Friday, March 04, 2005

US Kids recruited through School TV ?

"Are you saying you're being recruited through the TV you watch during homeroom?"

-0-

FPF-fwd.: Being born in Europe, 3 Kms from the German border, the 'Hitlerjugend' [Url.: http://tinyurl.com/4s3rl] is the first thing one thinks of, when reading the story below:
"...to create a new division consisting exclusively of volunteers from the Hitler Youth born in the year 1926. The Division was to be a symbol of the willingness of the German youth to sacrifice itself and of it's will to achieve total victory." - Hubert Meyer, History of the 12. SS-Panzerdivision "Hitlerjugend"

Why Go To College, When You Can Be Cannon Fodder? Do You Know
What Your Kids Are Watching On 'Educational' TV At School?

By Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

I learned something new yesterday.

Channel One News, the "educational" TV show that my daughter Isa and millions of other American kids watch every morning at school, is busy recruiting our teenagers into the military. "Mom, they're really aiming at the black kids, and the Hispanic kids too. I'm so sick of seeing those military ads everyday. "The Power of One", and all that lots of my friends are falling for it!"

This is especially upsetting to Isa because several of her black friends, 18, 19 and 20 years old, have been shipped to Iraq. Some were promised they wouldn't have to be in combat, but would be doing "mechanical work", "communications", or "wiring".

It seems doubtful that, when push comes to shove, kids who've been promised such jobs will be allowed to avoid combat. One of her friends has already been shot "in an embarrassing place"; he's being treated overseas instead of the US so that he can be sent quickly back into combat in Iraq. Mr. Bush's military needs warm bodies, able or not.

I stopped the car and asked, "Wait a minute. What do you mean when you say you're 'seeing those military ads every day'?"

"We have to watch this short thing every morning in homeroom called 'Channel One News'," Isa explained with a weary tone. "It's educational, supposedly. You know, the day's news, so we'll be up on current events. But in between the stories, there are more and more ads for the Army and the Marines."

No Child Left Behind ?

I thought about "No Child Left Behind" and the malignant purpose behind that sweet-sounding act that Mr. Bush and his men (and at least one journalist paid $250,000 by the White House) have continuously promoted to trusting parents across the US.

After catching my breath I asked, "Are you saying you're being recruited through the TV you watch during homeroom?" She nodded. I asked again, "What do your teachers think about this? What about Mr. Hitchens (not his real name), who told you privately that he's antiwar? Doesn't he say anything against it?"

Persuaded Away from College, Towards the Military "No, I think the teachers and the kids are so used to it at my school that they don't even notice anymore. I mean, the other day I was walking to Sociology class and heard the ROTC instructor telling the kids, "Okay, this is how you hold your M-16".

The whole culture of the school is military these days, so nobody notices anything unusual about this. And I think the few teachers who aren't prowar or proBush are afraid to get in trouble if they say anything that doesn't sound pro-military." As noted in my recent articles on military recruitment and the coming draft, for two years my daughter and I have been fighting the aggressive and often sneaky efforts of military recruiters to sign her up.

Certainly they don't want her for her physical prowess-she weighs 98 pounds - so I can only assume they want her for other reasons. Either they've seen her high verbal scores, or they just want young bodies--even a tiny one--to serve as cannon fodder. With a military recruiter present every day in the cafeteria, military "speakers" visiting classrooms, and huge recruiting posters in the guidance office, perhaps it's not surprising that teachers and even guidance counselors have been influenced by the constant hum of "enlist, enlist, enlist".

Students at Isa's school are told that, yes, they could consider college, but that it's "very expensive" and "may not guarantee you a job", while the military "will pay for college" and "practically guarantees you'll have a great career". Oh, and "a big cash bonus right now if you sign up today!"

Joining the military is presented as the one and only path of honor, heroism, and service to one's country. Many students, not surprisingly, want to be heroes or get out of poverty, so they're signing up in droves.

