Admin

Anwar’s lawsuit over gay slur by former Malaysian premier is dismissed

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

A defamation lawsuit filed by Malaysia’s former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim against retired prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, who had said Anwar was homosexual, was dismissed today by a High Court judge.

In his lawsuit, filed in January 2006, Anwar sought damages of 1 million ringgit (about US$290,000), against Mahathir, after Mahathir had stated at a human rights conference that he had to dismiss Anwar because he was gay – an accusation that had caused Anwar to serve six years in prison.

Mahathir had filed a counter motion, seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. In a 48-page affidavit, Mahathir said Anwar was using the suit to “rehabilitate himself for high office”.

“The plaintiff’s action is unsustainable based on background evidence … and the [Mahathir]’s application to strike out is therefore allowed with cost,” High Court Judge Tengku Maimon Tuan Mat was quoted as saying by Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Neither Anwar nor Mahathir were present for today’s hearing.

“I have informed Anwar Ibrahim of the decision and he is indeed quite upset and he has instructed that we file an appeal as we are dissatisfied with the decision,” Anwar’s lawyer, Sankara Nair, was quoted as saying by AFP.

At a Malaysian Human Rights Commission conference in September 2005, Mahathir said he had to dismiss Anwar because having a homosexual in his Cabinet would have been immoral.

Mahathir’s remarks stemmed from sodomy charges brought against Anwar in September 1998, which along with corruption charges, disgraced Anwar and sent him to prison for six years.

Anwar has said the accusations were politically motivated to keep him from challenging Mahathir.

The sodomy conviction was later overturned after two appeals, but the corruption charges stood.

Judge Tengku Maimon noted that, although the sodomy conviction was overturned, earlier court findings proved the charge that Anwar had sodomized his former family driver, Azizan Abu Bakar.

“Hence, given the background facts of the case … it is apparent that the defenses are bound to succeed. No purpose would have been served in insisting that the defenses be proven at a full trial,” Tengku Maimon was quoted as saying by Bernama.

From the early 1990s, Anwar was being groomed by Mahathir, his former mentor, to take over as prime minister, but by the end of the decade, conflicting views on governance had deteriorated the “father-son” relationship.

With Anwar in jail, Mahathir retired in 2003 after 22 years in office, turning power over to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.

Anwar was released from prison in 2004, having his sentence reduced by the successful overturning of the sodomy conviction. He is barred from seeking public office until 2008. Earlier this year, he sought to be named leader of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the party of which his wife Dr. Wan Azizah is president, but was prevented from doing so because of the political ban.

In other recent legal cases, Anwar had proven victorious. In 2005, he won a judgment of $1.2 million against author Khalid Jafri, who had written a book that accused Anwar of fathering an illegitimate child. DNA tests proved the child was not his. Anwar also forced a public apology from a former police chief who had beat him in custody in 1998.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Anwar%27s_lawsuit_over_gay_slur_by_former_Malaysian_premier_is_dismissed&oldid=4453811”

Asbestos controversy aboard Scientology ship Freewinds

Friday, May 16, 2008

Controversy has arisen over the reported presence of blue asbestos on the MV Freewinds, a cruise ship owned by the Church of Scientology. According to the Saint Martin newspaper The Daily Herald and the shipping news journal Lloyd’s List, the Freewinds was sealed in April and local public health officials on the Caribbean island of Curaçao where the ship is docked began an investigation into the presence of asbestos dust on the ship. Former Scientologist Lawrence Woodcraft supervised work on the ship in 1987, and attested to the presence of blue asbestos on the Freewinds in an affidavit posted to the Internet in 2001. Woodcraft, a licensed architect by profession, gave a statement to Wikinews and commented on the recent events.

According to The Daily Herald, the Freewinds was in the process of being renovated by the Curaçao Drydock Company. The article states that samples taken from paneling in the ship were sent to the Netherlands, where an analysis revealed that they “contained significant levels of blue asbestos”. An employee of the Curaçao Drydock Company told Radar Online in an April 30 article that the Freewinds has been docked and sealed, and confirmed that an article about asbestos ran in the local paper.

Lloyd’s List reported that work on the interior of the Freewinds was suspended on April 27 after health inspectors found traces of blue asbestos on the ship. According to Lloyd’s List, Frank Esser, Curaçao Drydock Company’s interim director, joined Curaçao’s head of the department of labor affairs Christiene van der Biezen along with the head of the local health department Tico Ras and two inspectors in an April 25 inspection of the ship. “We are sending someone so that they can tell us what happened, where it came from, since when it has been there,” said Panama Maritime Authority’s director of merchant marine Alfonso Castillero in a statement to Lloyd’s List.

The Church of Scientology purchased the ship, then known as the Bohème, in 1987, through an organization called Flag Ship Trust. After being renovated and refitted, it was put into service in June 1988. The ship is used by the Church of Scientology for advanced Scientology training in “Operating Thetan” levels, as well as for spiritual retreats for its members. Curaçao has been the ship’s homeport since it was purchased by the Church of Scientology.

