject would be a good way to distinguish himself from all those colleagues of his who dye their hair the same shade of black and wear identical suits. It would give him a historical legacy beyond all the problems back home that he shares with the collective leadership.
Xi ought to aim for a Nobel Peace Prize. Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin won the prize for their work on the subject even though what they did failed to bring lasting peace, and Jimmy Carter also got a Nobel in large part for his work on the same subject. Barack Obama won the prize just for getting elected and not being George W. Bush. If Xi dove into the subject and made any progress at all, he would have a good chance of making it to Oslo, and deservedly so.
Hard and Soft Power in Bahrain
The island kingdom of Bahrain has stuck out as a kind of sore thumb in the Persian Gulf ever since the Arab Spring got under way. It is the only one of the six monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council that has seen major political unrest during these past two or three years. It also is a place where U.S. objectives don't really fit together. Two principal attributes of Bahrain underlie these observations.
One is that it has a Shia majority, constituting about 70 percent of the Bahraini population, but is ruled by a Sunni regime. In that respect it is like Iraq before Saddam Hussein's ouster and unlike the other GCC states, which all have Sunni majorities. Economic patterns correlate with religious ones; Bahraini Shia are generally less well off than their Sunni countrymen.
The other attribute is that Bahrain has a major military relationship with the United States, including being the home of the Fifth Fleet. This fact evidently has dominated the thinking behind U.S. policy on Bahrain. It has been a major disincentive against rocking boats regarding political and economic rights of the Bahraini people. When Saudi Arabia sent forces across the causeway to help the Bahraini regime quell Shia unrest, the United States did not make an issue of it.
In this part of the world a major expressed U.S. concern is, of course, Iran and Iranian influence. Bahrain is of special interest in this regard because of a keen Iranian interest in the place. There have been Iranian statements, going well back before the advent of the Islamic Republic, describing Bahrain as rightfully a province of Iran. During early years of Islamic Republic's history there certainly were Iranian efforts at subversion in Bahrain. In more recent years, however, there is no indication that Iran is trying to topple the Bahraini regime. Iranian influence comes in a softer form as a champion of greater rights for the majority of the population.
This week Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi gave Iran's soft power a new twist by stating that the Bahraini government had requested secret Iranian mediation between itself and its domestic opposition. Salehi said Iran was willing to use its good offices for this purpose but only openly, not secretly. The Bahraini foreign ministry denied that Bahrain had made any such request of Iran. It is impossible to know whom to believe, but it is plausible that Manama might have communicated with Iran about the need to use its influence with the Shia majority constructively. If Iran really were to contribute openly to political reconciliation in Bahrain that would be good, and would be the antithesis of clandestine subversion.
If the United States really is concerned about Iranian influence in this corner of the Persian Gulf, it is not shaping its relations in a way that effectively counters that influence. Whatever other purposes the Fifth Fleet may serve, there is not a plausible external military threat to Bahrain that the fleet defends against or deters. Meanwhile, concern about protecting this military equity has led the United States mostly to turn a blind eye to the unresolved internal conflict that is the real danger to the Bahraini political order and which has helped Iran in posing as a friend of the majority of Bahrainis.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Abadi Moustapha. CC BY 2.0.
Echoes of Lebanon in Syria
Expressions of angst over Syria have entailed several themes, one of which concerns possible "spread" of the Syrian civil war into nearby states. Lebanon, for reasons of physical and ethnic geography, is most often mentioned as a locale of such spreading. But at least as useful as speculation about what the Syrian civil war may do to Lebanon is to reflect on how current events in Syria are echoing an earlier civil war in Lebanon. We have been through much of this before—thirty years ago, when Ronald Reagan was president.
By the early 1980s Lebanon had been suffering several years of combat among sectarian militias, reflecting disagreement over the fairness of old power-sharing agreements among the confessional communities. The biggest stirring of this already turbulent pot came in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon. The principal Israeli targets—declared targets, at least—were fighters of the Palestinian Liberation Organization who had been in Lebanon ever since being kicked out of Jordan a decade earlier, after losing the Black September confrontation with King Hussein. A small multinational force of U.S., French, and Italian troops entered Lebanon in August 1982 and supervised the extraction of the PLO to Tunisia before itself withdrawing to ships in the Mediterranean.
Israeli objectives were not limited just to booting the PLO out of Lebanon, however, and Israeli forces remained enmeshed in the sectarian fighting, besieging Beirut. Menachem Begin had ideas about trying to maintain a client to the north in the form of the pro-Israeli Christian government of Bachir Gemayel, who became president about when the PLO was leaving. Three weeks later Gemayel was assassinated, triggering the most horrid blood-letting of the Lebanese war. At least several hundred—and by some outside estimates perhaps something closer to 2,000—Palestinian civilians were slaughtered in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The massacre was carried out by the Christian Phalangist militia, which was allied to and supplied by the Israelis. Israeli forces, whether wittingly or not, facilitated the massacre by maintaining a cordon around the area of the camps, and fired illuminating flares that enabled the Phalangists to continue their work by night.
The massacre stimulated the Reagan administration to organize a new multinational force that eventually included 1,800 U.S. marines as well as French and Italian troops. The force initially had some success in acting as a buffer between contending elements. But the intervention later became a textbook example of the near-inevitability of getting drawn into ever costlier commitments and endeavors in any situation as messy as Lebanon at that time. U.S. military engagement included not only the marines on the ground but also combat between carrier-based U.S. aircraft and Syrian forces (which had originally entered Lebanon as part of an Arab League peacekeeping force). At one point even the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey were brought into action.
Those striking back at the increasingly resented foreign forces used methods against which jet fighters and battleships are of little use. In April 1983 a truck bomb was detonated at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 63 persons. Six months later, another truck bomb was used against barracks housing U.S. troops (along with an identical and simultaneous attack against French troops). 241 U.S. servicemen were killed in that bombing—the deadliest terrorist attack against U.S. citizens until 9/11. Congressional pressure on the administration to withdraw from Lebanon increased. The last U.S. forces left in February 1984. The Lebanese civil war continued for several more years until sheer exhaustion, and a new political accord brokered by Saudi Arabia and Syria, brought it to an unsatisfying end.
Some parallels between that experience and the current situation regarding Syria are obvious. There is the overall complexity of the conflict and the presence of bad guys all around. There also is Israel taking advantage of a neighboring state's civil war to pursue its own objectives, whether those are to smash a Palestinian force or to intercept long-established Hezbollah supply lines, regardless of how much its actions stoke and escalate the war. And if much of the discourse in Washington about Syria since the (presumed) Israeli attacks there over the past few days are any indication, there again is the pattern of Israeli actions increasing the chance of the United States getting sucked into the mess.
