free web stats

Venezuelans Turn Sour on Chavez

 

Wednesday marks Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s 11th year in office. By rights, it ought to be a gala occasion, and no doubt, the red shirts and flags of Chavismo will be in evidence. After all, for most of this decade the man who launched a Bolivarian revolution, inspired by the 19th-century would-be Latin liberator Simon Bolívar, has been the people’s choice. Now the people are not sure.

Lately, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has distinctly soured on its showman president. A new survey by Hinterlaces, an important, independent pollster in Caracas, shows just how badly. The survey canvassed 903 people by landline and cell phone Jan. 25-28, just as the country was hit by rolling blackouts, a new wave of government takeovers of private businesses, and clashes between police and demonstrators following Chávez’s order to shut down the country’s popular cable station RCTV. It’s not pretty:

  • 61% of those surveyed believe the country is on the wrong path.
  • 78% disagree with the decision to take RCTV off the air.
  • 64% say that the government’s crackdown on Venezuelan media is a threat to freedom of expression.
  • 61% say they back the student-led demonstrations.
  • 75% disapprove of the official energy-rationing policy.
  • 61% condemn the recent expropriation of a supermarket chain.

More than a setback, this is a reversal of fortune on a massive scale. Over the years, Chávez’s critics have tarred him with every brush: “demagogue,” “despot,” “bluff artist,” and “Midas in reverse” are just some of the names he’s been called. Yet even the fiercest challengers have had to bow to the polls. In test after test, including elections, recall votes, and referendums, never mind opinion surveys, Chávez has routinely come out on top while his foes and challengers have rarely been more than a noisy minority. It’s an enviable record for any leader and proof positive─claim the Chavistas─that the Bolivarian revolution is democracy at work, built on the ballot box, not the boot heel.

Defiant, Chávez challenged his detractors to a political duel, daring them to try a recall vote. Over the last decade, he has survived them all. Would he now? According to the Hinterlaces poll, if the nationwide legislative elections scheduled for this September were to be held today, 34 percent of Venezuelans would vote for independent candidates, 26 percent would vote for the opposition, and only 28 percent would vote cast ballots for Chavistas (12 percent said they didn’t know).

In the last couple of weeks, some of his closest aides have been fired or demoted, while others have simply quit, including the vice president and the head of the state-run Banco de Venezuela. Recently, a group of former high ranking Boligarchs declared that Chávez has no moral authority to remain in power and publicly called for him to step down. No doubt, he will plug his ears. But for the man who fancies himself as El Comandante, the current numbers don’t add up.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  hugochavez   venezuela   worldnews  
Comments (0)

Bad Apple

By Daniel Lyons

Apple is looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a Bigfoot that squeezes smaller competitors.

http://ndn3.newsweek.com/media/18/080905-SteveJobsBZ01-vl-vertical.jpg

A former lieutenant of Steve Jobs's once told me something surprising about his ex-boss. "Steve is a monopolist at heart," he said. "He's just like Bill Gates. He just hasn't been as successful." Well, Jobs is getting there. This summer, Apple's market capitalization surged past Google's, making it the financial king of Silicon Valley. True, Apple still holds only 11 percent of the U.S. consumer PC market, according to researcher NPD, but its influence is far greater than that market share suggests. The iconic iPod dominates its market, and the iTunes music store has sold more than 5 billion songs, making it the No. 1 music retailer in America, ahead of Wal-Mart, according to IDC. Apple's iPhone is the No. 3 smart phone in the United States, according to NPD.

Not long ago Apple was just a niche PC maker selling to diehard fans who were quick to forgive (or even celebrate) Apple's quirks and foibles. But Apple is no longer an underdog. In fact, Apple has started looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a company that so controls certain market segments that smaller competitors can survive only by living on its scraps or staying out of its way. (Apple declined to comment for this story.)

A year ago a small company called Vudu was winning rave reviews for its dynamite little box that attaches to the TV and downloads movies from the Internet. Vudu had advantages over Apple TV: it had a larger catalog of movies, you could rent movies instead of buying them and you didn't need to download the films to a PC first before watching them.

In January Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff. A spokeswoman for Vudu says the company is doing fine. I will point out only that this is what Microsoft's victims used to say, too.

The really scary thing about Apple is that it doesn't just make hit products—it controls entire ecosystems. Just as Microsoft controls both the operating system and the applications that run on top of it, Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money.

With iPhone, Apple decides which independent applications will be allowed, and it can pull the plug on any application at any time, without explanation—as happened in July to several developers of iPhone apps. "I spent four weeks trying to get through to Apple via e-mail and phone calls, and they wouldn't return my messages," says Cyrus Najmabadi, developer of an iPhone application called Now Playing, an online movie-theater guide that Apple yanked in July after receiving a complaint about the program. (Najmabadi persisted and finally got Apple to put his application back online; Apple declined to comment on the matter.)

With its retail stores, Apple controls another ecosystem—the market for iPod and iPhone accessories, like speakers and cases. Apple determines when accessory makers can announce new products, and charges them a variety of fees, including one for putting a MADE FOR IPOD sticker on the items. One iPod accessory maker—who insists on anonymity, as he fears reprisal from Apple—gripes that Apple takes up to 75 percent of the sales price, leaving him with zero profit on some of his products when he sells them in Apple stores. This guy plays along because having his products on display in Apple stores builds awareness of his brand, and he can make a profit selling his speaker systems through Best Buy, Target and Circuit City.