According to his 2001 statement, Lawrence Woodcraft had been an architect in London, England since 1975, and joined Scientology’s elite “Sea Organization” (Sea Org) in 1986. He wrote that he was asked by the Sea Org to work on the Freewinds in 1987, and during his work on the ship “noticed a powdery blue fibrous substance approximately 1 ½” thick between the paint and the steel wall,” which he believed to be asbestos. He also discovered what he thought was blue asbestos in other parts of the ship, and reported his findings to Church of Scientology executives. Woodcraft discussed his experiences in a 2001 interview published online by the Lisa McPherson Trust, a now-defunct organization which was critical of the Church of Scientology.

The Freewinds regularly inspects the air quality on board and always meets or exceeds US standards.

Church of Scientology spokeswoman Karin Pouw responded to Radar Online about the asbestos reports, in an email published in an article in Radar on May 1. “The Freewinds regularly inspects the air quality on board and always meets or exceeds US standards,” said Pouw. She stated that two inspections performed in April “confirmed that the air quality is safe,” and asserted that the inspections revealed the Freewinds satisfies standards set by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Pouw told Radar that “The Freewinds will be completing its refit on schedule.” The Church of Scientology-affiliated organization Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) had been planning a cruise aboard the Freewinds scheduled for May 8, but according to Radar an individual who called the booking number for the cruise received a message that the cruise had been delayed due to ongoing work on the ship. Citing an article in the Netherlands Antilles newspaper Amigoe, Radar reported on May 6 that a team from the United States and supervised by an independent bureau from the Netherlands traveled to Curaçao in order to remove asbestos from the Freewinds.

…if the Church of Scientology claims to have removed the blue asbestos, I just don’t see how, it’s everywhere. You would first have to remove all the pipes, plumbing, a/c ducts, electrical wiring etc. etc. just a maze of stuff.

“I stand by everything I wrote in my 2001 affidavit,” said Lawrence Woodcraft in an exclusive statement given to Wikinews. Woodcraft went on to state: “I would also comment that if the Church of Scientology claims to have removed the blue asbestos, I just don’t see how, it’s everywhere. You would first have to remove all the pipes, plumbing, a/c ducts, electrical wiring etc. etc. just a maze of stuff. Also panelling as well, basically strip the ship back to a steel hull. Also blue asbestos is sprayed onto the outer walls and then covered in paint. It’s in every nook and cranny.”

Many Scientologist celebrities have spent time aboard the Freewinds, including Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, Chick Corea, Lisa Marie Presley, Catherine Bell, Kate Ceberano, and Juliette Lewis. Now magazine reported that Tom Cruise has been urged to seek medical attention regarding potential asbestos exposure, however a representative for Cruise stated he has “absolutely no knowledge” of the recent asbestos controversy. Cruise, Holmes, Travolta and Preston have celebrated birthdays and other events on the Freewinds.

There is not now and never has been a situation of asbestos exposure on the Freewinds.

In a May 15 statement to the United Kingdom daily newspaper Metro, a representative for the Church of Scientology said that “There is not now and never has been a situation of asbestos exposure on the Freewinds.” The Asbestos and Mesothelioma Center notes that agencies have recommended anyone who has spent time on the Freewinds consult with their physician to determine if possible asbestos exposure may have affected their health.

Raw blue asbestos is the most hazardous form of asbestos, and has been banned in the United Kingdom since 1970. Blue asbestos fibers are very narrow and thus easily inhaled, and are a major cause of mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer which can develop in the lining of the lungs and chest cavity, the lining of the abdominal cavity, or the pericardium sac surrounding the heart. The cancer is incurable, and can manifest over 40 years after the initial exposure to asbestos.

“This is the most dangerous type of asbestos because the fibres are smaller than the white asbestos and can penetrate the lung more easily,” said toxicologist Dr. Chris Coggins in a statement published in OK! Magazine. Dr. Coggins went on to note that “Once diagnosed with mesothelioma, the victim has six months to a year to live. It gradually reduces lung function until the victim is no longer able to breathe and dies.”

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Asbestos_controversy_aboard_Scientology_ship_Freewinds&oldid=4647051”

The Taguchi Method How A Japanese Equation Is Guaranteed To Get You More Sales

By Jeremy Paton

What is the Taguchi Method?

The Taguchi method is an equation developed by Genichi Taguchi designed to improve the quality and efficiency of a line of manufacture, and in turn save on profit margins.

Taguchi’s method roots itself in the “Loss function” which factors two things: one, the production of a product and two, the losses involved in the production of this product. Taguchi argues that engineers and manufacturers must meet a certain quality standard of the product they are mass-manufacturing, otherwise their profit margins will decrease. The Taguchi method allows the manufacturer to systematically test any manufacturing process and predict the loss of profits as product quality decreases.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUEYC6YHgc[/youtube]

To take a practical example. Suppose a light bulb is meant to operate at 100W and heat up by no more than 85 degrees Celsius. If the engineering is of poor quality, then you increase the chance of producing a product which lies outside of its original specifications. For example, maybe the occasional light bulb can only produce the light of a 60W bulb, meaning it ends up producing more heat. If a company continues to produce faulty products like these, the loss in quality results in a measurable loss in profits. The Taguchi method systematically calculates the relation between product quality and profit margin.

