


















Through hunting and trapping, the state says its goal is to kill about 300of the 400 wolves it believes were in the Fortymile area at the beginning of the fall season, leaving one to two wolves per 1,000 square kilometers. But Greg Dudgeon, superintendent of the federal Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, which borders Fortymile, says no one has a good count of the wolf population, or an ideal wolf-to-prey number. Federal biologists have been collaring, monitoring and studying wolf packs in the preserve, which has been run by the National Park Service since 1993, and have conducted extensive surveys on wolf populations in the area—leading them to believe that there are closer to 300 wolves in Fortymile.
But Dudgeon's main concern is that wolves from his preserve are moving into Fortymile, where they could be shot by state employees. As the culling program continues, wolves from the national preserve may migrate to Fortymile because there's less competition and more food. "Nature abhors a vacuum," Dudgeon says, "and wolves are great at filling that vacuum."
Palin also fought against increased protections for endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales and America's dwindling populations of polar bears.
Sign our petition to Discovery Communications -- and let them know that Sarah Palin doesn't deserve to represent the "powerful beauty of Alaska" in front of millions of people.

The question of who is worse, right-wing or left-wing radicals, and how to label radicals cropped up again most recently when pundits raced to describe recent Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell as right wing and conservatives lashed back that he was left wing. In a Washington Post op-ed, Eugene Robinson argues that for the past few decades the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from those who draw inspiration and rhetoric from the far right.
“It is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are ‘crazies on both sides.’ This simply is not true. There was a time when the far left was a spawning ground for political violence. The first big story I covered was the San Francisco trial of heiress Patricia Hearst, who had been kidnapped and eventually co-opted by the Symbionese Liberation Army—a far-left group whose philosophy was as apocalyptic and incoherent as that of the Hutaree. There are aging radicals in Cuba today who got to Havana by hijacking airplanes in the 1970s. Left-wing radicals caused mayhem and took innocent lives. But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. An antiglobalization movement, including a few window-smashing anarchists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environmental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and militia groups, wrote in a recent report that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias)—a 244% jump." Whether they are right wing or left wing will continue to be debated, but Robinson argues that such a debate is a nonstarter.“It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist,” writes Robinson. “The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction—the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day—and, quite regularly, at tea-party rallies—is calibrated not to inform but to incite. "
As always, you wonder where this patriotism and righteousness and Tea Party activism was during Bush-Cheney. You wonder if all the people who want to take to the streets - and to the television cameras now - decided they weren't needed for eight years because they thought the country was going so good. Or maybe they have just convinced themselves that the Obama who must now be stopped didn't just inherit this America, he created it.
This is no longer about political dissent. It is about storm trooper sound bites, and hate. This isn't the kind of honest debate on which our system of government has been built. It is vile, back-alley fighting, getting worse by the day, with no end in sight. People say that opposition to all Presidents, even the most unpopular white ones, sounds like this. No, it doesn't.
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America's first payroll tax, as a ship's owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor's monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.




FINALLY: The Difference between Nerd, Dork, and Geek Explained by a Venn Diagram
By Great White Snark
To all of you nerds and geeks who–like me–have been unfairly and inaccurately labeled “dorks,” only to then exhaustively explain the differences among the three to a more-than-skeptical offender, I say: You’re welcome. This nerd/dork/geek/dweeb Venn diagram should save you a lot of time and frustration in the future.
Be Afraid, Very Afraid of Rachel Maddow
by Liz White
The fake 2012 Massachusetts senatorial race between newly elected Sen. Scott Brown and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is really heating up—er, sort of.
Earlier this week Brown sent a fundraising letter to supporters all over the country claiming the “political machine” in Massachusetts was vetting “liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow” to oppose him in the state’s election in 2012. Maddow quickly fired back, announcing that she had no plan to run for office while denouncing Brown for making up the story just to raise money. On Friday, Maddow approved a full-page ad in The Boston Globe to make her plans known to Brown’s constituents.