Apple's tactics might seem like smart business: why not squeeze every penny out of every deal? The problem is that if Apple squeezes too hard, some partners may go out of business, harming the ecosystem. Bully behavior also invites backlash, as it did for Microsoft when that company rose to power in the 1990s. In the U.K., a regulatory board has banned an Apple advertisement that claimed its iPhone gives you "all the parts of the Internet," when the phone won't display information created using Flash or Java, two popular Web software programs. In Alabama, a woman has filed a class-action lawsuit because her new 3G iPhone won't always attach to a 3G network, which provides faster wireless Web downloads. In July customers howled when Apple rolled out MobileMe, a new online service for synchronizing personal data to the iPhone and iTouch that wound up having some pretty serious glitches. Apple offered three months of free service to subscribers as a form of appeasement.

In the old days, stuff like this didn't matter. Apple was such a fringe player that nobody really cared how the company behaved. I wonder sometimes if Apple misses those days.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  apple   google   internet   microsoft   stevejobs   technology  
Comments (0)

Google Has No Chance Against China

 

 

The blunt truth is that most Western forecasters have been wrong about China for the past 30 years. They have claimed that Chinese economic growth was exaggerated, that a big crisis was imminent, that state controls would fade away, and that exposure to global media, notably the Internet, would steadily undermine the Communist Party's authority. The reason why China forecasting has such a poor track record is that Westerners constantly invoke the model and experience of the West to explain China, and it is a false prophet. Until we start trying to understand China on its own terms, rather than as a Western-style nation in the making, we will continue to get it wrong.

The Google affair tells us much about what China is and what it will be like. The Internet has been seen in the West as the quintessential expression of the free exchange of ideas and information, untrammeled by government interference and increasingly global in reach. But the Chinese government has shown that the Internet can be successfully filtered and controlled. Google's mission, "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," has clashed with the age-old presumption of Chinese rulers of the need and responsibility to control. In this battle, there will be only one winner: China. Google will be obliged either to accept Chinese regulations or exit the world's largest Internet market, with serious consequences for its long-term global ambitions. This is a metaphor for our times: America's most dynamic company cannot take on the Chinese government—even on an issue like free and open information—and win.

Moreover, as China becomes increasingly important as a market and player, what happens to the Internet in China will have profound consequences for the Internet globally. It is already clear that the Google model of a free and open Internet, an exemplar of the American idea of the future, cannot and will not prevail. China's Internet will continue to be policed and controlled, information filtered, sites prohibited, noncompliant search engines excluded, and sensitive search words disallowed. And where China goes, others, also informed by different values, are already and will follow. The Internet, far from being a great big unified global space, will be fragmented and segmented. Another Western shibboleth about the future will thereby fall. It will not signal the end of the free flow of information—notwithstanding all the controls, the Internet has transformed the volume and quality of information available to Chinese citizens—but it will take place more on Chinese than Western terms.

If we want to understand the future, we need to go back to the drawing board. China—as we can see with increasing clarity—is destined to become the world's largest economy and is likely in time to far outdistance the U.S. This process will remorselessly shift the balance of power in China's favor. Just as once a large share of the American market was a precondition for a firm being a major global player, this mantle will increasingly be assumed instead by the Chinese market, except to a far greater extent because its population is four times the size. Furthermore, China's expanding economic clout means that its government is enjoying rapidly growing global authority. It can even take on Google and be sure of victory.

Facing up to the fact that China is very different from the West, that it simply does not work or think like us, is proving far more difficult. A classic illustration is the West's failure to understand the strength and durability of the Chinese state, which defies all predictions of its demise, remains omnipresent in Chinese lives, still owns most major firms, and proves remarkably adept at finding new ways to counter the influence of the U.S. global media. Western observers typically explain the intrusiveness of the Chinese government in terms of paranoia—and in a huge and diverse country the rulers have always seen instability as an ever-present danger—but there is a deeper reason why the state enjoys such a high-profile role in Chinese society.

It is seen by the Chinese not as an alien presence to be constantly pruned back, as in the West, especially the U.S., but as the embodiment and guardian of society. Rather than alien, it is seen as an intimate, in the manner of the head of the household. It might seem an extraordinary proposition, but the Chinese state enjoys a remarkable legitimacy among its people, greater than in Western societies. And the reason lies deep in China's history. China may call itself a nation-state (although only for the past century), but in essence it is a civilization-state dating back at least two millennia. Maintaining the unity of Chinese civilization is regarded as the most important political priority and seen as the sacred task of the state, hence its unique role: there is no Western parallel.

Chinese modernity will not resemble Western modernity, and a world dominated by China will not resemble our own. One consequence is already apparent in the developing world: the state is back in fashion; the Washington Consensus has been eclipsed. In this new world, Chinese ways of thinking—from Confucian values and their notion of the state to the family and parenting—will become increasingly influential. Google's fate is a sign of the world to come, and the sooner we come to appreciate the nature of a world run by China, the better we will be able to deal with it.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  china   google   internet   technology  
Comments (0)

Can Intel Agencies Kill Americans?

The director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, shocked Washington last week when he told a congressional committee that U.S. spy agencies have the authority to assassinate American citizens abroad who are believed to be involved in terrorism. But he suggested that intel officials would have to follow special rules to do so: "If … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," he told the House intelligence committee.

Blair's testimony left behind a pile of questions: By whose authority can intel agencies kill Americans? And who in the government has the power to grant or deny the "specific permission" to carry out such operations? In interviews with NEWSWEEK, current and former U.S. national-security officials—who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive information—filled in some of the blanks.

These officials say that, a few days after 9/11, George W. Bush signed a classified "intelligence finding" authorizing the assassination of suspected terrorists. By this order, which continues under Barack Obama, officials within the CIA and Pentagon can launch lethal strikes on suspected foreign terrorists without seeking permission from higher-ups. But, say the officials, strikes specifically targeting Americans must first be approved by a secret committee made up of senior intel officials and members of the president's cabinet (it's not known which ones). The president himself does not have to sign off on kill orders.