The method details that everything in the line of manufacture counts and that everything can be minutely optimized to squeeze a progressively higher profit margin ?from the costly recall of a product, to the shipping costs of bringing a product back to manufacture.

What does this mean for Webmasters and Internet Marketers?

Well, a crop of recent products have applied the Taguchi method of manufacture to online marketing, with the idea that every component of a website, for example the sales page, landing page, content, design and so on can be minutely optimized to yield a higher conversion rate. Using a technique known as accelerated split-testing, every variable of your page can be measured and tested to see which sales page – out of 1000s of combinations – gets the best results. Conversion increases are often substantial, ranging anywhere from 20% – 300%+, and many Taguchi products are completely guaranteed ensuring zero risk for the buyer.

If you could manually test 2000 landing pages, wouldn’t at least one of them result in substantially increased sales? It’s pretty much a mathematical certainty that testing on that level would produce a a sales page with a higher conversion rate. That’s exactly what the Taguchi method does, it automates the prohibitiively tedious process of testing 1000s of potential sales pages, so you can quickly and easily find one that sells significantly more of your product.

About the Author: For more info on how the Taguchi Method can dramatically increase the sales of any webpage by 20% – 300%+ with a 100% satisfaction guarantee, visit

TaguchiOnline.com

immediately. Start increasing your sales now!

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=77695&ca=Marketing

Wikinews interviews You-peng Wang of Taipei Electrical Commercial Association

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Besides becoming a political stomping ground for the Pan-Green and Pan-Blue coalitions, there are other changes from past years of Taipei Audio Video Fair (TAVF). With those changes in mind, Wikinews reporter Rico Shen interviewed You-peng Wang, chairman of the Taipei Electrical Commercial Association (TECA), the main organizer of TAVF, about the 60th year anniversary of TECA and the changes to the show.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_interviews_You-peng_Wang_of_Taipei_Electrical_Commercial_Association&oldid=665537”

Finding Drain Cleaning In Marion, Ia The Easy Way

byadmin

When it comes to plumbing services, which usually include the cleaning of drain pipes, it is important to find the right plumber who can accommodate all of your needs. Drains can get clogged due to a variety of reasons, but when your drain pipes are not working properly, a professional and qualified plumbing technician is familiar with all of these reasons, so he or she is able to assist any homeowner or business owner with all of his or her sewer and drain-cleaning needs. Regardless of the severity or size of your plumbing problem, a competent plumber can take care of it in no time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA0LnDX4iYw[/youtube]

Finding the Right Plumber

Finding the right plumber may sound complicated, but it is much simpler if you do a little research before there is a problem with your drains. Most plumbers who offer drain cleaning in Marion, IA are more than happy to provide you with a quote for any of the services they provide, which makes working with them very simple. Drain cleaning services include both residential and commercial locations, but professional plumbers have the expertise and knowledge to handle all of these problems so that they can be cleared up in a hurry and you can go on with your life.

How to Get Started

Websites such as Rotorootercedarrapidsiowa.com provide you with all of the information you need when you are searching for a professional drain cleaning company, including details on all of their services and a convenient way to contact them should you have any questions. These drain cleaning companies help you keep your drains running properly, maintain and repair your sump pumps and septic tanks, and even keep your toilets running at all times. From small homes to large industrial complexes and even governmental entities, all plumbing and drainage needs can be accommodated if you locate one of these excellent plumbing companies.

Four arrested in plot to bomb infrastructure at JFK International Airport, New York City

Saturday, June 2, 2007

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported that four arrests have been made in a foiled plot to blow up jet-fuel supply tanks and pipeline at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), in New York City. The DOJ suggested the plot was interrupted in the early planning stages through cooperative law enforcement work in the United States and abroad.

The four arrested were identified by the DOJ in a press release Saturday as Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen and native of Guyana, Abdul Kadir, a citizen of Guyana and past member of the Guyanese Parliament, Kareem Ibrahim, a citizen of Trinidad, and Abdel Nur, also a citizen of Guyana.

Defreitas, a former employee of JFK was arrested in Brooklyn, New York. Kadir and Ibrahim were arrested in Trinidad. It was not made clear where Nur was arrested, however the DOJ indicated that the U.S. will initiate extradition proceedings for the three.

The DOJ alleged that the four began the planning in January, 2006 through to the present. It was revealed that law enforcement officials believed the targets included buildings, fuel tanks, and fuel pipelines at JFK, which were to be destroyed with explosives. The primary pipeline target was the Buckeye Pipeline, which distributes fuel to depots as far away as Pennsylvania. It also serves New Jersey and various boroughs of New York.

