FYI. San Luis Obispo, CA.
Surgeon Accused of Speeding a Death to Get Organs - New York Times
miércoles, febrero 27, 2008
jueves, febrero 21, 2008
Actor Sharif ordered to pay Latino valet $318,190 over altercation - Los Angeles Times
Interesting article about Omar Sharif's hidden prejudices towards Latinos in LA.
See the article from the LA Times below:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-valet21feb21,0,6317871.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
Will actor Omar Sharif pay up in dollars or euros?
That's what parking valet Juan Anderson is wondering after the film star was ordered to pay him $318,190 as a result of a 2005 altercation outside a Beverly Hills restaurant.Sharif, best known for his roles in the movies "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago," allegedly punched Anderson in the face when the valet refused to accept a 20-euro note as payment for retrieving his Porsche sport utility vehicle at Mastro's Steakhouse.
The actor and a female companion had just finished a $500 dinner at the North Canon Drive restaurant. Anderson, who believed he was not authorized to accept foreign currency, said he was bloodied by the attack.Anderson, 50, alleged that Sharif angrily called him a "stupid Mexican." Anderson is from Guatemala. Sharif, 75, later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge. In early 2007 he was ordered to pay a $100 fine and attend anger-management classes.
He was also placed on two years' probation by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.Anderson sued Sharif for assault and battery, emotional distress and commission of a hate crime. A 2005 state law prohibits racially motivated violence.On Tuesday, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Joe W. Hilberman awarded Anderson $318,190 in damages. Sharif, who earlier characterized the incident as a parking lot argument, did not appear at the trial.
Actor Sharif ordered to pay valet $318,190 over altercation - Los Angeles Times
See the article from the LA Times below:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-valet21feb21,0,6317871.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
Will actor Omar Sharif pay up in dollars or euros?
That's what parking valet Juan Anderson is wondering after the film star was ordered to pay him $318,190 as a result of a 2005 altercation outside a Beverly Hills restaurant.Sharif, best known for his roles in the movies "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago," allegedly punched Anderson in the face when the valet refused to accept a 20-euro note as payment for retrieving his Porsche sport utility vehicle at Mastro's Steakhouse.
The actor and a female companion had just finished a $500 dinner at the North Canon Drive restaurant. Anderson, who believed he was not authorized to accept foreign currency, said he was bloodied by the attack.Anderson, 50, alleged that Sharif angrily called him a "stupid Mexican." Anderson is from Guatemala. Sharif, 75, later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge. In early 2007 he was ordered to pay a $100 fine and attend anger-management classes.
He was also placed on two years' probation by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.Anderson sued Sharif for assault and battery, emotional distress and commission of a hate crime. A 2005 state law prohibits racially motivated violence.On Tuesday, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Joe W. Hilberman awarded Anderson $318,190 in damages. Sharif, who earlier characterized the incident as a parking lot argument, did not appear at the trial.
Actor Sharif ordered to pay valet $318,190 over altercation - Los Angeles Times
miércoles, febrero 13, 2008
Vice President Rice?
I am not the only one thinking about this possibility. A development of this magnatude would clearly shake-up the Democratic party to its core.
Vice President Rice?
Vice President Rice?
miércoles, enero 30, 2008
Moynihans Widow Endorses Obama - City Room - Metro - New York Times Blog
The Obama effect is spreading, and New York's finest are catching on. Read on...
Moynihans Widow Endorses Obama - City Room - Metro - New York Times Blog
Moynihans Widow Endorses Obama - City Room - Metro - New York Times Blog
Why Clinton can count on Latinos - Los Angeles Times
This a very interesting article explaining some of the popular support among Latinos in favor of the Clintons versus Obama.
FYI.
ER
Why Clinton can count on Latinos - Los Angeles Times
FYI.
ER
Why Clinton can count on Latinos - Los Angeles Times
lunes, enero 28, 2008
Kennedy Chooses Obama, Spurning Plea by Clintons - New York Times
Looks like the 22 state primaries just got a little more interesting!