The sources say that committee approval is required only if the specific target of the assassination is an American—not if an American happens to be in the vicinity of a foreign target at the time of the strike. At least once, U.S. forces have killed an American this way. In November 2002 a missile attack targeting a Yemeni terrorist also killed Kamal Derwish, an American citizen associated with an alleged terrorist cell in Lackawanna, N.Y. U.S. forces almost did it again last Christmas Eve, with an airstrike against another Yemeni terrorist; he was believed to be hiding with Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric who advised both the suspected Fort Hood shooter and the alleged Christmas Day bomber. Al-Awlaki is believed to have escaped.

Civil libertarians are already questioning the wisdom, and legality, of the U.S. government targeting its own citizens. Roger Cressey, a former National Security Council official, takes a different view, saying, "If you are stupid enough to be associated with known Al Qaeda operatives in a known Al Qaeda safe haven, you're putting your life at risk." Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, says, "The agency's counterterrorism operations are lawful, aggressive, precise, and effective." White House and Pentagon spokesmen did not respond to requests for comment.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  intelligence   news   security   terrorism  
Comments (0)

Lil Wayne plans to work straight through prison term

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/03/c1main.weezy.jpg

For a decade, Lil Wayne has been hip-hop’s great unstoppable force, a 24-hour-a-day recording machine without an off button. But on February 9th, Lil Wayne will have to stop — for 12 months, when he reports to prison to serve a sentence for gun possession stemming from a 2007 arrest in New York City. 


“I don’t like to stop,” Wayne tells RS‘ Chris Norris. “I believe you stop when you die.” So in the weeks before he reports to Rikers Island, Wayne is keeping busy — recording tracks bound for Tha Carter IV (the album Cash Money staffers call “C4″ because it’ll be the bomb), shooting videos with his Young Money protégés, spending time with his growing family, and deliberately not asking anyone for advice about life on the inside. “This is Lil Wayne going to jail. Nobody I can talk to can tell me what that’s like,” he says. “I just say I’m looking forward to it.” 

While Weezy’s away, his label is relocating to New York to be near him, and his manager Cortez Bryant is exploring ways to keep Wayne in his fans’ minds for the duration — from jailhouse Twitter accounts to endorsements. “I’ll have an iPod, and I”ll make sure they keep sending me beats,” Lil Wayne says. Tha Carter IV — which Norris is told features tougher, faster beats — is scheduled to arrive shortly after he gets out.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  entertainment   music   news  
Comments (0)
Posted 4 days ago

Avatar is #1 All Time

testing captions

It was only a matter of time - 47 days, to be precise.

According to the box office tally site Boxofficemojo.com, "Avatar" is now the highest-grossing movie of all time domestically. The James Cameron film's business now stands at $601.1 million, ahead of the $600.8 million Cameron's "Titanic" did back in 1997-98.

Moreover, "Titanic" took 252 days to top out; "Avatar," which has been the biggest movie in the country since its mid-December release, is still No. 1 and shows little sign of flagging (and those nine Oscar nominations won't hurt).

 The film is already the global box office leader, having topped "Titanic's" $1.8 billion-plus last week.

Yes, there's been a lot of teeth-grinding over what this means. Yes, tickets for "Avatar" cost more than "Titanic," or "Star Wars," or "Gone With the Wind." Yes, the film is still down the list if you adjust for inflation. But credit where credit is due: "Avatar" was a monumental gamble - its budget is the kind of thing that can cripple studios - and it's paid off, both critically and commercially. James Cameron has got the golden touch.

Below is a list of the Top 20 Grossing Domestic Films Of All Time

1 Avatar Fox $601,142,000 2009
2 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997
3 The Dark Knight WB $533,345,358 2008
4 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977^
5 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 2004
6 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 1982^
7 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 1999
8 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $423,315,812 2006
9 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 2002
10 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen P/DW $402,111,870 2009
11 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Fox $380,270,577 2005
12 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $377,027,325 2003
13 Spider-Man 2 Sony $373,585,825 2004
14 The Passion of the Christ NM $370,782,930 2004^
15 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 1993
16 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $341,786,758 2002^
17 Finding Nemo BV $339,714,978 2003
18 Spider-Man 3 Sony $336,530,303 2007
19 Forrest Gump Par. $329,694,499 1994
20 The Lion King BV $328,541,776 1994^

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  entertainment   movies  
Comments (0)
Posted 4 days ago

U.S. Cyberwar Strategy: The Pentagon Plans to Attack

The China-U.S. diplomatic spat over cyberattacks on Google has highlighted the growing significance of the Internet as a theater of combat. Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn recently warned of its appeal to foes who are unable to match the U.S.'s conventional military might. An enemy country could deploy hackers to take down U.S. financial systems, communications and infrastructure, he suggested, at a cost far below that of building a trillion-dollar fleet of fifth-generation jet fighters. "Knowing this, many militaries are developing offensive cyber capabilities," Lynn said. "Some governments already have the capacity to disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure." (On Tuesday, the nation's top intelligence official warned that cyber-enemies have "severely threatened" U.S. computer systems. "Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication," Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told a Senate committee.)

What U.S. officials don't like to acknowledge is that the Pentagon is hard at work developing an offensive cyber capability of its own. In fact, it has even begun using that capability to wage war. Beyond merely shutting down enemy systems, the U.S. military is crafting a witch's brew of stealth, manipulation and falsehoods designed to lure the enemy into believing he is in charge of his forces when in fact they have been secretly enlisted as allies of the U.S. military. And some in Washington fear that there hasn't been sufficient debate over the proper role of U.S. cyberweapons that are now being secretly developed. 