College recruiting is a rarity at this school, and at her previous school, as well. Ah, but military recruiters are constantly lurking around, spending quality time with fatherless boys, handing out materials, giving "aptitude tests" (played down as "just helping you figure out what you're really good at"), handing out Marine bumper stickers, and otherwise making their smartly-uniformed presence known.

"It's just everywhere", Isa continued. "Here's an example: In gym we don't exercise or play sports like we used to do - now we "sound off", just like in the military, while running and doing jumping jacks, push-ups, and pull-ups. The freshmen are told to shout, "one, two!", then the sophomores are supposed to answer, "three, four!", and then the whole group of us has to say "Sound off!" I mean it's ridiculous Mom! How are you supposed to exercise while you're shouting at the top of your lungs?"

As I started driving again, I took a moment to reflect on this "military culture" that's replacing the educational culture in America's public schools.

Surely Channel One News, which parents and educators have criticized from the start as nothing more than a way to let corporations advertise their products directly to kids without their parents' knowledge, wouldn't go so far as to market the military to children as a (better, more heroic, more exciting) alternative to college?

Surely they wouldn't override Mom and Dad by sneakily
recruiting through "educational" TV at school?

Would they?

Could they?


Dr. Teresa Whitehurst is a clinical psychologist and writer. Her most recent book describes the nonviolent guidance of children, Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family, Baker Books, 9/2004. - You can contact her at: DrTeresa@JesusontheFamily.org

[end article] - Hitlerjugend: Url.: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hitler_youth.htm

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://tinyurl.com/4f6u
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/5zmhl
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

He who travels far will often see things
Far removed from what he believed was the Truth.
When he talks about it in the fields at home,
He is often accused of lying,
For the obdurate people will not believe
Inexperience, I believe,
Will give little credence to my song.

'Journey to the East' - Hermann Hesse

'The war in Iraq is illegal' says United Nation's Secretary General -
Kofi Annan - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5pl2v

55' seconds 'sound bite' concerning the US/Israeli 'Dogs of War'
'bringing democracy' everywhere. Url: http://tinyurl.com/5u98v

HR

=0=

Jeff Gannon "Entertained" Tony Blair

Liberty Think | March 4 2005 - It's the question even the mainstream-left AMERICABlog wants to know of GOP operative and male prostitute "Jeff Gannon": "In what capacity did you entertain Tony Blair during his visit on July 17, 2003?"

The question arises because of a note in the minutes of a meeting of the TKE fraternity chapter at West Chester University's alumni association.

"Gannon" had been participating in chapter affairs under the identity of "J. D. Guckert," an alumnus of the chapter.

The Aug. 24 2003 minutes report of a July 17 advisory board meeting that "JD Guckert was busy entertaining the Prime Minister of Great Britain (not a joke)."

And in the story Gannon filed, he seems to have been present at the Blair / Bush news conference, and possibly even their "private meeting." [end quote]

Liberty Think | March 4 2005 - Url:http://tinyurl.com/3zyzb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FPF - And here's the article the incurably servile White House keeper Gannon/Guckert concocted about it: the dates fit and there was a private meeting too.

Blair Speaks to Congress, Briefs With Bush

By Jeff Gannon

Talon News - July 18, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair came to Washington on Thursday to address a joint session of Congress. In a speech interrupted by 17 standing ovations, the British leader spoke about Iraq and the overall war on terrorism.

"In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs," Blair said.

Blair dismissed the idea that the actions taken in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are anti-Muslim saying, "There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior."

The Prime Minister voiced a sentiment similar to President Bush when he said, "Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit."

Following his address to Congress, Blair joined Bush in the Cross Hall at the White House. There, the Prime Minister and the President made remarks and fielded a few questions from the British and American press.

Bush recognized the importance of the long-standing relationship with Great Britain. In speaking of the war on terror, Bush said, "From the outset, the Prime Minister and I have understood that we are allies in this war, a war requiring great effort and patience and fortitude. The British and American peoples will hold firm once again, and we will prevail."

The President defended taking action in Iraq. "The regime of Saddam Hussein was a grave and growing threat. ... As long as I hold this office, I will never risk the lives of American citizens by assuming the goodwill of dangerous enemies."