It was alleged by the DOJ that the plotters “tapped into an international network of Muslim extremists from the United States, Guyana, and Trinidad, and utilized the knowledge, expertise, and contacts of the conspirators to develop and plan the plot, and obtain operational support and capability to carry it out.”

Defreitas traveled from Guyana to JFK to allegedly conduct surveillance of the airport on four occasions in January 2007. According to the DOJ press release, the four plotters “obtained satellite photographs of JFK airport and its facilities from the Internet and traveled frequently between the United States, Guyana, and Trinidad to discuss their plans and solicit the financial and technical assistance of others.”

U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York Roslynn Mauskopf described the scenario as “one of the most chilling plots imaginable.” She went on to say at a news conference in New York that “the devastation that would be caused …is just unthinkable.”

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Four_arrested_in_plot_to_bomb_infrastructure_at_JFK_International_Airport,_New_York_City&oldid=4673729”

Details emerge on how al-Zarqawi’s location was pinned

Friday, June 9, 2006

Someone said to be an informant within Abu Musab al-Zarqawi‘s trusted circle told Coalition forces the insurgent leader was going to have a meeting, it has emerged. This information appears to have led US F-16Cs to a safehouse in the Iraqi town of Hibhid, where the Jordanian and five others, including a child, were killed on Wednesday.

“We had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house. There was 100 percent confirmation,” Caldwell said.

The informer is said to want the insurgency to pursue a strategy within the Iraqi political process, which in the informer’s view was in contrast to tactics executed by al-Zarqawi’s leadership that involved ethnic killings.

It was one of the last in a long line of breadcrumbs leading the hunt for the Iraqi government’s most-wanted murderer to the doorstep of an attractive isolated house in Hibhid.

In a late-April video al-Zarqawi had been shown spraying bullets from a machine gun with a horizon in the background. This is said to have revealed the general location of al-Zarqawi, found near Diyala province, in the north east of Iraq. The ethnically mixed region had seen an upsurge in violence and over days preceding the airstrike.

Murders had included a number of decapitated heads left in fruitboxes. Al-Zarqawi had been known for kidnapping and video beheadings of westerners in Iraq.

Another al-Zarwaqi insider also had given vital clues to the investigators before the final tip-off. A former customs clearance officer in Rutba identified as Ziad Khalaf al-Karbuli had named Sheikh Abu Abdul-Rahman as al-Zarqawi’s spiritual advisor and gave-up contact details.

Ziad Khalaf al-Karbuli had appeared on Jordanian television, May 23, to confess his links to al-Zarqawi, and to his murder of a Jordanian driver and his kidnap of two Moroccan embassy employees in 2005. The vital clue about Abu Abdul-Rahman was not broadcast.

With details from the al-Karbuli interrogation the gunsights got closer to al-Zarqawi. “Through painstaking intelligence effort, they were able to start tracking him, monitoring his movements and establishing when he was doing his link-ups with Zarqawi, ” Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said of the investigators.

The US search for the Sheikh included the use of remote controlled aircraft, it was revealed.

However; it is said neither the al-Karbuli information nor the al-Zarqawi betrayer lead the Americans to press the fire button on al-Zarwaqi’s two-story home. Al-Zarqawi was hard to catch because he reportedly eschewed trackable cell-phones in favour of high-tech Thuraya-made satellite phones to communicate.

The death certificate was signed by the secret informant who said both Sheikh Abu Abdul-Rahman and al-Zarqawi would be in Hibhid, Wednesday night.

For the elusive insurgent who had previously escaped attempts to bomb him, the execution came after comparison of this source’s information with tracks of the location of satellite phone users.

The location found was beside a property with a courtyard surrounded by fields away from other buildings. It appears then the US command made the decision to strike at an address in the small town, near Baqubah.

US special forces were on the scene to photograph the dead al-Zarqawi at 6:17 p.m., two minutes after two 500lb bombs were dropped. Al-Zarqawi was said to be alive and being given medical assistance when he died of wounds sustained in the bombing.

The announcement of the killing was made Thursday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said to viewers of Iraqi television the $25 million bounty for information leading to the death or capture of al-Zarqawi would be “honored.”

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Details_emerge_on_how_al-Zarqawi%27s_location_was_pinned&oldid=565841”

Kitchens An Unorthodox Approach To A Great Budget Kitchen Makeover

By Jon T. Anderson

Kitchens are the heart of our homes. Give your kitchen an update without great expense. Remodeling your kitchen can be the budget buster for your home improvement project. In many cases you can bring life to your house without the extreme expense of completely gutting the kitchen and starting over. You must look at your house and especially your kitchen from a whole new perspective. Are you ready for the mind shift?

Next weekend, drive to three open houses. Walk through the homes with the eye of a buyer. Stick with me here. We are opening your eyes and changing your perspective. As you walk through the homes, think about the nice features and the negative ones. Pay particular focus on the kitchen and adjoining rooms.

Drive home immediately after your tour.

Keep your buyer’s hat on. Walk into your house through your front door. No cheating, use the FRONT DOOR. Look at your house with the same discerning eye that you had when you walked through the open houses. What would you do to make your house more appealing? List 10 items. What makes your house special? List those items.