Pentagon officials acknowledge privately that such work is under way, though nearly all of it is classified. The recent creation of U.S. Cyber Command shows that the U.S. military is taking this mission seriously. "You have to be very careful about what you say in this area," says a top cyberwarrior of the Pentagon. "But you can tell there's something going on because the services are putting their money there and contractors are going after it in a big way."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff want the ability to destroy an enemy's computer network "so badly that it cannot perform any function," according to the handbook on what the Pentagon calls "Information Operations." The U.S. military wants to keep foes "from accessing and using critical information, systems and services" and to spoof adversaries "by manipulating their perception of reality." Just how such wizardry is to be accomplished is contained in a classified supplement. But hints can be gleaned in a trickle of contracts and budget documents, larded with geek-speak, that have begun seeping onto the public record.  

The Air Force wants the ability to burrow into any computer system anywhere in the world "completely undetected." It wants to slip computer code into a potential foe's computer and let it sit there for years, "maintaining a 'low and slow' gathering paradigm" to thwart detection. Clandestinely exploring such networks, the Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement program's goal is to "stealthily exfiltrate information" in hopes it might "discover information with previously unknown existence." The U.S. cyberwarriors' goal: "complete functional capabilities" of an enemy's computer network — from U.S. military keyboards. The Army is developing "techniques that capture and identify data traversing enemy networks for the purpose of Information Operations or otherwise countering adversary communications." And the Navy is developing "a non-lethal, non-attributable system designed to offer non-kinetic offensive information operation solutions," according to Pentagon budget documents.  

Yet concepts that have regulated war forever, such as deterrence and attribution, are slippery or missing in cyberspace. National boundaries don't exist, making moot the question of sovereignty. Asymmetries abound: defenders must defend everything, all the time, while an attacker can prevail by exploiting a single vulnerability. Tracking down the source of cybersabotage, routed like a skipping stone through a series of innocent servers, can be all but impossible. Are the attackers curious teenagers, criminal gangs, a foreign power — or, more likely, a criminal gang sponsored by a foreign power? Deterrence becomes meaningless when the identity of an attacker is unknown. 

"We're in the stage before warfare," cyberwarfare expert James Lewis told a Washington audience on Jan. 27. "We're in the stages of people poking around." Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said cyberdefenses are inadequate. "Unless we find a way to use offensive capabilities as part of a deterrence or strategic defense," he said, "we will be unable to defeat these opponents." CSIS also released last week a survey of cybersecurity experts from around the world who "rank the U.S. as the country 'of greatest concern' in the context of foreign cyberattacks, just ahead of China."

It's the instantaneous nature of cyberattacks that has rendered defenses against them obsolete. Once an enemy finds a chink in U.S. cyberarmor and opts to exploit it, it will be too late for the U.S. to play defense (it takes 300 milliseconds for a keystroke to travel halfway around the world). Far better to be on the prowl for cybertrouble and — with a few keystrokes or by activating secret codes long ago secreted in a prospective foe's computer system — thwart any attack. Cyberdefense "never works" by itself, says the senior Pentagon officer. "There has to be an element of offense to have a credible defense."

Such cyberbattles are already happening in miniature. In Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. cyberwarriors are hard at work denying enemy commanders the ability to direct their forces, the senior Pentagon officer says. "I shut it down, take away your electricity, take away the radio, infect your phone," he explains. "Now you don't know where I'm coming from, or if you do, you can't tell the rest of your force what's going on." More insidiously, the U.S. can doctor the information the foe gets. "I can alter the messages coming across," he says.

But there is mounting concern that U.S. offensive capability in cyberspace is growing too fast and too secretly. "I have no doubt we're doing some very profoundly sophisticated things on the attack side," says William Owens, a retired Navy admiral and cyberwar expert who led a federal study on U.S. offensive cyberwarfare last year. "But that is little realized by many people in Congress or the Administration." That study, by the National Research Council, concluded that "the U.S. armed forces are actively preparing to engage in cyberattacks, and may have done so in the past." But it added that a lack of public debate has led to "ill-formed, undeveloped and highly uncertain" policies regarding its use, which could lead the U.S. to stumble inadvertently into a cyberwar.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  crime   internet   news   technology  
Comments (0)
Posted 4 days ago

Al-Bashir Genocide Charges to Be Reconsidered

Sudan's President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir,

waves to supporters at an event organized by the Sudanese embassy in Cairo on July 17, 2009

The International Criminal Court was ordered on Wednesday to reconsider indicting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with waging genocide in Darfur.

Appeals judges said the court was wrong to conclude in March that there was insufficient evidence to merit charging al-Bashir with three genocide counts. Instead, it had charged him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for allegedly orchestrating a campaign of murder, torture, rape and forced expulsions in Darfur province. 

The standard of proof the court sought for genocide charges "was higher and more demanding than what is required" in its statutes, appellate judge Erkki Kourula of Finland said Wednesday.

The decision likely paves the way for al-Bashir to be indicted with humanity's worst crime — attempting to wipe out entire ethnic groups in the war-ravaged province.  

Al-Bashir, the first sitting head of state indicted by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, refuses to recognize the court's jurisdiction and has vowed never to surrender.

His indictment in March further isolated his hardline regime. Since the charges were issued, he has traveled to friendly countries, but called off trips to nations where he fears he could be arrested and sent to The Hague.

His government expelled 13 of the most important international aid agencies working in Darfur in response to the charges, further compounding the humanitarian crisis in a region where 300,000 people have died since fighting broke out in 2003 between the government and rebels. The United Nations says 2.7 million people have been driven from their homes.

Moreno Ocampo accuses al-Bashir of mobilizing the entire Sudanese state apparatus with the aim of destroying a substantial part of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups in Darfur over more than six years.

Prosecutors accuse Sudanese troops and the janjaweed Arab militia they support of murdering civilians and preying on them in refugee camps. Moreno Ocampo said part of the alleged genocide was a campaign of rape to drive women into the desert, where they die of starvation.