Let us hope that those eager to get into the mess will reflect more than the statesmen of 1982 did about how this all will end. Moreover, those who talk about damage to U.S. prestige or credibility also ought to think about that aspect of the experience in Lebanon. Withdrawing the U.S. troops in 1984—although it was the least bad thing the Reagan administration could have done at the time—was a U.S. defeat by Hezbollah. There is no way to sugar-coat that conclusion. It was just the sort of caving in to bad guys that we so often hear that we need to avoid. And it could have been avoided in Lebanon if the United States had not gotten involved in the mess in the first place, or at least if Israel had not—in its futile pursuit of absolute security for itself regardless of the insecurity it causes for everyone else—made the mess worse.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/James Funk. CC BY 2.0.
The Destructive Power of Conventional Wisdom
The lead article in the current International Security, by Alastair Iain Johnston of Harvard, addresses the now firmly entrenched idea that over the past two or three years China has become markedly more assertive in its relations with other countries than it was previously. That China is "newly assertive" has become so broadly and automatically accepted that it gets expressed often enough to have become a cliché. "Newly assertive" is a descriptor that routinely gets inserted before "China," just as easily as "long-suffering" routinely gets inserted before "Chicago Cubs fans."
Johnston closely examines the evidence for the supposed new assertiveness and finds it wanting. The notion of new assertiveness by Beijing overstates actual change in Chinese policy and overlooks the complexity of the issues on which the assertiveness has been perceived. Johnston sees maritime disputes as the only area where one could make a case for increased Chinese assertiveness. On other matters over the past couple of years China's policy has not changed, has become more moderate, or has been an understandable response to changes in conditions that Chinese policymakers face.
Johnston's article has applicability that goes beyond China; he discusses the process of how such conventional wisdom comes into being even when the original empirical foundation for it is weak. He sees it in large part as a process of traditional journalism and the blogosphere playing off each other. A more general and more widely descriptive observation would be that it is a process of certain propositions acquiring acceptance simply as a result of frequently being voiced by others. Because acceptance for this reason means the proposition gets expressed even more times by even more voices, we have the ingredients of a self-sustaining chain reaction. Politicians as well as journalists and the blogosphere all play in the chain reaction.
One can think of other notions with current policy relevance that are sustained by similar chain reactions. This is true of much conventional wisdom about Iran, for example, starting with the idea that Iran is definitely seeking to build nuclear weapons. Note how often one sees reference to Iran's "nuclear weapons program," even though that label is a misnomer. Another example is the usual description of the Palestinian movement Hamas as "dedicated to the destruction of Israel" or some similar formulation, despite the ample evidence of the actual objectives of Hamas leaders that shows that to be a mischaracterization as well.
The phenomenon at hand is not just a matter of there being many important issues on which people disagree, with people on one side of the issue having a more popular view than those of the other side. Naturally people who have studied a particular issue in depth will be especially annoyed by what they regard as widely mistaken beliefs on that same issue. Johnston singled out the notion of new Chinese assertiveness because he is a China specialist who studies Beijing's policies and behavior and understandably has his own well-formed views on that subject. But when a notion achieves the status of conventional wisdom, a qualitatively different phenomenon arises. It is no longer just a matter of one view outvoting another view, but instead one of the self-sustaining chain reaction. The conventional wisdom acquires a life of its own, ever more divorced from whatever empirical reality may have been the original basis for it.
The damage of this type of conventional wisdom goes well beyond the irritation that comes from any cliché. Conventional wisdom constrains policy choices. More specifically, conventional wisdom that entrenches a negative view of another international actor promotes policies that risk becoming self-fulfilling prophecies of the most destructive sort. Security dilemmas arise. A belief that the other side is obstreperous or difficult encourages policies toward that side that make it more likely it will respond in a way that really is obstreperous or difficult.
The Guantanamo Political Game
The national disgrace that is the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is still in operation largely because of another familiar national disgrace, which is partisan gamesmanship. At his press conference this week President Obama stated accurately the multiple reasons, which include significant political damage to U.S. interests overseas, the facility needs to be closed. Those reasons are even more compelling today, amid force-feeding of hunger-striking prisoners, than they were when the then newly inaugurated Mr. Obama first committed to closing the place.
A prevalent theme in current commentary is that a fluent but timid president is not getting anything done about Guantanamo because he is displaying the kind of weakness that is also preventing him from getting things done on gun control and other issues. Civil libertarians and others who might usually be sympathetic to Mr. Obama charge that he has been an insufficiently tough leader in dealing with a recalcitrant Congress that has placed multiple roadblocks in the way of closing Guantanamo, including a ban on movement of any of the detainees to federal prisons or any other facilities in the United States. One is entitled to ask in such situations whether the responsibility lies with someone who cannot overcome recalcitrance or with those who are being recalcitrant. But let us instead just review the bidding on how Guantanamo got to be what it is now.
One can identify three motives—all of them misguided at best and reprehensible at worst—that have been involved. They partly correspond to different phases in the detention facility's history.
The original decision by the Bush administration to construct a jail in such an odd place was intended to keep it, and the prisoners in it, outside the reach of any laws. Subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court kept that objective from being fully realized. In any event, the objective was unworthy, given that the United States is a country of laws and not of arbitrary actions by whoever happens to have power at the moment.
A second motive, which still underlies some of the Congressional recalcitrance, is to make an ideological statement that terrorism is "war" rather than "crime" and therefore anyone suspected of involvement in terrorism should be treated differently from anyone else suspected of a crime. Making ideological statements at the expense of real damage to U.S. interests and to American principles (and doing so while disregarding the record of what has or has not worked, including the successful record of convicting terrorists in federal criminal courts) is an inexcusable way to make policy.
A third motive, which is behind much of what we see playing out about Guantanamo today, is to retain the opportunity—with future elections in mind—to inflict costs and embarrassment on one's domestic political opponents. Congressional opponents of President Obama are quick to point out that legislation that has constituted much of the roadblock to closing Guantanamo gives the administration the ability to use waivers to release individual detainees to the custody of foreign countries. Such opponents are not quick to address, of course, why such hurdles and special waiver requirements should have been thrown up in the first place. But in the meantime, it enables the opponents to say the president has not used administrative powers he already has to reduce Guantanamo's prisoner population.
The biggest hoped-for partisan political payoff would come if the waiver authority were actually used. That authority is a dare to the administration to make a mistake. To release a prisoner to foreign custody the secretary of defense has to make certifications about how the receiving country will take steps that ensure the individual will not engage in terrorist activity in the future, or about "alternative actions" that will "substantially mitigate" such a possibility. All of this gets into realms in which it is impossible for any secretary of defense or president to make guarantees. Recidivism happens. With the anger and resentment building up among the men who are getting tubes shoved up their noses twice a day, there is a significant chance it will happen even with someone who was not really a threat when he was first brought to Guantanamo. Not even the most careful screening and review process is foolproof. And so the first time any alumnus of Guantanamo gets involved in what can be described as a terrorist incident, there is a ready-made issue to introduce in the next election campaign back in the United States. The administration endangered the American public, will be the charge from some members of Congress, who will disavow any responsibility themselves.