Now lets get to business. Start with the list of items that make your kitchen special. What can you do to make accentuate those features? Make a list.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTSes0kzJc0[/youtube]

Now take a look at the list of 10 items that will make your kitchen more appealing. Rank the items in order of expense and effort. Once complete, rank the same list again in order of the effect the change will have on the feel of your house. Look at the three lists that you have compiled. Do you see any items on the ‘make my kitchen appealing’ list that will contribute to accenting the items that make your house most appealing.

We are looking at building your house’s muscle; strengthening its strengths. In other words, we are creating a clearer and more unified focus on the positive features of your home.

5 inexpensive solutions to update your kitchen:

1. The obvious first choice is paint. This is the weekend warrior’s special. Almost anyone can paint a minor portion of their home over a weekend. Myself included; and this is from the voice of a believer that “if I can do the home improvement project, there must be thousands that can do it better.”

Look as paint as a woman looks at her hair. If you get tired of the look, make a change. In fact, paint is more like a haircut than you may think. As with a bad haircut, a poor choice in paint colors can easily be changed. The wrong paint color can be quite forgiving.

There are some simple rules and ideas to keep in mind when painting. If you need assistance in color selection, go to Home Improvement U’s Design Center for a step by step guide on how to select colors for your remodeling project.

2. Light, Light and More Light. Natural light is the best form. Adding light will alter the feel of your kitchen for the better. Your kitchen will feel larger and more open with the use of natural light.

Adding a solar tube or two is easy and inexpensive. That is if you don’t have another room above your kitchen. If all else fails, add lighting to your kitchen. A thoughtful choice in light fixtures can add the pop you are looking for in your kitchen home improvement project.

3. Cabinet door pulls can give just the right touch to your kitchen. In most cases, affordable door and drawer pulls can be an affordable way to add character to your kitchen.

4. Kitchen faucet is the next item for sprucing up. Not only will a new faucet look good, it will be a functional addition to your kitchen improvement.

5. Appliances can have a big effect on the look and feel of your kitchen. The refrigerator and range are the two most visible appliances. There is no need to worry here. There are tactics to saving on appliances. Visit us at Home Improvement U for Appliance Savings Tips.

With your revised mindset and samples of effective remodeling solutions to improve look of your kitchen at a minimal expense, you are ready to move forward with your budget kitchen remodeling project.

About the Author: With all of these basics in hand, you are ready to start the design process associated with your kitchen remodeling project. And, additional information regarding your home improvement, remodeling, renovation, building and design needs can be found at http://www.HomeImprovementU.com your home for comprehensive training and coaching from building a shed through constructing your own green home for 45k.

Source: isnare.com

Permanent Link: isnare.com/?aid=733969&ca=Real+Estate

McCain and Obama face off in U.S. presidential candidate debate

Sunday, September 28, 2008

The two major party presidential candidates in the US, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, faced each other yesterday in the first TV debate. Despite that McCain had asked to postpone the debate, both were present at the University of Mississippi. The debate, which was moderated by PBSJim Lehrer, was planned to be focused on foreign policy, however due to concerns about the US financial crisis, the debate began focused on economy.

McCain repeatedly referred to his experience, drawing on stories from the past. Often, he joked of his age and at one point seemed to mock his opponent. Obama spoke of mistakes and repeatedly laid out detailed plans.

The debate was widely seen as a draw. A CBS poll conducted after the debate on independent voters found that 38% felt it was a draw, 40% felt Obama had won, and 22% thought that McCain had won. Voters and analysts agreed that Obama had won on the economy, but that McCain had done better on foreign policy issues, which were the focus of the debate. However, Obama had a more substantial lead on the economy than McCain did on foreign policy.

The McCain campaign faced some ridicule prior to the debate, after airing an internet ad declaring McCain had won the debate hours before it had started.

The candidates were asked where they stood on the country’s financial plans.

Obama put forward four proposals for helping the economy. First, to “make sure that we’ve got oversight over this whole [bailout] process”. Second, to “make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains”. Third, to “make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes”. And lastly, “make sure that we’re helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country”.

He then went on to say, “we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down”.Lehrer then turned to McCain, giving him two minutes as well.

McCain, on the other hand, stressed the urgency of the crisis and the partisanship present in Washington before going on. “This package has transparency in it. It has to have accountability and oversight. It has to have options for loans to failing businesses, rather than the government taking over those loans. We have to — it has to have a package with a number of other essential elements to it,” he told viewers, pausing to briefly mention energy and jobs before Lehrer stopped him.

Lehrer asked the two to come back to his question and urging them to speak to each other, first turning to Senator Obama.

“We haven’t seen the language yet,” Obama began, speaking to Lehrer and not McCain. “And I do think that there’s constructive work being done out there”, he said, before noting he was optimistic a plan would come together. “The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?”

He continued, stressing his foresight on the issues two years ago, before Lehrer turned to McCain, asking if he planned to vote for the bailout plan.