Analysts said March's decision was vital in laying the groundwork for potential indictments of other leaders who have been mentioned as possible targets of war crimes investigations as it rejected head of state immunity.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  crime   news  
Comments (0)
Posted 4 days ago

Michael Jackson's Children Accept Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award On Father's Behalf

http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/news/accesshollywood/j/100131/imichaeljacksons.jpg?x=400&y=302&sig=jFUVkZF45JmkPHF4WyC_.A--Amid all the glitz and glamour and high-energy performances inside the Staples Center during the Grammy Awards on Sunday night, it was two children who have never sang a note professionally who stole the show.

Following a 3-D tribute to Michael Jackson, the King of Pop's eldest children - Prince Michael and Paris Jackson - took the stage to accept the Recording Academy's Lifetime Achievement Award on behalf of their late father.

"We are proud to be here to accept this award on behalf of our father, Michael Jackson," Michael's 12-year-old son, Prince, told the captivated audience.

"First of all, we'd like to thank God for watching over us for these past seven months, and our grandma and grandpa for their loving support," he continued. "We'd also like to thank the fans - our father loved you so much because you were always there for him."

Prince and sister Paris took the stage, along with a few of their cousins, following a tribute performance to Michael of "Earth Song" performed by Carrie Underwood, Usher, Smokey Robinson, Celine Dion and Jennifer Hudson.

As the group of stars paid homage to the King of Pop in song, a 3-D video (using footage which was used during Michael's concert film,"This Is It") played in the background showing young children playing in a peaceful, green surrounding - a theme which Prince Michael reiterated during his speech.

"Our father was always concerned about the planet and humanity," he said. "Through all his hard work and dedication, he has helped many charities."

The child closed his speech with a vow to continue to spread his father's message of love.

"Through all his songs, his message was simple - love. We will continue to spread his message and help the world," an emotional Prince Michael said. "Thank you. We love you daddy."

His younger sister, 11-year-old Paris - who so memorably spoke during the public memorial for Michael over the summer -- then took to the microphone with a brief comment before exiting the stage.

"Daddy was supposed to be here and Daddy was going to perform this year [because he] couldn't perform last year," she said. "Thank you. We love you Daddy."

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  entertainment   michaeljackson   music  
Comments (0)
Posted 6 days ago

Polygamy in America

polygamists

At 88, Joe Jessop is an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), the controversial sect that split from the Mormon Church after it banned plural marriage. In Hildale, Utah, he has tried to fulfill his duty to build up his "celestial family"—5 wives, 46 children, and 239 grandchildren. "I've had a blessed life," he says. "I wouldn't trade places with anyone."

 

 

The Polygamists

A sect that split from the Mormons allows multiple wives, expels "lost boys," and heeds a jailed prophet.

 

The first church members arrive at the Leroy S. Johnson Meeting House in Colorado City, Arizona, at about 6 p.m. Within a half hour the line extends out the front doors, down the side of the building, and out into the parking lot. By seven, it stretches hundreds of yards and has grown to several thousand people—the men and boys dressed in suits, the women and girls in Easter egg–hued prairie dresses.

The mourners have come for a viewing of 68-year-old Fo­neta Jessop, who died of a heart attack a few days ago. In the cavernous hall Fo­neta's sons form a receiving line at the foot of her open casket, while her husband, Merril, stands directly alongside. To the other side stand Merril's numerous other wives, all wearing matching white dresses.

Foneta was the first wife.

Colorado City is a town with special significance for those of Foneta's faith. Together with its sister community of Hildale, Utah, it is the birthplace of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), a polygamous offshoot of the Mormon Church, or LDS. Here in the 1920s and '30s, a handful of polygamous families settled astride the Utah-Arizona border after the leadership of the Mormon Church became increasingly determined to shed its polygamous past and be accepted by the American mainstream. In 1935 the church gave settlement residents an ultimatum: renounce plural marriage or be excommunicated. Practically everyone refused and was cast out of the LDS.

At the memorial service for Foneta, her husband and three sons give testimonials praising her commitment to the covenant of plural marriage, but there is an undertone of family disharmony, with vague references by Merril Jessop to his troubled relationship with Foneta. No one need mention that one of Merril's wives is missing. Carolyn Jessop, his fourth wife, left the household in 2003 with her eight children and went on to write a best-selling book on her life as an FLDS member. She describes a cloistered environment and tells of a deeply unhappy Foneta, an overweight recluse who fell out of favor with her husband and slept her days away, coming out of her room only at night to eat, do laundry, and watch old Shirley Temple movies on television.

At the conclusion of the service, most of the congregation walk over to the Isaac Carling cemetery for a graveside observance. I assume the enormous turnout—mourners have come in from FLDS communities in Texas, Colorado, and British Columbia—stems from the prominent position Foneta's husband holds: Merril Jessop is an FLDS leader and the bishop of the large chapter in West Texas. But Sam Steed, a soft-spoken, 37-year-old accountant acting as my guide, explains that elaborate funerals are a regular occurrence. "Probably between 15 and 20 times a year," he says. "This one is maybe a little bigger than most, but even when a young child dies, you can expect three or four thousand people to attend. It's part of what keeps us together. It reminds us we're members of this larger community. We draw strength from each other."

FEW AMERICANS had heard of the FLDS before April 2008, when law enforcement officials conducted a raid on a remote compound in West Texas known as the Yearning for Zion Ranch. For days after, television viewers witnessed the bizarre spectacle of hundreds of children and women—all dressed in old-fashioned prairie dresses, with elaborately coiffed hair—being herded onto school buses by social workers and police officers.

That raid had been spurred by phone calls to a domestic violence shelter, purportedly from a 16-year-old girl who claimed she was being sexually and physically abused on the ranch by her middle-aged husband. What lent credibility to the calls was that the residents of YFZ Ranch were disciples of the FLDS and its "prophet," Warren Jeffs, who had been convicted in a Utah court in 2007 for officiating at the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a church member.