Count Guantanamo among the many issues of public policy on which the national interest has suffered at the hands of politicians who place that interest behind considerations of partisan advantage. Count it also among the issues on which the American public's unrealistic zero-tolerance attitude toward terrorism facilitates such political shenanigans.
Syria and WMD Inconsistency in the Middle East
Once again people are getting spun up over elusive details about what a Middle Eastern regime is or is not doing regarding unconventional weapons. Participants in public debates over policy get seized with questions such as the significance of a soil sample or whether certain victims of Syria's civil war had dilated pupils. People wait with bated breath on whatever else intelligence can tell us about such things. It is as if the wisdom, or lack of it, of intervening in that civil war hinges on whether a particular regime has made use, however small, of a particular category of weapon. It doesn't.
Much has been said about avoiding mistakes that were made over a decade ago in leading up to the Iraq War. Certainly we should try to avoid repeating mistakes. But the biggest mistake that is being made now—and repeats a fundamental mistake in the public discourse prior to the Iraq War—is not an interpretation of evidence regarding somebody's unconventional weapons but instead is the false equating of an empirical question about weapons with the policy question of whether launching, or intervening in, a particular war makes sense.
Whether Saddam Hussein did or did not have WMD turned out to be one of the less important realities about the Iraq War. Even if everything that was said on this subject to sell the war turned out to be true, the human and material cost of the war would have been just as great (maybe even greater, if Saddam's forces had possessed and used such weapons), the post-Saddam political and security situation in Iraq would have been just as much of a mess, and launching the war still would have been a blunder.
In Syria today, whether any chemical weapons have been used does not inform us that the Assad regime has a brutal streak; we already knew that. Nor does it tell us that many Syrians are suffering in this civil war; we already knew that, too, and the suffering does not depend on any use of unconventional weapons. Most important for the policy question facing the United States, facts about chemical weapons use would tell us essentially nothing about the net effect of various forms of external intervention in the civil war, the likely course of the war with or without intervention, and possible political futures of Syria.
There is another parallel between today's debate about Syria and the counterpart discourse before the Iraq War. In each case the issue of unconventional weapons has been used as a convenient selling point by those favoring involvement in a war for other reasons. With Iraq, the WMD question was only, as later acknowledged by Paul Wolfowitz, a convenient topic that could be agreed upon by those who might disagree about other matters. With Syria, most of the current agitation is coming not from longstanding chemical-weapons-control enthusiasts but instead from those who had already been agitating for intervention on other grounds.
The agitators on Syria have been aided by President Obama's unwise earlier declaration about how use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be a "game-changer." Perhaps the president said this to help fend off the pro-intervention pressure he already was feeling at the time. If so, the remark was a short-sighted tactic. It opened the way for pro-interventionists to argue that U.S. credibility will be harmed if it does not now intervene in Syria.
That argument is also a familiar one associated with mistakes of the past. It also is invalid, as a matter of how people and governments actually assess the credibility of other governments. The argument was at the center—not just as a public selling point, but as a matter of genuine belief by policy-makers—of the decision to intervene in Vietnam in the mid-1960s. That war also was a blunder.
One might think, based on the current chemically-fueled commentary about Syria, that the ranks of the policy elite in Washington are filled with arms control aficionados whose fondest cause is to eliminate the scourge of unconventional weapons from the Middle East. Anyone who thinks that can be jolted back to reality by Egypt, which this week announced that it was pulling out of an ongoing review conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to protest the continued inaction on a resolution dating back to 1995 that calls for establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. That proposal was later expanded to envision a WMD-free zone in the Middle East, to include chemical and other unconventional weapons as well as nuclear ones. A conference, arranged under the leadership of a senior Finnish diplomat, was set to convene last December to discuss the proposal. But Israel refused to attend, and so the United States said it wouldn't go either, and the conference was called off. One barely heard a peep about that in the United States.
The country that balked, Israel, is of course the only Middle Eastern owner of nuclear weapons. That's nuclear weapons, which really are weapons of mass destruction, unlike chemical weapons, which aren't. In fact, the Israeli arsenal is so potent it is the only one that poses an existential threat to any other country in the region (and specifically to Iran).
U.S. policy, and American discussion of policy, about unconventional weapons in the Middle East have long been ridden with inconsistency. Nuclear weapons are perceived where they don't exist, and ignored where they do. The hyperventilation about possible use of chemical weapons in Syria is in the same tradition of inconsistency.


text:
Lovely guesthouse.. really spacious rooms with clean bathrooms and quite well maintained. We loved the stay. Except for a couple of negative points that they dint have power backup and there was a lot of power disturbance. And the other negative was the lack of parking space.. would love to stay here again.. but only if we don't take our... More
- Also Known As:
- The White House Goa/Calangute

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SOUTH WINDSOR, Conn. (AP) - One Connecticut commuter described the drive to work Monday as "awful."
Fernando Colon had to navigate through heavy sleet on a two-lane highway that was down to one lane because of high snow banks from a massive weekend storm.
On New York's Long Island, Samantha Cuomo said her normal 40-minute commute to work turned into two hours.
She said streets were "an absolute mess" and that the roads near the group home that she manages haven't been plowed.
Snow banks were piled high on the unusually quiet streets of downtown Hartford, Conn., where the big insurance firms encouraged people to work from home today.
The number of homes and businesses without power from the Friday and Saturday storm is down to about 130,000, most of them in Massachusetts.
Boston's public transportation system, which shut down on Friday, resumed full service Monday, but commuters were told to expect delays.
The storm that dumped as much as three feet of snow on the Northeast is linked to at least 15 deaths.
It produced some of the highest accumulations ever recorded in the Northeast.
Drought Texas Drought Info Lake Information Current Lake Levels Park and Facility Closures Miscellaneous Air Quality Monitoring Official U.S. Time National Weather Service NWS - Homepage NWS - Dallas/Fort Worth Office Local Weather Records Archived U.S. Climate Data Climate Prediction Center National Hurricane Center Storm Prediction Center Preparing For Severe Weather Severe Weather Safety Flood Safety Tips NOAA Weather Radio Travel Information Texas Road Conditions U.S. Flight Delays Weather Projects Rusty's Classroom Weather Lon's Weather Page |


text:
How do we "see" with our eyes closed when we are dreaming?