Bush addressed the difficulties of rebuilding Iraq saying, "The creation of a strong and stable Iraqi democracy is not easy, but it's an essential part on the war against terror. A free Iraq will be an example to the entire Middle East, and the advance of liberty in the Middle East will undermine the ideologies of terror and hatred."

Blair echoed those sentiments. "It's going to be a hard task. We never expected otherwise. But as the President has said to you, ... the benefit of that reconstruction will be felt far beyond the territory of Iraq," Blair said.

The first question taken by the two leaders addressed the disputed intelligence used in Bush's State of the Union address. When asked if he would "take responsibility for those words," the President responded, "I take responsibility for putting our troops in action. ... I take responsibility for dealing with that threat [of WMDs]. ... I take responsibility for making the decisions I made."

Blair chimed in with a defense of the intelligence, saying, "The British intelligence that we had we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence."

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger," Blair added.

Both leaders firmly agreed that weapons of mass destruction would eventually be found in Iraq. Bush said, "There's no doubt in my mind."

Bush and Blair concluded the joint press conference and met privately before the Prime Minister departed Washington for Japan.

President Bush left shortly thereafter for Crawford, TX.

[end item] - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/52ftw

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the web DailyKos publishes a Gannon/Guckert timeline by 'Silence': ''I have been creating a timeline as a means of keeping track of events during the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert saga. Here's the current timeline: - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5xrc7 [end item]


FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://tinyurl.com/4f6u
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/5zmhl
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

The Dutch author this far has worked abroad 4 decades for international media as a foreign correspondent, of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism ! - At present 'Persona non Grata' in Holland :-)

He who travels far will often see things
Far removed from what he believed was the Truth.
When he talks about it in the fields at home,
He is often accused of lying,
For the obdurate people will not believe
Inexperience, I believe,
Will give little credence to my song.

'Journey to the East' - Hermann Hesse

'The war in Iraq is illegal' says the United Nation's Secretary General Kofi Annan - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5pl2v

A 55' seconds 'sound bite' concerning the US-Israeli 'Dogs of War' 'bringing democracy' everywhere. Url.: http://tinyurl.com/5u98v

FPF/HR

-0-

Dream On America

The U.S. Model: For years, much of the world did aspire to the American way of life. But today countries are finding more appealing systems in their own backyards.

By Andrew Moravcsik - Newsweek International

2005 - Jan. 31 issue - Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square.

You had only to listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America—one that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is to spread the word.

The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe "American ideas and customs" should spread globally.

Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58 percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's second Inaugural positively.

Tellingly, the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism. A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country. Says Doug Miller of GlobeScan, which conducted the BBC report: "President Bush has further isolated America from the world. Unless the administration changes its approach, it will continue to erode America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence world affairs." Former Brazilian president Jose Sarney expressed the sentiments of the 78 percent of his countrymen who see America as a threat:
"Now that Bush has been re-elected, all I can say is, God bless the rest of the world."

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements.

The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions—globalization, in a word.

Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established their own distinctive ways—none made in America. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law—a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

In Asia, the rise of autocratic capitalism in China or Singapore is as much a "model" for development as America's scandal-ridden corporate culture. "First we emulate," one Chinese businessman recently told the board of one U.S. multinational, "then we overtake."

Many are tempted to write off the new anti-Americanism as a temporary perturbation, or mere resentment. Blinded by its own myth, America has grown incapable of recognizing its flaws. For there is much about the American Dream to fault. If the rest of the world has lost faith in the American model—political, economic, diplomatic—it's partly for the very good reason that it doesn't work as well anymore.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Once upon a time, the U.S. Constitution was a revolutionary document, full of epochal innovations—free elections, judicial review, checks and balances, federalism and, perhaps most important, a Bill of Rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, countries around the world copied the document, not least in Latin America. So did Germany and Japan after World War II. Today? When nations write a new constitution, as dozens have in the past two decades, they seldom look to the American model.

When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories."