Kennedy Chooses Obama, Spurning Plea by Clintons - New York Times
Kennedy Chooses Obama, Spurning Plea by Clintons - New York Times
viernes, enero 18, 2008
Palmas en Bermuda
So I got separated from the group in downtown Hamilton, and discovered that there was a fundraiser event taking place at an old villa with lots of art work. I mingled, drank some wine, had some grapes with cheese, and snapped up a couple of pics of the local artwork before making it back to the other side of the island. This is a picture of one of the pieces of art that actually caught my eye. If you notice, there is a green circle sticker in the top right corner. When I saw this, I became visibly upset. Someone had beat me and purchased this artwork right under my nose. Damn those Bermudeans!Bermudean Around
De mi viaje a Bermuda en Septiembre...tenia que moverme de un hotel a otro en esta motocicleta. Y si pude llegar con bien. Ciao. 
viernes, diciembre 28, 2007
Interesting Take on Bhutto
In light of the recent tragedy in Pakistan, the NY Post's article provides an alternative take on the assasination. Follow the link to read Ralph Peters' view on the assasination's effects on Pakistan.
Or read the article here:
THE BHUTTO ASSASSINATION: NOT WHAT SHE SEEMED TO BE
By RALPH PETERS
December 28, 2007 -- FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.
Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.
In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the '90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.
Americans don't like to hear that. But it's the truth.
Bhutto embodied the flaws in Pakistan's political system, not its potential salvation. Both she and her principal rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, failed to offer a practical vision for the future - their political feuds were simply about who would divvy up the spoils.
From its founding, Pakistan has been plagued by cults of personality, by personal, feudal loyalties that stymied the development of healthy government institutions (provoking coups by a disgusted military). When she held the reins of government, Bhutto did nothing to steer in a new direction - she merely sought to enhance her personal power.
Now she's dead. And she may finally render her country a genuine service (if cynical party hacks don't try to blame Musharraf for their own benefit). After the inevitable rioting subsides and the spectacular conspiracy theories cool a bit, her murder may galvanize Pakistanis against the Islamist extremists who've never gained great support among voters, but who nonetheless threaten the state's ability to govern.
As a victim of fanaticism, Bhutto may shine as a rallying symbol with a far purer light than she cast while alive. The bitter joke is that, while she was never serious about freedom, women's rights and fighting terrorism, the terrorists took her rhetoric seriously - and killed her for her words, not her actions.
Nothing's going to make Pakistan's political crisis disappear - this crisis may be permanent, subject only to intermittent amelioration. (Our State Department's policy toward Islamabad amounts to a pocket full of platitudes, nostalgia for the 20th century and a liberal version of the white man's burden mindset.)
The one slim hope is that this savage murder will - in the long term - clarify their lot for Pakistan's citizens. The old ways, the old personalities and old parties have failed them catastrophically. The country needs new leaders - who don't think an election victory entitles them to grab what little remains of the national patrimony.
In killing Bhutto, the Islamists over-reached (possibly aided by rogue elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, one of the murkiest outfits on this earth). Just as al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand and alienated that country's Sunni Arabs, this assassination may disillusion Pakistanis who lent half an ear to Islamist rhetoric.
A creature of insatiable ambition, Bhutto will now become a martyr. In death, she may pay back some of the enormous debt she owes her country.
Or read the article here:
THE BHUTTO ASSASSINATION: NOT WHAT SHE SEEMED TO BE
By RALPH PETERS
December 28, 2007 -- FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.
Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.
In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the '90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.
Americans don't like to hear that. But it's the truth.
Bhutto embodied the flaws in Pakistan's political system, not its potential salvation. Both she and her principal rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, failed to offer a practical vision for the future - their political feuds were simply about who would divvy up the spoils.
From its founding, Pakistan has been plagued by cults of personality, by personal, feudal loyalties that stymied the development of healthy government institutions (provoking coups by a disgusted military). When she held the reins of government, Bhutto did nothing to steer in a new direction - she merely sought to enhance her personal power.
Now she's dead. And she may finally render her country a genuine service (if cynical party hacks don't try to blame Musharraf for their own benefit). After the inevitable rioting subsides and the spectacular conspiracy theories cool a bit, her murder may galvanize Pakistanis against the Islamist extremists who've never gained great support among voters, but who nonetheless threaten the state's ability to govern.
As a victim of fanaticism, Bhutto may shine as a rallying symbol with a far purer light than she cast while alive. The bitter joke is that, while she was never serious about freedom, women's rights and fighting terrorism, the terrorists took her rhetoric seriously - and killed her for her words, not her actions.
Nothing's going to make Pakistan's political crisis disappear - this crisis may be permanent, subject only to intermittent amelioration. (Our State Department's policy toward Islamabad amounts to a pocket full of platitudes, nostalgia for the 20th century and a liberal version of the white man's burden mindset.)