—Robert J. Evans, via e-mail
Robert O. Duncan, a behavioral scientist at York College, the City University of New York, explains:
as you suggested by the phrasing of your question, people don't actually see in their dreams. Sight depends on light entering the eye and stimulating the retina—something that doesn't happen when we are lying in the dark with our eyes shut. Nevertheless, studies that compare the vivid imagery of dreams with daytime vision reveal similar patterns of activity in the visual cortex, the largest brain area devoted to vision.
That is why some researchers believe dream visions come from visual centers in the brain. In the mid-1970s dream researcher J. Allan Hobson and his colleagues at Harvard Medical School proposed that the brain spontaneously generates electrical pulses while dreaming. These signals, known as PGO waves, originate in the visual cortex and in two other visual regions of the brain: the pons and the lateral geniculate nucleus.
PGO waves are most prominent during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, the part of sleep when most dreaming occurs. The spontaneous activity from PGO waves may start in the visual areas of the brain but ultimately creates a cascade of activity that taps into the brain regions that house memories.
But not all investigators agree that dream imagery originates in visual areas. Several dream researchers have proposed the opposite path, suggesting that dreams originate in the regions that store memories and then connect to visual brain areas. This theory would explain why dream images are only as detailed as our memories.
For instance, let's say you are thinking of your grandmother. Your memory of her might not include the mole she has on the right side of her face, something you would clearly see if you were sitting next to her. The lack of detail that is characteristic of memory occurs also in dream visions.


text:
Former Liffe executive appointed LME chief
27 Aug 2013Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing has appointed Garry Jones to run the London Metal Exchange, ending weeks of speculation over the UK bourse's new leadership.
Take a Financial News trial today:
- Breaking industry news & commentary
- 10 year searchable archive
- FN Powerlists & Special Reports
- FN on mobile and iPad
Does your company already have an FN licence? Email us now
Most Read
Most Emailed
Standard Chartered suffers emerging problems
Bank's exposure to emerging markets proved a good bet for investors after the financial crisis. But now its bias to the developing world has found it out of fashion
From The Wall Street Journal


text:
Specifications & Dimensions
Dimensions: | |
Depth (in.): | 24 in. |
Height (in.): | 1.5 |
Table Dimensions: | 72 W x 1-1/2 H x 24 D in. |
Width (in.): | 72 in. |
Product Overview: | |
Item Weight (lbs.): | 35.0 lbs. |
Color: | |
Color/Finish: | Wood finish Woodgrain |
Table: | |
Worksurface Back Trough: | N/A |
Worksurface Banded Edges: | N/A |
Worksurface Material: | Butcher block |
Worksurface Rounded Corners: | N/A |
Worksurface Side Tray: | N/A |
Worksurface Thickness: | 1-1/2 in. |
Ratings & Reviews
Product Description
Build a custom workbench in 4 simple steps: 1. Select your workbench frame, 2. Select your worksurface material, 3. Add storage modules, 4. Add accessories
- Select this 6' butcher block worksurface to continue building your custom workbench
- 72"W x 24"D x 1.5"H worksurface provides a spacious, durable work area
- Butcher block material is stylish, long-lasting and hardworking
- 1,450 lb. overall load capacity when combined with workbench (sold separately
- 35 lbs. (16 kg)
- Butcher block material is stylish, long-lasting and hardworking
Added on September 26, 2009
Overall, others give this:
Reviewers may have received a benefit, like a sweepstakes entry or rewards program points, in exchange for writing a review.
Those benefits were not conditioned on the positive or negative content of the review.
Most Helpful Reviews
Akron, OH
via sears.com
I bought this a few weeks ago for my 6 foot workbench and I must say for the price you cant beat it. I was in construction for many years and I can tell you ive seem butcher block counters that cost nearly ten times as much as this and not much different.
Denver, CO
I was worried this might arrive unfinished or otherwise require work, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that the top arrived finished and in great condition. It truly is nice, and they managed to build it with most of the knots on one side so that with the other side I got an almost perfect tabletop surface. Great work surface.
Racine, WI
Wow, super nice for the money! A home supply store quoted me 400 bucks for a 6' butcher block top identical to this one. It is very sturdy, has a nice finish, no wonder some folks buy these for their kitchen tops. Suggestion- If you are using this top on the Craftsman workbench frame with the back wall light combo, you cannot set the top back as suggested in the instructions. Consider ripping 2" off the length of the back before bolting it down for a more reasonable overhang on the front, providing clear access to the top drawer of any cabinet.
Converse, TX
via sears.com
Ideal work top and is thick and sturdy enough to do projects on. Best of all "showcase item" which people who observed butcher block state too nice to be a work table!
Lincoln, CA
via sears.com
I've had this for four days, and it's already torn up. Have I been working hard? Slamming it? No. All I've done is rest a few tools on the top while organizing my pegboard. That alone has scratched the surface up. Additionally, I dropped a small wrench about 3 inches, and it cracked/caved in part of the wood. I suspect this is cheap particle board with a butcher block laminate.
North Kingstown, RI
via sears.com
I was looking for a butcher block top to finish my kitchen island/table and this inexpensive, high quality piece works great! I purchased 2 pieces ( @ $129.99 a piece) , so if you do your homework you can't find a better price for a 48"x72" butcher block counter top! A savings of at least $ 400.00!!!!
Parker, CO
via sears.com
I'm very happy with my new table top that I picked up last week. It exceeded my expectations and is quite a bargain! Looked at hard maple and IKEA, then found this. Like someone else said, It's so nice I hate to use it as a workbench. I could always buy another and make an inside table. Now to attach it and find a good vise.
Newport, MI
via sears.com
This is a nice top. It is very heavy and there is a top and bottom. It is wider than I thought it would be, about 3-4 inches overhang on each side of the workbench. Looks great.
Las Vegas, NV
via sears.com
Got this to be the top for my workbench, and it rocks. Sturdy as ****.
Voorheesville, NY
via sears.com
This is far too beautiful to use as a work surface. I used it to make a good sewing surface for my wife by placing it on top of two wooden file cabinets. It is a classy setup that has gotten big compliments.
- Members get 3% in points or with Sears Card get 10% in points. Offer ends 26-Dec-2013 See details.
- Use your Sears Card and Save! Extra 5% off Tool items Sold By Sears when you use your Sears Card. Offer ends 31-Dec-2013 See details.
- Spend $199 in tools from Sears and enroll in the Tool of the Month - www.sears.com/toolofthemonth Offer ends 31-Dec-2014 See details.


text:
You know you are in Charlotte when your car is covered in pollen just hours after you wash it! It is so bad in fact that many people actually develop allergy problems after moving here from other parts of the country. Charlotte is fairly well known for this and The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America ranked Charlotte third on its list of most challenging US cities to live in with allergies.
In an earlier post we discussed the medical importance of indoor air quality but we didn't really touch on the comfort factor. With the average person spending nearly 90% of their time indoors that is of utmost importance. If you are suffering from allergy symptoms you may want to research a filtration system for your home or office.