"It's standard now for conservatives to invent scary fake threats to run against—things like the made-up 'death panels' in health reform, or the fake controversy about the president's birth certificate,” she wrote. “I'm running this ad not because I'm running against Scott Brown—I'm not, he made that up—but because he's the senator for all of us, and maybe this will make him think twice the next time he wants to smear one of his constituents to raise money out-of-state.”
NEWSWEEK left a message seeking comment from Brown, but no response was received as of this posting.
It really says something that two years in advance and a few months after what GOP supporters called his “Massachusetts Miracle” election, Brown is already worried about competition, even if it is just to bring in more money. As the first Republican to be elected for Senate in Massachusetts in 40 years and a with no vote on the health-care-reform bill—not to mention his more moderate tendencies could turn off the far right—he could face a tough reelection campaign. The rumor of Maddow’s run might be false, but it's clear Brown’s fear of the next election isn’t.
Breaking Silence - For My Son
The night you were conceived
your father drove up Avon Mountain
and into the roadside rest
that looked over the little city,
its handful of scattered sparks.
I was eighteen and thin then
but the front seat of the 1956 Dodge
seemed cramped and dark,
the new diamond, I hadn't known
how to refuse, trapping flecks of light.
Even then the blackness was thick
as a muck you could swim through.
Your father pushed me down
on the scratchy seat, not roughly
but as if staking a claim,
and his face rose like
a thing-shadowed moon above me.
My legs ached in those peculiar angles,
my head bumped against the door.
I know you want me to say I loved him
but I wanted only to belong—to anyone.
So I let it happen,
the way I let all of it happen—
the marriage, his drinking, the rage.
This is not to say I loved you any less—
only I was young and didn't know yet
we can choose our lives.
It was dark in the car.
Such weight and pressure,
the wet earthy smell of night,
a slickness like glue.
And in a distant inviolate place,
as though it had nothing at all
to do with him, you were a spark
in silence catching."Breaking Silence—For My Son" by Patricia Fargnoli, from Necessary Light. © Utah State University Press, 1999. Reprinted with permission. (buy now)
Robert Culp, the actor who teamed with Bill Cosby in the racially groundbreaking TV series "I Spy" and was Bob in the critically acclaimed sex comedy "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice," died Wednesday after collapsing outside his Hollywood home, his agent said. Culp was 79.His manager, Hillard Elkins, said the actor was on a walk when he fell. He was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead just before noon. The actor's son was told he died of a heart attack, Elkins said, though police were unsure if the fall was medically related.
Los Angeles police Lt. Robert Binder said no foul play was suspected. Binder said a jogger found Culp, who apparently fell and struck his head.
Culp had been working on writing screenplays, Elkins said.
"I Spy," which aired from 1965 to 1968, was a television milestone in more ways than one. Its combination of humor and adventure broke new ground, and it was the first integrated television show to feature a black actor in a starring role.
Culp played Kelly Robinson, a spy whose cover was that of an ace tennis player. (In real life, Culp actually was a top-notch tennis player who showed his skills in numerous celebrity tournaments.). Cosby was fellow spy Alexander Scott, whose cover was that of Culp's trainer. The pair traveled the world in the service of the U.S. government.











Whence the hatred?
March 20th, 2010I have been interested, to the point recently of somewhere between deep concern and obsession, with the nature of the political divide. We don’t disagree anymore, we loathe. Maybe it was always thus, but it sure has been that way for a long time now. I heard Republican representatives talk today about “taking our country back.” Which was what Howard Dean was saying in 2004. Clearly, although the two sides think differently, they feel the same.
I am aware that many people today hate President Obama to the same extent, or even more, than other people hated President Bush. And one could argue that this equivalency — and there is equivalence, at least in the vehemence of feeling - is in itself sufficient explanation. That is, it’s not who we’re hating, it’s the hating itself: our essential, tribal nature drives us to seek an Opponent and affix to him (or her) all Blame and Responsibility for That Which Is Wrong, and we shall Cure Our Ills by Fighting that Individual. Fine, and I think that’s true, to a shocking extent. We are all far less rational than it is comforting to believe.