The raid made for gripping television, but it soon became clear that the phone calls were a hoax. And although authorities had evidently anticipated a violent confrontation like the 1993 shoot-out at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco—SWAT teams were brought in, along with an armored personnel carrier—the arsenal at the YFZ Ranch consisted of only 33 legal firearms. A Texas appeals court later found that authorities had not met the burden of proof for the removal of the more than 400 children, and most were returned to their families within two months.

Yet after interviewing teenagers who were pregnant or had children, Texas authorities began investigating how many underage girls might have been "sealed" to older men. (Plural marriages are performed within the church and are not legal.) The result: Twelve church members, including Warren Jeffs, were indicted on charges ranging from bigamy to having sex with a minor. The first defendant to stand trial, Raymond Jessop, was convicted of one charge last November. Trials of the other defendants are scheduled to take place over the coming year.

FROM THE BLUFF behind his Hildale home, Joe Jessop has a commanding view of the Arizona Strip, an undulating expanse of sagebrush and piñon-juniper woodland that stretches south of the Utah border all the way to the northern rim of the Grand Canyon, some 50 miles away. Below are the farm fields and walled compounds of Hildale and Colorado City, which Joe refers to collectively by their old name, Short Creek. "When I first came to Short Creek as a boy, there were just seven homes down there," says Joe, 88. "It was like the frontier."

Today, Short Creek is home to an estimated 6,000 FLDS members—the largest FLDS community. Joe Jessop, a brother of Merril, has contributed to that explosive growth in two very different ways. With the weathered features and spindly gait of a man who has spent his life outdoors and worked his body hard, he is the community's undisputed "water guy," a self-taught engineer who helped with the piping of water out of Maxwell Canyon back in the 1940s. He's had a hand in building the intricate network of waterlines, canals, and reservoirs that has irrigated the arid plateau in the decades since.

A highly respected member of the FLDS, Joe is also the patriarch of a family of 46 children and—at last count—239 grandchildren. "My family came to Short Creek for the same reason as everyone else," he says, "to obey the law of plural marriage, to build up the Kingdom of God. Despite everything that's been thrown our way, I'd say we've done a pretty good job."

Members of the faith describe the life that the Jessops and other founding families have built as idyllic, one in which old-fashioned devotion and neighborly cooperation are emphasized and children are raised in a wholesome environment free of television and junk food and social pressures. Critics, on the other hand, see the FLDS as an isolated cult whose members, worn down by rigid social control, display a disturbing fealty to one man, the prophet Warren Jeffs—who has claimed to be God's mouthpiece on Earth.

To spend time in Hildale and Colorado City is to come away with a more nuanced view. That view is revealed gradually, however, due to the insular nature of the community. Many of the oversize homes are tucked behind high walls, both to give children a safe place to play and to shield families from gawking Gentiles, as non-Mormons are known. Most residents avoid contact with strangers. National Geographic was given access to the community only on the approval of the church leadership, in consultation with the imprisoned Warren Jeffs.

In keeping with original Mormon teachings, much of the property in Hildale and Colorado City is held in trust for the church. Striving to be as self-sufficient as possible, the community grows a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, and everyone, including children, is expected to help bring in the yield. Church members also own and operate a number of large businesses, from hotels to tool and machine manufacturers. Each Saturday, men gather at the meetinghouse to go over a roster of building and maintenance projects around town in need of volunteers. In one display of solidarity, the men built a four-bedroom home, from foundation to roof shingles, in a single day.

This communal spirit continues inside the polygamous home. Although living arrangements vary—wives may occupy different wings of a house or have their own granny cottages—the women tend to carve out spheres of influence according to preference or aptitude. Although each has primary responsibility for her own children, one wife might manage the kitchen, a second act as schoolteacher (virtually all FLDS children in Hildale and Colorado City are home­schooled), and a third see to the sewing. Along with instilling a sense of sorority, this division of labor appears to mitigate jealousy.

"I know it must seem strange to outsiders," says Joyce Broadbent, a friendly woman of 44, "but from my experience, sister wives usually get along very well. Oh sure, you might be closer to one than another, or someone might get on your nerves occasionally, but that's true in any family. I've never felt any rivalry or jealousy at all."

Joyce is a rather remarkable example of this harmony. She not only accepted another wife, Marcia, into the family, but was thrilled by the addition. Marcia, who left an unhappy marriage in the 1980s, is also Joyce's biological sister. "I knew my husband was a good man," Joyce explains with a smile as she sits with Marcia and their husband, Heber. "I wanted my sister to have a chance at the same kind of happiness I had."

Not all FLDS women are quite so sanguine about plural marriage. Dorothy Emma Jessop is a spry, effervescent octogenarian who operates a naturopathic dispensary in Hildale. Sitting in her tiny shop surrounded by jars of herbal tinctures she ground and mixed herself, Dorothy admits she struggled when her husband began taking on other wives. "To be honest," she says, "I think a lot of women have a hard time with it, because it's not an easy thing to share the man you love. But I came to realize this is another test that God places before you—the sin of jealousy, of pride—and that to be a godly woman, I needed to overcome it."

What seems to help overcome it is an awareness that a woman's primary role in the FLDS is to bear and raise as many children as possible, to build up the "celestial family" that will remain together for eternity. It is not uncommon to meet FLDS women who have given birth to 10, 12, 16 children. (Joyce Broadbent is the mother of 11, and Dorothy Emma Jessop of 13.) As a result, it's easy to see why this corner of the American West is experiencing a population explosion. The 400 or so babies delivered in the Hildale health clinic every year have resulted in a median age of just under 14, in contrast with 36.6 for the entire U.S. With so many in the community tracing their lineage to a handful of the pioneering families, the same few names crop up over and over in Hildale and Colorado City, suggesting a murkier side to this fecundity: Doctors in Arizona say a severe form of a debilitating disease called fumarase deficiency, caused by a recessive gene, has become more prevalent in the community due to intermarriage.