The following filtration systems are great solutions for allergy sufferers:
High Efficiency Particulate Arresting (HEPA): Although initial costs can be higher than other filters, the HEPA filter effectively removes a larger percentage of pollen and many asthma and allergy-causing pollutants.Media Air Cleaners: These cleaners are ideal for allergy sufferers and for people who simply wish to breathe clean air. A professionally installed media air cleaner can help rid your home of dust, dust mites, pet dander, mold spores, pollen, bacteria, viruses, smoke and more! Air Purification Systems: An air purification system cleans the air in your home better than any other single system you can buy. It is the only single indoor air quality system to attack all three classes of indoor air contaminants: • Small, breathable particles such as dust, dirt, pollen and allergens • Airborne mold spores, bacteria and viruses • Odors and chemical vapors
For more information on these filtration systems and other air quality products check out the indoor air quality page on our website.
If you live in the Charlotte area and would like to consult with a professional about your indoor air quality call us at (704) 321-9250. We would love to be of service to you!
Categories: Air Quality
Tags: allergies, pollen count, air filtration
MTB Mechanical is committed to keeping you comfortable by meeting your heating & cooling and plumbing needs.


text:
Housing giant warns of return to 1970s after 'challenging year'
Published by 24publishing for 24dash.com in Housing and also in Central Government, Communities, Local Government
Housing giant fears return to 1970s after 'challenging year'
Despite posting a healthy turnover and operating surplus in the last year, Home Group, one of the UK's largest housing associations, is warning of a rough ride ahead – particularly for providers involved in care and support.
The group – which today reported an £8m rise in turnover year-on-year to £313.1m - said it was preparing for the potential of no grant post-2015 and pressures on rental income from welfare reform.
It said it also expects to see the "increased penetration" of private firms - particularly in supported housing - and further consolidation through mergers.
It said the continued systemic change in the way housing is delivered and managed - driven by substantial ideological shifts - is likely to continue possibly on a scale "similar to that last seen in the 1970s".
However, it is in the Supporting People market where it has identified big challenges after posting a £5m and £0.4m fall in turnover and surplus respectively.
The trouble stems from councils making bigger cuts to the programme than expected – principally because the ring fence that protects the funding is no longer there and councils have been using it to plug their own funding gaps.
Although the Government has given "relative protection" to the £6.5 billion programme – reducing the grant it gives councils to fund these services by 12 per cent over four years – some local authorities have announced that they will make cuts of up to 50 per cent over the next three years.
Home Group, which manages some 53,000 homes, stressed its Supporting People income, down from £57m to £52m last year, was still healthy considering the struggles by some other providers in this market who have either walked away from contracts, are running them at wafer thin margins, or are clubbing together in consortiums to re-win the work.
It said that its care and support business had faced a "challenging year" with a combination of increased competition and reduced funding causing its management to "reassess growth".
It warns: "We are likely to continue to see an increased constriction of public sector spending within general needs and supported housing until at least 2017."
The Government is already piloting a payment-by-results model for Supporting People.
Home Group says that while this creates a serious challenge for the group, it will also provide opportunities because of its strengths as a large-scale national provider.
It said the supported housing market was also more likely to see the "increased penetration" of private sector providers, especially in areas where they can operate at scale through national or regional level contracts.
While it sees this as much as an opportunity, in the form of partnerships, as a risk, it warns that to take advantage it will need to be able to "clearly demonstrate financial outcomes for funders and government as well as a social return on investment".
The group said it had a successful year in selling properties developed for sale with turnover increasing by almost £4m and the surplus increasing from £0.5m in the prior period to £3.8m in the period.
In a bid to strengthen in areas where it has a more strategic presence it concluded its initial stock disposal phase of 1,900 in April – but plans to dispose of some 3,000 more, 433 of which will be disposed of this month.
On the new homes front, things also look positive. Its successful bid for Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) funding - which will be invested in 2,100 of Home Group's planned 3,400 new homes over the next five years - is a major highlight.
It has also hailed its partnership with Gateshead Council and Galliford Try to develop some 2,400 homes in the North East as its "model for future large scale regeneration".
The joint venture deal, known as Evolution Gateshead, is thought to be one of the first times that a social housing developer and publicly-listed commercial developer have worked in "genuine partnership" with a local authority to deliver the new homes rather than as suppliers.
Housing minister hails help to buy bricks
Login and comment using one of your accounts...


text:
Published on 04-15-2011 12:54 PM
comments powered by Disqus
what is the difference between theme builder 5,theme builder 6 and theme builder 7.1 except device support.
tashveer 12-13-2013, 05:49 AMThink you could give me a quick lesson? Like about the svg files and stuff? And to get rid the tray, I can get the icons and wallpapers but then I'm stuck
tashveer 12-12-2013, 07:34 PMAh, in that case. All you need to do is get the icons, wallpaper, ect, and place them how you want as a custom theme. You will need knowledge of editing
Joe Jerde 12-12-2013, 06:21 PMYes I know but I don't think you understand me, I ment make a theme that replicates the BB 10 for 9320, like a theme that looks like BB 10 for OS 7.1
tashveer 12-12-2013, 03:56 PMI was the one who leaked the OS 7.1 Theme Builder. BlackBerryOS.com - Exclusive: Download BlackBerry Theme Studio Version 7.1 Beta
Asterisk (Votes: 5)
Orb (Votes: 1)
Splat (Votes: 4)
Star (Votes: 0)
Spark (Votes: 9)
Something else (Votes: 3)


text:
Another day, another dollar! When it comes to making money who were the top celebrities according to Forbes Magazine? No surprise, Oprah topped the list again raking is an estimated $315 million this year! I wonder if she'll be on top again next year as she'll be leaving network TV at the end of Spring of 2011 to join her OWN network.
Who else made the list of the highest earning celebs?
Per RTT News:
1. Oprah Winfrey, $315 million
2. James Cameron, $210 million
3. Tyler Perry, $125 million
4. Michael Bay, $120 million
5. Tiger Woods, $105 million
6. Jerry Bruckheimer, $100 million
7. Steven Spielberg, $100 million
8. George Lucas, $95 million
9. Beyoncé, $87 million
10. Dr. Phil, $80 million
11. Simon Cowell, $80 million
12. Jerry Seinfeld, $75 million
13. Britney Spears, $64 million
14. Lady Gaga, $62 million
15. Madonna, $58 million
16. Sandra Bullock, $56 million
17. Ellen DeGeneres, $55 million
18. Miley Cyrus, $48 million
19. Taylor Swift, $45 million
20. Judge Judy Sheindlin, $45 million
There a couple that surprise me on the list. I would have thought Lady Gaga would have earned more than Britney, but maybe next year. And who the hell knew Judge Judy made so much money a year?!? Seriously, who even watches her show?