So it is elsewhere. After American planes and bombs freed the country, Kosovo opted for a European constitution. Drafting a post-apartheid constitution, South Africa rejected American-style federalism in favor of a German model, which leaders deemed appropriate for the social-welfare state they hoped to construct. Now fledgling African democracies look to South Africa as their inspiration, says John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Department official who currently heads the international relations department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg: "We can't rely on the Americans." The new democracies are looking for a constitution written in modern times and reflecting their progressive concerns about racial and social equality, he explains. "To borrow Lincoln's phrase, South Africa is now Africa's 'last great hope'."

Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY: The American Dream has always been chiefly economic—a dynamic ideal of free enterprise, free markets and individual opportunity based on merit and mobility. Certainly the U.S. economy has been extraordinarily productive. Yes, American per capita income remains among the world's highest. Yet these days there's as much economic dynamism in the newly industrializing economies of Asia, Latin America and even eastern Europe. All are growing faster than the United States. At current trends, the Chinese economy will be bigger than America's by 2040. Whether those trends will continue is not so much the question. Better to ask whether the American way is so superior that everyone else should imitate it. And the answer to that, increasingly, is no.

Much has made, for instance, of the differences between the dynamic American model and the purportedly sluggish and overregulated "European model." Ongoing efforts at European labor-market reform and fiscal cuts are ridiculed. Why can't these countries be more like Britain, businessmen ask, without the high tax burden, state regulation and restrictions on management that plague Continental economies? Sooner or later, the CW goes, Europeans will adopt the American model—or perish.

Yet this is a myth. For much of the postwar period Europe and Japan enjoyed higher growth rates than America. Airbus recently overtook Boeing in sales of commercial aircraft, and the EU recently surpassed America as China's top trading partner. This year's ranking of the world's most competitive economies by the World Economic Forum awarded five of the top 10 slots—including No. 1 Finland—to northern European social democracies. "Nordic social democracy remains robust," writes Anthony Giddens, former head of the London School of Economics and a "New Labour" theorist, in a recent issue of the New Statesman, "not because it has resisted reform, but because it embraced it."

This is much of the secret of Britain's economic performance as well. Lorenzo Codogno, co-head of European economics at the Bank of America, believes the British, like Europeans elsewhere, "will try their own way to achieve a proper balance." Certainly they would never put up with the lack of social protections afforded in the American system. Europeans are aware that their systems provide better primary education, more job security and a more generous social net. They are willing to pay higher taxes and submit to regulation in order to bolster their quality of life. Americans work far longer hours than Europeans do, for instance. But they are not necessarily more productive—nor happier, buried as they are in household debt, without the time (or money) available to Europeans for vacation and international travel. George Monbiot, a British public intellectual, speaks for many when he says, "The American model has become an American nightmare rather than an American dream."

Just look at booming bri-tain. Instead of cutting social welfare, Tony Blair's Labour government has expanded it. According to London's Centre for Policy Studies, public spending in Britain represented 43 percent of GDP in 2003, a figure closer to the Eurozone average than to the American share of 35 percent. It's still on the rise—some 10 percent annually over the past three years—at the same time that social welfare is being reformed to deliver services more efficiently. The inspiration, says Giddens, comes not from America, but from social-democratic Sweden, where universal child care, education and health care have been proved to increase social mobility, opportunity and, ultimately, economic productivity. In the United States, inequality once seemed tolerable because America was the land of equal opportunity. But this is no longer so. Two decades ago, a U.S. CEO earned 39 times the average worker; today he pulls in 1,000 times as much. Cross-national studies show that America has recently become a relatively difficult country for poorer people to get ahead. Monbiot summarizes the scientific data: "In Sweden, you are three times more likely to rise out of the economic class into which you were born than you are in the U.S."