But… I watched the President’s speech today in front of the House Democrats. It is entirely impromptu, no prepared texts. And I can understand entirely why people might disagree with him. His central argument that we in America should be “neighborly” and “look out for each other, ” with the unstated implication that this should be done via the power of the state, strikes intelligent people as wrong and dangerous, and as an affront to liberty and responsibility. I totally dig that, and in certain circumstances, usually when paying my taxes, find myself, if not in complete agreement, then certainly sympathetic.
But, how in the world can people look at this well-spoken, articulate, sincere man, who is at least as honest in his goals and his ideology as his opponents are in theirs, and hate him? Loathe him? I honestly don’t get it. Any explanation would be welcome.
(To anticipate one: his opponents to a great degree deny that he is sincere. They believe he is “deceptive,” and is hiding his true nature, which is far more cynical/ideological/ambitious than he allows himself to appear. Thus they can ascribe to him all kinds of unpleasant characteristics for which there is no apparent evidence. But I don’t really understand where the initial assumption of his deception comes from, either.)
(To anticipate another: yes, some of his opponents hate him because he is black. But I am not interested in that, because it is not interesting, nor is it sufficient.)
Health Care Reform's Winners and Losers
Howard Fineman
It doesn't take a rocket scientist -- or even an alleged expert such as this reporter -- to see that the big political winner in tonight's House vote is the president of the United States. After a year and a half of fitful but increasingly focused effort, Barack Obama is able to claim victory in an effort that he had made the emblem and focus of his entire presidency. In some ways, the win was a negative one: the humiliation of a defeat would have made him look powerless and inept. And in Washington, appearances beget reality. But, hey, as teams in the Big Dance can tell you, a win is a win.
The list of winners and losers only begins with the president. Here is my sense of who they are, in both political and real-life terms.
WINNERS
Obama: He staked everything on this and, like the long distance runners from his fatherland, he made it (barely) across the finish line.
Nancy Pelosi: They said she knows how to count votes, and she does. They can't stand her in Tea Party America, and some liberals are angry at her, but she knows how to deliver.
Rahm Emanuel: The White House chief of staff was tasked by Obama with the job of getting this done, and Rahm, whose effectiveness and commitment have been questioned, has just taken a major step toward showing that he was the right guy for the job.
Near-poverty Americans not covered by Medicaid: Some 15 million Americans will get health care through medicaid than currently have it.
Middle class families who cant afford to buy insurance: Some 15 million will eventually get subsidies.
Policy holders: For the first time, the federal government will impose rules designed to control some of the risk-avoiding (and profit making) strategies of the insurance companies.
Drug companies: They kicked in $80 billion to help make the bill work, but stand to make ten times that in revenues from added government and government-subsidized business.
Tea Partiers: They are crying havoc (outside the Capitol) and now have their cause, apocalypse and all.
LOSERS
Insurance industry: The health care industry grew out of insurance, which has never been subject to direct and thorough national regulation by the federal government. They stayed aloof from a deal, and ended up losing the game of musical chairs, even though they will get new customers.
Blue Dog Democrats and Democrats from GOP districts: There is still time for them to recoup -- election day is still eight months away. But this vote is a loser for many of them, and they knew it.
Wealthy and semi-wealthy taxpayers: Those making $200,000 individually or $250,000 as families are going to get squeezed -- and they should know it. All taxpayers in ten years. The bill makes big assumptions about spending cuts. Most realistic and neutral observers believe that those "savings" -- in medicare, for example-- will never happen, which means more deficits.
The Republican Party: They'll gain seats in the midterms for sure, but not necessarily as many as they are assuming. For one, the world is not going to end if and when the bill becomes law. In fact, nothing much at all will happen. That will be a relief to many, and no grist for the GOP. The Dems will have something to run on. and the Democrats president will look like a winner.
SOURCENew Rule: Let's not fire the teachers when students don't learn - let's fire the parents. Last week President Obama defended the firing of every single teacher in a struggling high school in a poor Rhode Island neighborhood. And the kids were outraged. They said, "Why blame our teachers?" and "Who's President Obama?" I think it was Whitney Houston who said, "I believe that children are our future - teach them well and let them lead the way." And that's the last sound piece of educational advice this country has gotten - from a crack head in the '80's.