The collision of tradition and modernity in the community can be disorienting. Despite their old-fashioned dress, most FLDS adults have cell phones and favor late-model SUVs. Although televisions are now banished, church members tend to be highly computer literate and sell a range of products, from soaps to dresses, via the Internet. When I noticed how few congregants wore glasses, I wondered aloud if perhaps a genetic predisposition for good eyesight was at work. Sam Steed laughed lightly. "No. People here are just really into laser surgery."

THE PRINCIPLE of plural marriage was revealed to the Mormons amid much secrecy. Dark clouds hovered over the church in the early 1840s, after rumors spread that its founder, Joseph Smith, had taken up the practice of polygamy. While denying the charge in public, by 1843 Smith had shared a revelation with his closest disciples. In this "new and everlasting covenant" with God, plural wives were to be taken so that the faithful might "multiply and replenish the earth."

After Smith was assassinated by an anti-Mormon mob in Illinois, Brigham Young led believers on an epic 1,300-mile journey west to the Salt Lake Basin of present-day Utah. There the covenant was at last publicly revealed and with it, the notion that a man's righteousness before God would be measured by the size of his family; Brigham Young himself took 55 wives, who bore him 57 children.

But in 1890, faced with the seizure of church property under a federal antipolygamy law, the LDS leadership issued a manifesto announcing an end to plural marriage. That certainly didn't end the practice, and the LDS's tortured handling of the issue—some church leaders remained in plural marriages or even took on new wives after the manifesto's release—contributed to the schism between the LDS and the fundamentalists.

"The LDS issued that manifesto for political purposes, then later claimed it was a revelation," says Willie Jessop, the FLDS spokesman. "We in the fundamentalist community believe covenants are made with God and are not to be manipulated for political reasons, so that pre­sents an enormous obstacle between us and those in the LDS mainstream."

Upholding the covenant has come at a high price. The 2008 raid on the YFZ Ranch was only the latest in a long list of official actions against polygamists—persecutions for simply adhering to their religious principles, in the eyes of church members—that are integral to the FLDS story. At various times both Utah and Arizona authorities attempted to crack down on the Short Creek community: in 1935, in 1944, and most famously, in 1953. In that raid some 200 women and children were hauled to detention centers, while 26 men were brought up on polygamy charges. In 1956 Utah authorities seized seven children of Vera Black, a Hildale plural wife, on grounds that her polygamous beliefs made her an unfit mother. Black was reunited with her children only after agreeing to renounce polygamy.

MELINDA FISCHER JEFFS is an articulate, outgoing woman of 37, and she gives an incredulous laugh when describing what she's read about the FLDS. "Honestly, I can't even recognize it!" the mother of three exclaims. "Most all of what appears in the media, it makes us sound like we're somehow being kept against our will."

Melinda is in a unique position to understand the conflicting views of this community. She is a plural wife to Jim Jeffs, one of the prophet's nephews and an elder in the FLDS. But she is also the daughter of Dan Fischer, a former FLDS member who has emerged as one of the church leadership's most vociferous critics. In 2008 Fi­scher testified before a U.S. Senate committee about alleged improprieties within the FLDS, and he now heads an organization that works with people who have been kicked out of the church or who have "escaped." When Fischer broke with the church in the 1990s, his family split apart too; today 13 of his children have left the FLDS, while Melinda and two of her half siblings have renounced their father.

"And that is not an easy thing," Melinda says softly, "obviously, because I still love my father. I pray all the time that he will see his errors—or at least, stop his attacks on us."

If there is one point on which FLDS defenders and detractors might agree, it is that most of the current troubles can be traced to when its leadership passed to the Jeffs family, in 1986. Until then, the FLDS had been a fairly loosely run group led by an avuncular man named Leroy Johnson, who relied on a group of high priests to guide the church. That ended when Rulon Jeffs took over following Johnson's death. After being declared the prophet by the community, Rulon solidified the policy of one-man rule.

Charges that a theocratic dictatorship was taking root in the Arizona Strip grew louder when, after Rulon's death in 2002, the FLDS was taken over by his 46-year-old son, Warren. Assuming the role of the prophet, Warren first married several of his father's wives—and then proceeded to wed many more women, including, according to Carolyn Jessop, eight of Merril Jessop's daughters. Although many FLDS men have multiple wives, the number of wives of those closest to the prophet can reach into the double digits. A church document called the Bishop's Record, seized during the Texas raid, shows that one of Jeffs's lieutenants, Wendell Niel­sen, claims 21 wives. And although the FLDS would not disclose how many plural wives Warren Jeffs has taken (some estimate more than 80), at least one was an underage girl, according to a Texas indictment.

Although the issue of underage marriage within the church has garnered the greatest negative media attention, Dan Fischer has championed another cause, the so-called Lost Boys, who have left or been forced from the community and wound up fending for themselves on the streets of Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and St. George, Utah. Fischer's foundation has worked with 300 such young men, a few as young as 13, over the past seven years. Fischer concedes that most of these boys were simply "discouraged out," but he cites cases where they were officially expelled, a practice he says increased under Jeffs.

Fischer attributes the exodus partly to a cold-blooded calculation by church leaders to limit male competition for the pool of marriageable young women. "If you have men marrying 20, 30, up to 80 or more women," he says, "then it comes down to biology and simple math that there will be a lot of other men who aren't going to get wives. The church says it's kicking these boys out for being disruptive influences, but if you'll notice, they rarely kick out girls."

Equally contentious has been the FLDS restoration of an early Mormon policy of transferring the wives and children of a church member to another man. Traditionally, this was done upon the death of a patriarch so that his widows might be cared for, or to rescue a woman from an abusive relationship. But critics argue that under Jeffs this "reassignment" became one more weapon to hold over the heads of those who dared step out of line.