Other nations have begun to notice. Even in poorer, pro-American Hungary and Poland, polls show that only a slender minority (less than 25 percent) wants to import the American economic model. A big reason is its increasingly apparent deficiencies. "Americans have the best medical care in the world," Bush declared in his Inaugural Address. Yet the United States is the only developed democracy without a universal guarantee of health care, leaving about 45 million Americans uninsured. Nor do Americans receive higher-quality health care in exchange. Whether it is measured by questioning public-health experts, polling citizen satisfaction or survival rates, the health care offered by other countries increasingly ranks above America's. U.S. infant mortality rates are among the highest for developed democracies. The average Frenchman, like most Europeans, lives nearly four years longer than the average American. Small wonder that the World Health Organization rates the U.S. healthcare system only 37th best in the world, behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th), and on a par with Cuba.

The list goes on: ugly racial tensions, sky-high incarceration rates, child-poverty rates higher than any Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development country except Mexico—where Europe, these days, inspires more admiration than the United States. "Their solutions feel more natural to Mexicans because they offer real solutions to real, and seemingly intractable, problems," says Sergio Aguayo, a prominent democracy advocate in Mexico City, referring to European education, health care and social policies. And while undemocratic states like China may, ironically, be among the last places where the United States still presents an attractive political and social alternative to authoritarian government, new models are rising in prominence.

Says Julie Zhu, a college student in Beijing: "When I was in high school I thought America was this dreamland, a fabled place." Anything she bought had to be American. Now that's changed, she says: "When people have money, they often choose European products." She might well have been talking about another key indicator. Not long ago, the United States was destination number one for foreign students seeking university educations. Today, growing numbers are going elsewhere—to other parts of Asia, or Europe. You can almost feel the pendulum swinging.

FOREIGN POLICY: U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand. World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the —World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries. NATO and the Marshall Plan were the twin pillars upon which today's Europe were built.

Today, Americans make the same presumption, confusing military might with right. Following European criticisms of the Iraq war, the French became "surrender monkeys." The Germans were opportunistic ingrates. The British (and the Poles) were America's lone allies. Unsurprisingly, many of those listening to Bush's Inaugural pledge last week to stand with those defying tyranny saw the glimmerings of an argument for invading Iran: Washington has thus far shown more of an appetite for spreading ideals with the barrel of a gun than for namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns. A former French minister muses that the United States is the last "Bismarckian power"—the last country to believe that the pinpoint application of military power is the critical instrument of foreign policy.

Contrast that to the European Union—pioneering an approach based on civilian instruments like trade, foreign aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring and international law—or even China, whose economic clout has become its most effective diplomatic weapon. The strongest tool for both is access to huge markets. No single policy has contributed as much to Western peace and security as the admission of 10 new countries—to be followed by a half-dozen more—to the European Union. In country after country, authoritarian nationalists were beaten back by democratic coalitions held together by the promise of joining Europe.

And in the past month European leaders have taken a courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey, where the prospect of EU membership is helping to create the most stable democratic system in the Islamic world. When historians look back, they may see this policy as being the truly epochal event of our time, dwarfing in effectiveness the crude power of America.

The United States can take some satisfaction in this. After all, it is in large part the success of the mid-century American Dream—spreading democracy, free markets, social mobility and multilateral cooperation—that has made possible the diversity of models we see today. This was enlightened statecraft of unparalleled generosity. But where does it leave us? Americans still invoke democratic idealism. We heard it in Bush's address, with his apocalyptic proclamation that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." But fewer and fewer people have the patience to listen.

Headlines in the British press were almost contemptuous: DEFIANT BUSH DOES NOT MENTION THE WAR, HAVE I GOT NUKES FOR YOU and HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH. Has this administration learned nothing from Iraq, they asked? Can this White House really expect to command support from the rest of the world, with its different strengths and different dreams? The failure of the American Dream has only been highlighted by the country's foreign-policy failures, not caused by them. The true danger is that Americans do not realize this, lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom. - [end item]

-0-

With Christian Caryl in Tokyo, Katka Krosnar in Prague, Mac Margolis in Rio de Janeiro, Tracy Mcnicoll in Paris, Paul Mooney in Beijing, Henk Rossouw in Johannesburg and Marie Valla in London © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek/

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this blog is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, and even to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. [http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html].

-0-