Yes, America has found its new boogeyman to blame for our crumbling educational system. It's just too easy to blame the teachers, what with their cushy teachers' lounges, their fat-cat salaries, and their absolute authority in deciding who gets a hall pass. We all remember high school - canning the entire faculty is a nationwide revenge fantasy. Take that, Mrs. Crabtree! And guess what? We're chewing gum and no, we didn't bring enough for everybody.
But isn't it convenient that once again it turns out that the problem isn't us, and the fix is something that doesn't require us to change our behavior or spend any money. It's so simple: Fire the bad teachers, hire good ones from some undisclosed location, and hey, while we're at it let's cut taxes more. It's the kind of comprehensive educational solution that could only come from a completely ignorant people.
Firing all the teachers may feel good - we're Americans, kicking people when they're down is what we do - but it's not really their fault. Now, undeniably, there are some bad teachers out there. They don't know the material, they don't make things interesting, they have sex with the same kid every day instead of spreading the love around... But every school has crappy teachers. Yale has crappy teachers - they must, they gave us George Bush.
According to all the studies, it doesn't matter what teachers do. Although everyone appreciates foreplay. What matters is what parents do. The number one predictor of a child's academic success is parental involvement. It doesn't even matter if your kid goes to private or public school. So save the twenty grand a year and treat yourself to a nice vacation away from the little bastards.
It's also been proven that just having books in the house makes a huge difference in a child's development. If your home is adorned with nothing but Hummel dolls, DVD's, and bleeding Jesuses, congratulations, you've just given your children the gift of Duh. Sarah Palin said recently she wrote on her hand because her father used to do it. I rest my case.
When there are no books in the house, and there are no parents in the house, you know who raises the kids? That's right, the television. Kids aren't keeping up with their studies; they're keeping up with the Kardashians. We're allowing the television, as babysitter, to turn us into a nation of slutty idiots. By the way, one sign your 9-year-old may be watching too much One Tree Hill: if she has an imaginary friend with benefits.
A Theory of Health Care Spending
For a good while, I've had a half-baked and only half-joking theory that health care spending would not be so high if we were not constantly reminded of all the things that could be wrong with us.
I watch or listen to television news in short bursts of a few minutes each throughout the day. My general impression is that well over half – perhaps even three-quarters – of commercials are disease related. To see if that is anywhere near true, I grabbed a book yesterday morning and settled down to spend a random hour with television to make notes on the topics of the commercials.
That much time was not needed. I was shocked to find that in the period of one, three-minute commercial break, remedies for the following diseases and conditions were advertised:
COPD
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Dry skin
Headache
Insomnia
Allergies
Nasal congestion
Foot problems
Heart disease
Constipation
DepressionThat's a lot of health problems to cram into three minutes and it is repeated all day on all channels except, possibly, MTV which undoubtedly highlights acne cures.
I don't remember so many health-related commercials when I was a kid. “The heartbreak of psoriasis” comes to mind, along with “Speedy Alkaseltzer” and Bayer aspirin, but certainly no prescription drugs back then. I still don't understand why that last is done; it must drive physicians nuts to have patients demanding drugs advertised on television that may or may not be relevant to the patients' ailments.
My theory is that it all adds up – that we are bombarded with so many pictures and words about what might be wrong with us that thousands of people who otherwise feel healthy, run to their doctor asking for prescription drugs they saw on television and/or start buying over-the-counter remedies. Certainly the advertising must have an effect similar to reading disease symptoms – too much of that and you believe you've contracted something terrible.
It's just a theory, but I wonder – and I wonder if there were less health-related advertising, how many fewer doctor visits, prescriptions and OTC drug purchases there would be.
And here's what I think: they are all hateful and corrupt.
There is so much rotten business going on with all federal elected (and not a few appointed) officials that it is impossible to keep track of it all (which may be what they're counting on.)
And it's like that every day in Washington on every issue: individual advantage to the powerful over the good of the nation.