McCain stammered that he hoped so. Lehrer asked again, and McCain replied, “Sure. But — but let me — let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.”

McCain then continued, giving a story about former US President Dwight Eisenhower, who “on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letter”. Eisenhower, he said, had taken accountability for his actions.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Who won the debate? Did the debate change your opinions on either of the candidates or the issues?
Add or view comments

“As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.”

Obama then agreed with McCain, adding that more accountability was needed but not just when there’s a panic. “There are folks out there who’ve been struggling before this crisis took place,” Obama continued, “and that’s why it’s so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the — a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound”.

Obama was asked to say it to McCain. Obama replied, “I do not think that they are”. Lehrer asked him to say it more directly to McCain, and Obama laughed, repeating himself to McCain.

McCain joked about his age, saying, “Are you afraid I couldn’t hear him?”

Obama said that he and McCain disagreed fundamentally and that he wanted accountability “not just when there’s a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they’ve got a little financial crisis going on. They’re having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments”. Tax policies, he said, were a good example.

McCain disagreed. “No, I — look, we’ve got to fix the system. We’ve got fundamental problems in the system. And Main Street is paying a penalty for the excesses and greed in Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street. So there’s no doubt that we have a long way to go. And, obviously, stricter interpretation and consolidation of the various regulatory agencies that weren’t doing their job, that has brought on this crisis”.

Lehrer went on to the next question, asking if there were fundamental differences between the approaches of the two.

McCain began by saying he wanted to lower “completely out of control” spending. He promised as president to “veto every single spending bill” He then attacked Senator Obama’s use of earmarks, citing it as a fundamental difference.

Senator Obama agreed that earmarks were being abused, but not that it was a large problem. “Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget. Senator McCain is proposing — and this is a fundamental difference between us — $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.” He then attacked McCain’s tax plans, saying, “you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out”.

He then stressed his focus on the middle class, saying, “We’ve got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I’ve called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent”.

McCain was called on.

“Now, Senator Obama didn’t mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs,” McCain said, attacking his opponent. He also said that Obama had only suspended pork barrel spending after he started running for president.

“What I do is I close corporate loopholes,” Obama objected, “stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas so that we’re giving tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States. I make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage”.

He then turned to McCain, asking him to look at his tax policies, which he said were ignoring the middle class and a continuation of Bush policies.

Lehrer asked McCain to respond directly to Obama’s attack on his tax policies.

“Well — well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax,” McCain began. He then explained the reasoning behind his business tax cuts, saying that companies would want to start in countries where they would pay less taxes. “I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs”.

Obama explained that his tax cuts would affect 95% of taxpayers, then replied, “Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world”.

McCain, he said, opposed closing loopholes but just wanted to add more tax breaks on top of that.

This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain’s home turf. Senator McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy.

He went on, attacking McCain’s health credit idea, saying that McCain wanted to tax health credits. “Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you’re getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you’ve got to go out on the open market and try to buy it”.

McCain responded with an example of Obama voting for tax breaks of oil companies.

Obama cut in, “John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion”, he pointed out.

McCain shot back, attacking Obama’s earmark spending and tax policies. “Who’s the person who has believed that the best thing for America is — is to have a tax system that is fundamentally fair?”, he said, referring to himself. “And I’ve fought to simplify it, and I have proposals to simplify it”.

He then accused Obama of voting “to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year”. Obama repeated several times that McCain’s accusations were untrue.

McCain then accused him of giving tax cuts to oil companies, which Obama once again said was untrue. “The fact of the matter is, is that I was opposed to those tax breaks, tried to strip them out,”he said. “We’ve got an emergency bill on the Senate floor right now that contains some good stuff, some stuff you want, including drilling off-shore, but you’re opposed to it because it would strip away those tax breaks that have gone to oil companies.”

Lehrer then broke in, stopping the argument. He switched to a new question, asking what priorities and goals for the country the candidates would give up as a result of the financial crisis.

He allowed Obama to answer the question first, who said many things would have to be delayed but not forgotten. He then began to list what he felt the country had to have to continue to compete.

“We have to have energy independence,” he said, “so I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years’ time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel”.

He continued, saying that the health care system had to be fixed because it was bankrupting families.

“We’ve got to make sure that we’re competing in education,” he continued. “We’ve got to make sure that our children are keeping pace in math and in science.” He also mentioned making sure college was still affordable.

He also stressed making sure the country was still stable structurally, “to make sure that we can compete in this global economy”.

Lehrer then turned to McCain, asking him to present his ideas.

“Look, we, no matter what, we’ve got to cut spending”, McCain began and reminded the audience that he “saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong”.

Lehrer broke in, asking if it was correct that neither of them had any major changes to implement after the financial crisis.

Obama replied that many things would have to be delayed and put aside, and that investments had to be made. He then agreed with McCain that cuts had to be made. “We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn’t work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare work”.

McCain then made a suggestion. “How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs”. Lehrer repeated “spending freeze?” and McCain went on, “I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions the caring of veterans, national defense and several other vital issues”.