Click here for a list of the Top 10 Grossing Movies of 2010!
[Keep Clicking Thumbnails for a Larger Image]
Images Via: WENN.com


text:
Application Development
Business Intelligence
Portals and Collaboration
Dashboards and Reporting
Enterprise Search
Extranet Portals
Intranet Portals
Migrations and Upgrades
Social Intranets
User Experience and Branding
Websites and Digital Marketing
SharePoint 2013
Unified Communications
Our Microsoft Blog
Other Valued Partners
Putting the power into the hands of your employees, your leaders, and your customers
We help clients foster higher value relationships with employees, partners, and customers through innovative SharePoint portal solutions.
One of the most significant challenges faced by companies today is efficiently sharing information and collaborating on people-driven business processes. Organizations need a comprehensive collaboration portal that is both flexible and extensible in order to meet the evolving needs of the business over time. The solution must give end users the foundational tools needed to effectively collaborate with coworkers, clients, and partners while maintaining control of access, security, and content.
Simply put, SharePoint makes it easier for people to work together. SharePoint collaboration software streamlines business intelligence, enterprise content management, search, and sharing for intranet and internet sites. The platform's powerful infrastructure with flexible deployment options ensures a secure environment, and gives deeper insight into operations.
Perficient has a proven track record of developing highly-functional collaborative websites, intranets, and extranet portals that leverage the Microsoft SharePoint platform. In addition to SharePoint consulting and implementation, Perficient's Microsoft practice provides key services including user experience design, dashboard and report development, and social business enablement. By combining our strengths in these areas, Perficient creates enterprise SharePoint portal solutions that promote user adoption, increase operational productivity, and drive measurable business value.
Learn more about Perficient's expert Microsoft portal and collaboration capabilities, and contact our consultants today.


text:
recipe reviews for:
"This is a delicate white cake. Heavy cream is used instead of butter."
Cooking Level: Expert
My Profile | Cooks I Like Reviews | Photos | Recipes | Menus | Blog
Cooking Level: Beginning
Cooking Level: Intermediate
Get the season's best recipes for holiday feasting.
Holiday cookies, cakes, pies, and breads. Get recipes and inspiration.
Get time-saving recipes to save your busy life.
A super-easy dessert made of yummy layers of chocolate cake and ice cream.
Ice cream on a cookie crust topped with whipped cream, fudge, and cherries!
This authentic Italian cream cake is rich and coconutty.


text:
- HOOPSWORLD | Basketball News & NBA Rumors - http://www.hoopsworld.com -
Grading Out The 2012 NBA Draft
Posted By Steve Kyler On June 29, 2012 @ 9:20 pm In All,Main Page,NBA Draft | No Comments
Grading the NBA Draft is such a subjective thing because we tend to look at what someone has done in their career as a precursor to what they are going to do. However, as history has proven time and time again, the draft is an imperfect process and guys that were viewed as "can't miss" sometime do and guys you did not think much of in the draft process go on to be good NBA players.
So with that in mind, here is the criteria we'll use in assigning a grade:
#1 – Did you solve a real and material need?
#2 – Did you grab the best talent possible, because talent always wins out?
#3 – Is the team better after the picks and trades?
Trying to grade what a player will be a day after the draft is impossible, so we'll just stick to the teams themselves. Lets look at the 2012 NBA Draft Grades:
John Jenkins (23) Mike Scott (43)
Comments: Not sure the Hawks solved many pressing needs, but they did get two very good players. The Hawks needed a center and with so many serviceable options on the board, the Hawks missed a real opportunity to get better at the five in favor of adding more of what they already have. The players are not bad, and Mike Scott has a real chance to stick and play for the Hawks, but the overall grade here has to be lower simply because they did not address their need or grab the best available player.
Grade: C
Jared Sullinger (21) Fab Melo (22) Kris Joseph (51)
Comments: The Celtics stayed true to their draft DNA, taking the best players regardless of what others were saying. They did not shy away from Sullinger at all and they grabbed Melo, who solves a huge problem for them. Joseph is a great value pick in the second round. Overall the Celtics did well for themselves, all three guys solve needs and all three should play as rookies. Not bad for a team that needs to fill some roster spots cheaply.
Grade: B+
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (2) Jeffery Taylor (31)
Comments: For a team in desperate need of a face-of-the-franchise player, the Bobcats missed terribly with Kidd-Gilchrist, but from an add talent point of view, the Cats grabbed a very good player in MKG. Charlotte has so many guards who can create off the bounce and put up points. Kidd-Gilchrist makes them more well-rounded, providing a great defensive mindset and approach to the game. The Cats are better, but they could have solved more problems with Thomas Robinson. Jeff Taylor at 31 was a steal. Between the two picks, Charlotte got better so grading them too low wouldn't be fair because they did a decent job improving as a basketball team.
Grade: B-
Marquis Teague (29)
Comments: With Derrick Rose expected to miss most of the season, Teague will fill an immediate need and a long-term need. The pick was really best talent on the board. However the Bulls also filled a hole. Not sure the Bulls could not have done better without moving up, earning them a solid grade for nabbing best talent and solving a clear need.
Grade: A
Dion Waiters (4) Tyler Zeller (17)
Comments: Waiters at #4 is a little crazy, but if that's your guy he would not have been there later. Waiters adds a toughness to the Cavs at both guard spots and he has a long history with Kyrie Irving, which helps the learning curve. Tyler Zeller brings a nice dimension to the Cavs and he'll really provide depth in the front as an eventual replacement for Anderson Verajo. The reach for Waiters tosses doubt into the Cavs' draft, especially given that he did not meet or workout for them, but given the number of smart guys in the draft that had Waiters high on their board, it makes the pick almost justifiable.
Grade: B+
Jared Cunningham (24) Bernard James (33) Jae Crowder (34)
Comments: Given where the Mavs started in this process, they did incredibly well for themselves. All three players have a real shot at playing for Dallas and all three provide things the Mavs really need as they re-tool this summer. Starting the draft with the #17 and turning that into three very serviceable players is not only smart drafting, it's also how you get a great grade in this process.
Grade: A-
Evan Fournier (20) Quincy Miller: (38) Izzet Turkylmaz (50):
Comments: Really not sure how to grade this draft for Denver. They drafted guys they already have so that does not help them very much. There is a lot of talent in these picks, so there's that, but the Nuggets needed an impact player and its not clear that they got one. Overall, this is not a bad draft, especially with Quincy Miller in the late 30′s. Time will tell how impactful this draft is, but Denver collected two more guys and sometimes that's how you get better: having more guys to pave the way for trades and competition.