Sarah Palin and Entourage Descend like 'Locusts' on Oscar Swag SuiteSOURCEBY Brian Kates
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sarah Palin and her entourage descended "like locusts" on the Oscar swag suite, scarfing up freebies in a binge that "practically cleaned the place out," celebrity gossips reported Thursday.The former Alaska Gov's Wednesday pigout included jewels from Pascal Mouawad, watches by Skagen and a fancy new hairdo for her daughter Willow. The new coiffure came courtesy of Erick Orellana, Jennifer Aniston's longtime hairstylist, witnesses said.
The Los Angeles Times reported Palin was supposed to donate all of her gift items back to the Silver Spoon Oscar Suite for auction, as well as $1,700 of her own cash, in support of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies efforts in Haiti and Chile.
But E! Online insisted, "we can assure you she did not give up any of her swag."
The entertainment news outlet quoted an unnamed vendor who said that as many as 20 people from the Palin camp swarmed the event.
"They were like locusts," he said.
News of Palin's grabfest ignited the blogosphere.
"She insisted every person in her huge entourage get something, and there were assistants, nannies, security - insanity!," an unnamed HollywoodLife.com source said.
HollywoodLife.com also reported that Palin picked up a blue Kenya robe from designer Jenna Leigh, facewash and a pair of foam Bandal sandals.
"She kind of cleaned the place out," Ben Russo of EMC/Bowery told AOL's Pop Eater. The website said swag-grabs included 40 pairs of AIAIAI earphones.
One witness said security swept the venue and would not allow photos.
Now that we've found out the celebrities who will be competing in Season 10's "Dancing With the Stars," ABC has announced the second (but no less important) part of this reality TV show equation: the professional dancers each contestant will be paired up with. Here is the complete list:
-- Astronaut and resident moon walker Buzz Aldrin teams up with Ashly Costa (formerly DelGrosso)
-- Pamela Anderson is coupled with new "DWTS" pro Damian Whitewood
-- ESPN reporter Erin Andrews is partnered with resident "DWTS" bad boy Maksim Chemerkovskiy
-- Actress Shannen Doherty steps out with two-time champ Mark Ballas
-- Kate Gosselin is matched up with Tony Dovolani
-- Olympic gold medalist Evan Lysacek is with Anna Trebunskaya (pictured)
-- "Reno 911!'s" Niecy Nash will be with Louis Van Amstel
-- Cincinnati Bengal Chad Ochocinco teams up with two-time champ Cheryl Burke
-- Newly engaged "Bachelor" Jake Pavelka is matched with Chelsie Hightower
-- Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger partners with Season 7 champ Derek Hough
-- "All My Children" star Aiden Turner is paired with legwarmer queen Edyta Sliwinska, the only pro to compete in all 10 seasons.
Note that there's no Dmitry Chaplin, Karina Smirnoff, or recent champ Kym Johnson this season.Aiden Turner, 32, probably best known as Soap heartthrob, 'Aidan Devane', on ABC's 'All My Children'.
Buzz Aldrin, 80, goes from moon walking to ballroom dancing.
Chad Ochocinco, 32, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals.
Erin Andrews, 31, ESPN sports reporter.
Evan Lysacek, 24, Olympic gold medal winning skating star.
Jake Pavelka, 32, 'The Bachelor' who just chose 'bad girl', Vienna, for his bride.
Kate Gosselin, 35, best known for her role in the reality TV show, 'Jon and Kate Plus 8'.
Niecy Nash, 40, actress, known for her roles in 'Reno 911!' and it’s spin-off film 'Reno 911: Miami', 'The Bernie Mac Show' and 'Do Not Disturb'
Nicole Scherzinger, 31, singer, songwriter, actress and lead singer of 'The Pussycat Dolls'.
Pamela Anderson, 42, former 'Bay Watch' swimsuit beauty, actress, model...sex symbol.
Shannen Doherty, 37, actress known for her roles on 'Beverly Hills, 90210', 'Charmed' and 'Breaking Up With Shannen Doherty'.
| CURRENT MOON moon info |