Obama disagreed with McCain’s idea, saying it was “using a hatchet”. Some vital programs, he said, were seriously underfunded. “I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn’t make sense”.

The two candidates began to argue more directly.

“We have to have,” McCain argued, “wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power”.

He accused Obama of opposing storing nuclear fuel.

Lehrer interrupted the two with another question, asking how the financial crisis would affect how they ran the country.

Obama replied first. “There’s no doubt it will affect our budgets. There is no doubt about it”. He went on to stress that it was a critical time and the country’s long term priorities had to be sorted out.

There was one man who was presidential tonight, that man was John McCain. There was another who was political, that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran.

McCain replied by criticizing Obama’s health care plans. “I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government,” he said, then called for lower spending.

He went on to speak about the national debt and stressing the importance of low taxes.

Obama went on the offensive, attacking McCain’s record of voting. “John, it’s been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending”, he said, accusing him of voting for an “orgy of spending”.

McCain countered that he had opposed Bush “on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on – on Guantanamo Bay. On a — on the way that the Iraq War was conducted”. He called himself a maverick, and referred to his running mate as a maverick as well.

Lehrer asked the two what the lessons of Iraq were.

McCain answered first, stressing that the war in Iraq was going well. “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear,” he answered, “that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict”.

He went on to praise the efforts in Iraq, saying the strategy was successful and the US was winning. “And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds”, and continued that Iraq would make a stable ally.

Lehrer asked Obama how he saw the lessons of Iraq, who began by questioning the fundamentals of the war and whether the US should have gone in the first place.

“We took our eye off [bin Laden]. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government”.

The lesson, he said, was to “never hesitate to use military force”, but to use it wisely.

McCain was asked if he agreed on the lesson, though he did not comment on a lesson learned. Obama, he said, had been wrong about the surge.

The two opponents then began arguing, as Lehrman tried to mediate them.

McCain felt it was remarkable that “Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that’s in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing”.

“The issues of Afghanistan,” Obama responded, “the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole”.

He then began to attack McCain’s optimism. “You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong”.

McCain responded to the criticism by telling a story of when he spoke to troops who were re-enlisting. “And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here. And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq”.

McCain repeatedly accused Obama of opposing funding to troops.

Obama responded by speaking to Lehrer, to explain why he had voted against funding troops. “Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable”.

“Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama’s plan is dangerous for America,” McCain cut in once Obama had finished.

Obama said it was not the case, that the wording was “a precipitous withdrawal would be dangerous”.

McCain then argued that Iraq, and not Afghanistan, was the central battle ground against terrorism. He also attacked Obama’s surprise that the surge had worked.

Lehrer switched to a new question. “Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?”

Obama mentioned he had been saying more troops in Afghanistan were needed for over a year. He argued that no Al-Qaeda were present in Iraq before the invasion, and the people there had nothing to do with 9/11.

He then went on to list a three part plan beginning with pressuring the Afghani government to work for it’s people and control it’s poppy trade. He also pressed the need to stop giving money to Pakistan.

To be frank, I’m surprised McCain didn’t play the POW card more tonight, consider how frequently he and his campaign have used it earlier in the campaign.

McCain responded by saying Iraq had to be stabilized and that he would not make the mistake of leaving Iraq the way it is.

“If you’re going to aim a gun at somebody,” he said, “you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger”.

Obama responded by arguing that if the Pakistani government would not take care of terrorists in it’s borders, action had to be taken. He then commented on past US policies with Pakistan, saying that the US support of Musharraf had alienated the Pakistani people.

“And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren’t going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan. That’s going to change when I’m president of the United States”, he finished.

McCain quickly replied that Pakistan was a failed state at the time. He then went on to talk about his voting record. “I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm’s way”.

Obama argued that Afghanistan could not be muddled through, and that problems were being caused by not focusing on Al-Qaeda. As he finished, Lehrer attempted to announce a new question, but McCain quickly attacked Obama, saying his plans would have a “calamitous effect” on national security and the region.

Lehrer directed his next question towards McCain, asking about his thoughts on Iran and it’s threat to the US.

McCain’s reading of the threat in Iran was “if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region”. He stressed the need to avoid another Holocaust, and the need for a league of democracies

Anybody hearing a snicker from McCain while Obama is talking?

to battle Iran. “I am convinced that together, we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries, democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior”.

Obama went next, focusing on the Iraq war’s effect on Iran. Iraq, he said, was Iran’s “mortal enemy” and had kept Iran from becoming a threat. “That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon”.

He then went on to say that refusing to use diplomacy with hostile nations has only made matters worse and isolated the US.

Lehrer turned to McCain, asking him how he felt about diplomacy as a solution.

McCain hurried through his response, attacking Obama on his willingness to meet with hostile leaders without preconditions. People like Ahmadinejad, he said, would have their ideas legitimized if a President met with them.

Obama responded by pointing out that Ahmadinejad was only a minor leader. Meeting leaders without preconditions, he said, “doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day”. He then turned to attacking McCain, who he said “would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he — you know, he wasn’t sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally”.