The one slim hope is that this savage murder will - in the long term - clarify their lot for Pakistan's citizens. The old ways, the old personalities and old parties have failed them catastrophically. The country needs new leaders - who don't think an election victory entitles them to grab what little remains of the national patrimony.
In killing Bhutto, the Islamists over-reached (possibly aided by rogue elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, one of the murkiest outfits on this earth). Just as al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand and alienated that country's Sunni Arabs, this assassination may disillusion Pakistanis who lent half an ear to Islamist rhetoric.
A creature of insatiable ambition, Bhutto will now become a martyr. In death, she may pay back some of the enormous debt she owes her country.
miércoles, diciembre 26, 2007
Subsidizing San Marino's Exclusionary Policies - Los Angeles Times
You paid for San Marino to play - Los Angeles Times
You paid for San Marino to play
December 26 2007
The thing about the Grinch was that he came around in the end.No such thing has happened in San Marino, one of California's wealthiest communities, where town leaders discourage nonresidents from using Lacy Park by sticking them with an entrance fee on weekends.
City Manager Matt Ballantyne tells me there has been zero discussion about reviewing the policy, so our only option is to keep the pressure up.As I reported, I wasn't all that steamed about the $4 outsider fee until I discovered the gated park has been upgraded with several hundred thousand dollars in state funds over the years.
In other words, I and other nonresidents have paid for the improvements.Readers by the dozens shared my pique, and one Pasadena resident typified the response."I am outraged that the city receives state money -- I had no idea," wrote Sally Howell, who lives near Lacy Park and has used it for years. Howell believes the fees are charged so Lacy won't become "a park full of brown-skinned people" from Alhambra and El Sereno.
San Marino City Council members insisted that wasn't the case. They told me that despite the substantial relative wealth of residents, city funds are tight because there's virtually no sales tax revenue. They said the park fees, instituted in 1990 and raised from $3 to $4 last month, were to cover the cost of park staff and upkeep.
You may recall that in my first column on this subject, I promised to check with the state parks department to see if it's legal for a city to receive state funds and still charge nonresidents. Patti Keating, a state parks official, researched the matter and told me San Marino is in the clear. She said that despite the city's having received more than $600,000 in state funds for Lacy projects, state code allows a city to charge nonresident fees as long as they are reasonable and not excessive. If that raises your blood pressure, so will the tip I got from three readers:Even federal funds have been used to upgrade Lacy Park.This was confirmed by Elisa Vasquez and Linda Jenkins at the L.A. County Community Development Commission. They told me that San Marino has in the past received nearly $70,000 annually in Community Development Block Grants.Excuse me?
The U.S. Housing and Urban Development website on the block grant program describes it as a way "to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities" and as "an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities."One year, I'm told by Jenkins, San Marino used an unspecified portion of the federal grant for the serious challenge of building an apron around the Lacy Park playground. I guess this was so "the most vulnerable" children of San Marino didn't fall and rip their knickers. As with state money, the federal block grant program allows a city to charge nonresident fees as long as they're reasonable and not excessive, according to Jenkins. But at both the state and federal levels, no legal definition of "reasonable" is provided.
I would therefore like to argue, here in the court of public opinion, that there is nothing demonstrably "reasonable" about the $4 weekend fee at Lacy Park.
Does South Pasadena charge San Marinans and other nonresidents $4 to use the perfectly lovely Garfield Park? No.
Does Los Angeles stick it to nonresidents who use the spectacular Griffith Park? Of course not.
I'm told by Ballantyne that the weekend fee generates $60,000 a year. But the extra part-time staff needed on Saturdays and Sundays costs San Marino only $33,000. With an annual budget of $540,000, it's not as if Lacy is strapped. So how else are we to view the weekend fee but as an attempt to make a public park a private club?
Peggy Ebright wrote to say that as a resident of San Marino for more than 40 years, she's never seen "snobbishness and exclusiveness" in her town.
She argued that the park was trashed by visitors before the fees discouraged large crowds, and I can respect her desire to maintain Lacy as the fine little gem that it is, especially given the limited parking.
But another San Marino resident, Gregory Evans, made the very point I've been hammering away at.
"It is wrong to take federal or state money for park improvements and then to deny access to the public by imposition of an entry fee," wrote Evans, who said he was ashamed by the unfriendly policy.While in San Marino, I noticed that a library was under construction and nearly completed. Will nonresidents be charged an entry fee there, too?Not at all, said the city manager.