Determining who is unworthy has been the exclusive province of the prophet. When in January 2004 Jeffs publicly ordered the expulsion of 21 men and the reassignment of their families, the community acquiesced. Jeffs's diary, also seized during the Texas raid, reveals a man who micromanaged the community's every decision, from chore assignments and housing arrangements to who married whom and which men were ousted—all directed by revelations Jeffs received as he slept. He claimed that God guided his every action, no matter how small. One diary entry reads: "The Lord directed that I go to the sun tanning salon and get sun tanned more evenly on their suntanning beds."

In 2005 a Utah court transferred control of the trust that oversees much of the land in Hildale and Colorado City from the FLDS leadership to a state-appointed fiduciary; the church is currently waging a campaign to recover control of the trust. As for Jeffs, after spending over a year on the lam avoiding legal issues in Utah—and earning a spot on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list—he was caught and is currently serving a ten-year-to-life sentence as an accomplice to rape. He awaits trial on multiple indictments in Arizona and Texas. The 11 other church members awaiting trial in Texas include Merril Jessop, who was indicted for performing the marriage of Jeffs to an underage girl.

Yet Jeffs's smiling portrait continues to adorn the living room of almost every FLDS home. In his absence, his lieutenants have launched a fierce defense of his leadership. While conceding that underage marriages did occur in the past, Donald Richter, contributor to one of the official FLDS websites, says the practice has now been stopped. As for the Lost Boys, he argues that both the numbers involved and the reasons for the expulsions have been greatly exaggerated by the church's enemies. "This is only done in the most extreme cases," Richter says, "and never for the trivial causes they're claiming. And anyway, all religious groups have the right to expel people who won't accept their rules."

Certainly Melinda Fischer Jeffs hasn't been swayed by the ongoing controversy. "Warren is just the kindest, most loving man," she says. "The image that has been built up about him by the media and his enemies is just unrecognizable to who he really is." Like other church members, Melinda has ready answers for most of the accusations leveled against Jeffs and is especially spirited in defending the policy of reassignment. According to her, it is almost always initiated at the request of a wife who has been abandoned or abused. This is debatable. In his diary Jeffs recounts reassigning the wives of three men, including his brother David, because God had shown him that they "couldn't exalt their ladies, had lost the confidence of God." One of his brother's wives had difficulty accepting the news and could barely bring herself to kiss her new husband. "She showed a great spirit of resistance, yet she went through with it," Jeffs records. "She needs to learn to submit to Priesthood."

Yet Melinda's defense of Jeffs underscores one of the most curious aspects of the polygamous faith: the central role of women in defending it. This is not new. In Brigham Young's day a charity rushed to Utah to establish a safe house for polygamous women seeking to escape this "white slavery"; that house sat virtually empty. Today FLDS women in the Hildale–Colorado City area have ample opportunity to "escape"—they have cell phones, they drive cars, there are no armed guards keeping them in—yet they don't.

Undoubtedly one reason is that, having been raised in this culture, they know little else. Walking away means leaving behind everything: the community, one's sense of security, even one's own family. Carolyn Jessop, the plural wife of Merril Jessop who did leave the FLDS, likens entering the outside world to "stepping out onto another planet. I was completely unprepared, because I had absolutely no life skills. Most women in the FLDS don't even know how to balance a checkbook, let alone apply for a job, so contemplating how you're going to navigate in the outside world is extremely daunting."

It would seem there's another lure for women to stay: power. The FLDS women I spoke with tended to be far more articulate and confident than the men, most of whom seemed paralyzed by bashfulness. It makes sense when one begins to grasp that women are coveted to "multiply and replenish the earth," while men are in extraordinary competition to be deemed worthy of marriage by the prophet. One way to be deemed worthy, of course, is to not rock the boat, to keep a low profile. As a result, what has all the trappings of a patriarchal culture, actually has many elements of a matriarchal one.

There are limits to that power, of course, for it is subject to the dictates of the prophet. After hearing Melinda's stout defense of Jeffs, I ask what she would do if she were reassigned.

"I'm confident that wouldn't happen," she replies uneasily.

"But what if it did?" I ask. "Would you obey?"

For the only time during our interview, Melinda grows wary. Sitting back in her chair, she gives her head a quarter turn to stare at me out of the corner of one eye.

ON A SUNNY AFTERNOON in March 2009, Bob Barlow, a friendly, middle-aged member of the FLDS, gives me a tour of the YFZ Ranch in West Texas. The compound consists of about 25 two-story log-cabin-style homes, and a number of workshops and factories are scattered over 1,700 acres. At the center sits a gleaming white stone temple. It is remarkable what the residents have created from the hardscrabble plain. With heavy machinery, they literally made earth out of the rocky terrain, crushing stone and mixing it with the thin topsoil. They planted orchards and gardens and lawns and were on their way to creating a self-sufficient community amid the barren landscape. All that ground to a halt after the 2008 raid.

"The families are slowly coming back now," Barlow says. "We'll come out the other side of this better and stronger than before."

I suspect he's right. So many times in the history of Mormon polygamy the outside world thought it had the movement on the ropes only to see it flourish anew. I'm reminded of this one afternoon in Colorado City when I speak with Vera Black. Now 92 and in failing health, Vera is the woman whose children were taken from her by Utah authorities in 1956 and returned only after she agreed to renounce polygamy. Within days of making that promise, she was back in Short Creek with her children and had renewed her commitment to the everlasting covenant.

Now living with her daughter Lillian, Vera lies in a daybed as her children gather around. Those children are now in their 50s and 60s, and as they recount the story of their long-ago separation—both from their mother and their faith—several weep, as if the pain were fresh.

"I had to make that promise," Vera says, with a smile, "but I crossed my fingers while I did it." 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //  news   polygamy  
Comments (0)
Posted 7 days ago