McCain retorted that he was not yet President so it would be out of place. The two then began to argue over the comments of Dr. Kissinger’s stance on meeting foreign leaders.

McCain argued that meeting with and legitimizing ideas was dangerous and naive, and said it was a fundamental difference of opinion.

Obama accused McCain of misrepresentation, stressing that he would not speak without low level talks and preparations.

McCain responded by mocking Obama. “So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, ‘We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,’ and we say, ‘No, you’re not’? Oh, please”.

The two started arguing among each other, as Lehrer attempted to interject, finally succeeding with a new question. He turned to Obama, asking how he saw the relationship with Russia and it’s potential.

Obama began spelling out his opinion, stating that he felt the US approach to Russia had to be evaluated. He then continued that the US has to press for a unified alliance and for Russia to remove itself from other nations, adding that the US had to “explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship”.

He went on, stressing the importance of diplomacy and affirming relationships, and inviting Russian-influenced countries into NATO. “Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation”.

McCain responded by attacking Obama’s reaction to the Russian-Georgian conflict, criticizing his initial comment that both sides should show restraint, calling it naive. “He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government”.

Lehrer asked Obama if there were any major differences between the two’s opinion on Russia, who answered that he and McCain had similar opinions on Russia. He then stressed foresight in dealing with Russia, as well as reducing dependence on foreign oil through alternative energy.

“Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel,” he mentioned.

The two began to argue over alternative energy. As Lehrer began announcing the next question, McCain interjected. “No one from Arizona is against solar. And Senator Obama says he’s for nuclear, but he’s against reprocessing and he’s against storing So,” he continued, as Obama objected, “it’s hard to get there from here. And off-shore drilling is also something that is very important and it is a bridge”.

McCain continued, as Obama interrupted to correct him, saying that he had voted for storing nuclear waste safely.

The two began interrupting each other, each trying to get a word in, before Lehrer stopped them and moved on.

“What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?” asked Lehrer.

McCain said that America was far safer since 9/11, which he claimed a hand in. He went on to stress better intelligence and technology in keeping America safe, but that he felt the US was far safer.

Lehrer then turned to Obama.

Obama disagreed slightly, saying America was safer in some ways, but “we still have a long way to go”. He also felt that the US was not focusing enough on Al-Qaeda and fighting in Iraq was not making the US safer.

McCain accused Senator Obama of not understanding that “if we fail in Iraq, it encourages al Qaeda. They would establish a base in Iraq”.

Lehrer asked if Obama agreed.

Obama argued that the sole focus was currently Iraq, but that “in the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed”. He noted that $10 billion was spent in Iraq every month, instead of going to healthcare. He argued that veterans were not getting the benefits they deserved, and that the next president’s strategies had to be broader.

McCain responded by attacking Obama saying he didn’t think Obama had the knowledge or experience to be President.

Obama then said that the job of the next President would be to repair America’s image and economy.

McCain concluded by citing his POW experience. “Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home”.

“And that ends this debate tonight,” finished Jim Lehrer.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=McCain_and_Obama_face_off_in_U.S._presidential_candidate_debate&oldid=1985219”

World Wars lowered New Zealanders life expectancy

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

A population study, released by Statistics New Zealand titled A History of Survival in New Zealand, highlights that the life expectancy of New Zealand males born in the mid 1890’s would have been five years higher without the impact of the two world wars, as 10% of males died in war. Also males born in the late 1910’s would have had a three year higher life expectancy, without the impact of the two world wars as well. The new study is an international study of survival and mortality.

The study also reveals that a male born in the late 1870’s would have had an average life span of 51-years-old and in the 1930’s the average life span was 69-years-old. And in females the life expectancy is 75-years-old, previously 55-years-old.

Kim Dunstan, Statistics NZ demographer, said: “The dramatic lifespan changes were attributed to many factors, including improved hygiene, sanitation, medicines and infectious disease control. Changes in lifestyle had also made an important difference.”

People born in the late 1870’s had a 23% chance of not making it to see their 15th birthday, people born in the 1900’s had a 15% chance, people born in the 1930’s had a seven percent chance, people born in the 1960’s had a three percent chance and those born around the 1990’s had a one percent chance.

Mr Dunstan said: “The study provided the most complete picture of how long New Zealanders lived and showed for the first time the impact of war deaths on the population. Death comes to us all and it does affect us at a lot of levels. A lot of people have had family members who died in the war and can relate to their own experiences.”

A History of Survival in New Zealand also shows that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has an almost complete and detailed history of births, deaths and migration information dating back to the late 1800’s. This study is a historic book full of births, deaths and external migration for the population of New Zealand. It will also be used in the future relating to health, population and mortality areas. It is also unique because it follows the population from birth right through to death. “We see the study very much as the basis for further work … across other organisations in New Zealand and, indeed, internationally,” Mr. Dunstan said.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wars_lowered_New_Zealanders_life_expectancy&oldid=567023”