Grade: C+
Andre Drummond (9) Khris Middleton (39) Kim English (44)
Comments: The Pistons wanted to add a big man next to Greg Monroe and they clearly did that with Andre Drummond. The Pistons don't need Andre to be great, they just need him to do what he does and that should help both parties tremendously. Nabbing Middleton and English in the second round were great value picks and both will bring energy and athleticism to the Pistons who can be a bit slow and plodding lately. Overall, the Pistons did well for themselves. How good these guys will be remains to be seen, but the picks were solid and the Pistons are better after making them.
Grade: B+
Harrison Barnes (7) Festus Ezeli (30) Draymond Green (37) Ognjen Kuzmic (52)
Comments: Not sure the Warriors could have scripted a better draft for themselves. Everything lined up just as they wanted them too. Barnes and Ezeli are great picks, they solve real needs and were clearly the best talents available. Nabbing Draymond Green in the second round was another steal for the Warriors. This, overall, was a very good draft for Golden State and given the needs they filled, not sure they could have done better without trading up.
Grade: A
Jeremy Lamb (12) Royce White (16) Terrence Jones (18)
Comments: The last thing the Houston Rockets needed were more shooters and forwards, but with three picks in the first round Houston added three more guys they did not need. Also, they still have not addressed their center position. From a talent point of view, the Rockets got three great players. Now it is absolutely possible the Houston uses some of these guys to try and trade for a veteran player, but today this draft looks terrible for Houston, not because of the guys, but because of the fit.
Grade: C
Miles Plumlee (26) Orlando Johnson (36)
Comments: Miles Plumlee? Wow. Indiana went a little nuts on that pick, but the pick of Orlando Johnson in the second round was solid. Both players fill needs, and while the Plumlee pick was a tremendous reach, time will tell if the Pacers found a gem or if they just drafted a guy 20 picks too high. Based on the criteria, the Pacers did okay for themselves, but the truth is Plumlee at 26 is a head-scratcher that will take time to validate. The Pacers solved problems, but best talent is without a question no, and are the Pacers better as a team? That remains to be seen.
Grade: C-
Furkan Aldemir (53)
Comments: This is a deferred pick. Aldemir is not going to play for the Clippers. They wanted the roster spot for a veteran so this was parking the pick in a guy they know won't come to camp. They did not solve a roster problem, they did not take the best talent and the team is not better because of the pick. Hard to grade this well, except for the fact that they did what they set out to accomplish, which is keeping the roster spot.
Grade: D-
Darius Johnson-Odom (55) Robert Sacre (60)
Comments: Call this something out of nothing. The Lakers got two guys that are absolutely Mike Brown players. DJO will bring toughness and hard-nosed defense to the Lakers, while Sacre is a great locker room guy that will make summer league and training camp fun. The odds he is on the opening day roster is super slim, but he would be a great addition if they keep him around. These were great values in terms of talent. The team is better and real roster needs were solved. Good draft for the Lakers, who started the process with very little.
Grade: B+
Tony Wroten (25)
Comments: The Grizzlies needed a backup point guard badly, and Wroten answers that call. With the news that Memphis is likely passing on O.J. Mayo in free agency, there is now a real window for the super athletic Wroten to have a role. Overall, this is a decent pick for Memphis. It solves a real need. Wroten is a solid talent (although a suspect shooter) and the team is better after making the pick.
Grade: B+
Justin Hamilton (45)
Comments: The HEAT desperately needed size and the ability to score in the paint and while Hamilton isn't the first name you think of, he can certainly be those things for Miami. The fact that he has a low dollar deal makes it likely that he makes the team and from a character point of view the HEAT got a pretty solid guy. The pick does address a real need. The HEAT are not likely changing their status as a team because of the pick, but he is reasonable talent for the 45th pick..
Grade: C+
John Henson (14) Doron Lamb (42)
Comments: The Bucks had defined center/big man as their first need in the draft and in Henson they get a pretty interesting one. Not sold Henson is going to be a star in the NBA, just too similar to bigs like Brandan Wright and Patrick O'Bryant, but he has potential and solid work ethic. Lamb at 42 is a solid pick up too. In all, the Bucks had a reasonable draft. They addressed some needs, drafted solid talent and look to be better for the process. The questions surrounding Henson as a pro make it hard to grade them high, but they did meet the criteria for a good draft.
Grade: C+
Robbie Hummel (58):
Comments: At 58, you rarely get a real player, but Hummel will get a chance in summer league. However, the odds he plays any real role for the Wolves is unlikely. This was a 'spend the pick because we have to' play. Not sure there was anyone there on the board that was a better or worse prospect than Hummel, so overall this pick means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's great for Robbie, but beyond that the Wolves simply spent a pick they had to spend.
Grade: C
Tyshawn Taylor (41) Tornike Shengalia (54) Ilkan Karaman (57)
Comments: The Nets tried to trade into the first round, but were unable to make a deal. However, they got a borderline first-round talent in Tyshawn Taylor and picked up two promising international players in Tornike Shengalia and Ikan Karaman. By scooping up guys in the second round, the Nets preserve their capspace and that's likely more important in the grand scheme than getting a pick in the late 20′s. Not sure the Nets solved any real needs, but Taylor should make the roster and play for the Nets as a rookie. Also, not sold the Nets are a better team because of these picks. Taylor is a solid talent, as is Shengalia, so the Nets get some points for both of those guys. Overall, considering where the Nets started the night, they did get three reasonable assets and maintained flexibility so their grade reflects that.
Grade: C+
Anthony Davis (1) Austin Rivers (10) Darius Miller (46)
Comments: Not sure the Hornets could have scripted a better draft. They got the three guys they wanted and all three fit how the Hornets want to play. Davis is a can't miss stud. Rivers could excel in the Hornets' system and Miller is a nice talent that fits as well. The Hornets grabbed great talent, addressed tons of needs and are a much better team because of it. Hard not to grade them very high.
Grade: A+
Kostas Papanikolaou (48)
Comments: Hard to grade this one. Papanikolaou is a very good player. He averaged 7 points and almost 4 rebounds in 20 minutes per game in the Greek League, which are respectable numbers for a 6'8 small forward. Knicks' fans won't like the pick, but at the end of the day this is a quality international player who could be good in the NBA. It remains to be seen what role he'll play for the Knicks and that uncertainty lowers the grade, but from a 'get good talent' point of view, the Knicks did okay. Not sure this solves a need or makes the team better, but it is a decent enough pick at 48.
Grade: C
Perry Jones III (28)
Comments: The word is PJIII has a loose particle in his knee and that he'll require surgery at some point. That, combined with questions about his focus and ability to play a role in an organized system, had him on the board at 28, which was a steal for the Thunder. Jones does not solve a pressing need (a center would have done that), but he was hands down the best talent on the board and the team could be better because of it down the line. Jones will really benefit from how the Thunder develop players and he'll be put on a program that will help him maximize his potential. You may not see a lot of him next season, but down the road PJIII could actually have a long career because of the slide and the Thunder got a steal at 28.
Grade: A-
Andrew Nicholson (19) Kyle O'Quinn (49)
Comments: The Magic needed size and toughness and they got both in Nicholson and O'Quinn. With Earl Clark opting out and Ryan Anderson hitting free agency, the Magic were very thin in the frontcourt to start with. Both guys could play center in spots if needed and both are relentless 'tough guys" that love to bang, rebound and block shots. The Magic did solve some roster needs with these picks, did get quality talent with both picks and are a better team as a result. Adding a point guard would have been smart, but given that the Magic seem to want to keep Jameer Nelson, drafting a guard might have sent the wrong signal.
Grade: B-
Moe Harkless (15) Arnett Moultrie (27)
Comments: Wow. Philly got two really good fitting pieces. The problem is Harkless and Moultrie are awfully similar to guys on the roster. There is a lot of duplication in these players, but both of them fit how Philly likes to play. The 76ers scooped up good talent. Not sold they solved any real needs, but they may have opened the door for trades. While the guys drafted won't supplant any starters, they are a better team going forward after making these picks.
Grade: B-
Kendall Marshall (13)
Comments: This is a really smart pick. Marshall could be a great understudy for Steve Nash if he opts to return as a free agent or he could ultimately be the replacement because the two are such similar instinctual playmakers. Marshall is not singlehandedly changing the Suns, but he will make them better and he is a good talent at #13. Overall, this is a good smart pick.
Grade: A-
Damian Lillard (6) Meyers Leonard (11) Will Barton (40)
Comments: The Blazers did extremely well for themselves. Lillard is a great point guard, Leonard is the perfect compliment to LaMarcus Aldridge and Barton is a great replacement for Jamal Crawford. Not sure the Blazers could have done better in collecting talent, improving their team and solving material needs. Great draft for the Blazers.
Grade: A+
Thomas Robinson (5)
Comments: Super shocked Robinson dropped to #5, but he is a lot of things for the Kings. He is a winner. He is a leader. He is an adult. The Kings have been a band of misfits for a while and TRob will bring some leadership where none has existed. The fact that the Kings now have a nasty frontcourt is simply a bonus. This really was best talent on the board. It solves a real need and the team is better for the pick. Good pick up for the Kings.
Grade: A
Marcus Denmon (59)
Comments: The Spurs are among the best in the business at finding diamond-in-the-rough guys and Marcus Denmon is exactly that. This is a great pickup for the Spurs. Not sure how much of a role he'll play, but he's a great talent that fits the Spurs system. He doesn't solve any real needs, but at 59 you take what you can get and the Spurs got a solid player.
Grade: B+
Terrence Ross (8) Quincy Acy (37) Tomislav Zubic (56)
Comments: This was actually a very solid draft for the Raptors. They got some really good players, although where they fit remains to be seen. Ross is an electric scorer who is ruthless with the rock. Acy is a monster physically and a perfect enforcer type for the Raptors. Zubic is a deferred pick, but overall this was a decent draft. The Raptors got great talent for their picks. Not sold they solved any real needs, but they are a better team as a result of the picks.
Grade: B-
Kevin Murphy (47)
Comments: This is actually a very good pick for the Jazz. Murphy is a great shooter. He needs to work on his body a little bit, but when it comes to volume offense, Murphy is a quality pickup. He was arguably best talent on the board. Not sold it solves a real need, but the Jazz are better for the pick.
Grade: B-
Bradley Beal (3) Tomas Satoransky (32)
Comments: Solid draft for the Wizards. Beal is the perfect counter to the "John Wall punch," he is a super smart guard that is only going to get better and his jump shot is as textbook as we've seen since Ray Allen. Satoransky is a decent backup guard and could play this year. Overall, the Wizards drafted great talent. They got better because of the picks and they addressed real and material needs. Very good draft.
Grade: A-
Article printed from HOOPSWORLD | Basketball News & NBA Rumors: http://www.hoopsworld.com
URL to article: http://www.hoopsworld.com/grading-out-the-2012-nba-draft
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2013 HOOPSWORLD | Basketball News & NBA Rumors
Part of the USA TODAY Sports Media Group.


text:
Tuesday, December 31, 2013 (9:00 PM) Palace Hotel 2 New Montgomery Street, San FranciscoCA
Aykut Events known by organizing the MOST Fun and Absolute Best Special Events in SF. This will be the Premier NYE celebration in the city again by far ! Multiple Balloon Drops at Midnight Fabulous Dancers and Drummers Complimentary Salsa Class from 9 to 9:45 Red Carpet Treatment A Special Photo Booth NYE Party Favors & Much More !
SEE PICS FROM OUR PREVIOUS SOLD-OUT NYE EVENTS: 2013 - PALACE | 2012 - PALACE | 2011 - PALACE | 2010 - W HOTEL | 2009 - W HOTEL | MORE 100 Years of Tradition - San Francisco's most famous landmark hotel, The One and Only 'PALACE ' Palace Hotel Ranked as one of the top luxury hotels in the world, Join Us at this magical event & Unlock the distinctive beauty and storied past of this grand hotel ! 4 Separate Dance Floors in ONE w/ 7 DJs, an 11 Piece Live Salsa Band & Much More ! AMAZING Line Up !!! .... Our NYE Ball Sells Out Every Year. Please secure your discounted tickets now while they last and be part of the Absolute BEST !!! Ticket Details GENERAL ADMISSION
General Admission Includes access to ALL Rooms w/ a HOSTED PREMIUM OPEN BAR like Belvedere Vodka, Don Julio Tequila, Johnny Walker Black, Tanqueray, Hennessy, etc & Complimentary Coat Check. No Refunds. VIP TABLE We will have VIP Tables located in the Main Room (Euro/Top 40/Int'l House) as well as in the Persian/Int'l Room. This package does NOT include any tickets and you MUST purchased them separately. INCLUDES: Your own private table with a dedicated server (each table seats 8 guests But you can party around it with more friends, np), One Bottle (liter) Premium Alcohol like Belvedere Vodka, Don Julio Tequila, Johnnie Walker Black Label, etc. , Tax and Server's Tip.


text:
Rumors of $400 PS3/'Spider-Man 3' Blu-ray bundle rev up
Our friends over at Gamespot posted a blog yesterday discussing the likelihood of a rumored $400 PS3 that would arrive in time for the holidays. The entry links to a story on Ars Technica about how the PlayStation 3's sales are slowing again after a brief burst of momentum following the price drop to $500 on the 60GB version of the console. Analysts are already predicting that Sony will soon drop the price of the 80GB PS3 to $500 and one of Ars Technica's "reliable" moles is saying that Sony will also bring out a $400 … Read more