And how did the city pay for the library, given its claim that the cupboard is bare?The $16-million project got $9 million in private donations, including $4 million from a single San Marino resident.
The remainder, or about $7 million, came out of the city budget.With all that money floating around, I'm having trouble understanding why Lacy Park needs a nonresident fee -- as well as our state and federal tax dollars -- to stay afloat.
But I'm in a generous mood this holiday season. I think I'll give San Marino city officials a little more time to rethink the policy before I start organizing the bus caravans.
Is overnight camping allowed, I wonder?steve.lopez@latimes.com
You paid for San Marino to play
December 26 2007
The thing about the Grinch was that he came around in the end.No such thing has happened in San Marino, one of California's wealthiest communities, where town leaders discourage nonresidents from using Lacy Park by sticking them with an entrance fee on weekends.
City Manager Matt Ballantyne tells me there has been zero discussion about reviewing the policy, so our only option is to keep the pressure up.As I reported, I wasn't all that steamed about the $4 outsider fee until I discovered the gated park has been upgraded with several hundred thousand dollars in state funds over the years.
In other words, I and other nonresidents have paid for the improvements.Readers by the dozens shared my pique, and one Pasadena resident typified the response."I am outraged that the city receives state money -- I had no idea," wrote Sally Howell, who lives near Lacy Park and has used it for years. Howell believes the fees are charged so Lacy won't become "a park full of brown-skinned people" from Alhambra and El Sereno.
San Marino City Council members insisted that wasn't the case. They told me that despite the substantial relative wealth of residents, city funds are tight because there's virtually no sales tax revenue. They said the park fees, instituted in 1990 and raised from $3 to $4 last month, were to cover the cost of park staff and upkeep.
You may recall that in my first column on this subject, I promised to check with the state parks department to see if it's legal for a city to receive state funds and still charge nonresidents. Patti Keating, a state parks official, researched the matter and told me San Marino is in the clear. She said that despite the city's having received more than $600,000 in state funds for Lacy projects, state code allows a city to charge nonresident fees as long as they are reasonable and not excessive. If that raises your blood pressure, so will the tip I got from three readers:Even federal funds have been used to upgrade Lacy Park.This was confirmed by Elisa Vasquez and Linda Jenkins at the L.A. County Community Development Commission. They told me that San Marino has in the past received nearly $70,000 annually in Community Development Block Grants.Excuse me?
The U.S. Housing and Urban Development website on the block grant program describes it as a way "to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities" and as "an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities."One year, I'm told by Jenkins, San Marino used an unspecified portion of the federal grant for the serious challenge of building an apron around the Lacy Park playground. I guess this was so "the most vulnerable" children of San Marino didn't fall and rip their knickers. As with state money, the federal block grant program allows a city to charge nonresident fees as long as they're reasonable and not excessive, according to Jenkins. But at both the state and federal levels, no legal definition of "reasonable" is provided.
I would therefore like to argue, here in the court of public opinion, that there is nothing demonstrably "reasonable" about the $4 weekend fee at Lacy Park.
Does South Pasadena charge San Marinans and other nonresidents $4 to use the perfectly lovely Garfield Park? No.
Does Los Angeles stick it to nonresidents who use the spectacular Griffith Park? Of course not.
I'm told by Ballantyne that the weekend fee generates $60,000 a year. But the extra part-time staff needed on Saturdays and Sundays costs San Marino only $33,000. With an annual budget of $540,000, it's not as if Lacy is strapped. So how else are we to view the weekend fee but as an attempt to make a public park a private club?
Peggy Ebright wrote to say that as a resident of San Marino for more than 40 years, she's never seen "snobbishness and exclusiveness" in her town.
She argued that the park was trashed by visitors before the fees discouraged large crowds, and I can respect her desire to maintain Lacy as the fine little gem that it is, especially given the limited parking.
But another San Marino resident, Gregory Evans, made the very point I've been hammering away at.
"It is wrong to take federal or state money for park improvements and then to deny access to the public by imposition of an entry fee," wrote Evans, who said he was ashamed by the unfriendly policy.While in San Marino, I noticed that a library was under construction and nearly completed. Will nonresidents be charged an entry fee there, too?Not at all, said the city manager.
And how did the city pay for the library, given its claim that the cupboard is bare?The $16-million project got $9 million in private donations, including $4 million from a single San Marino resident.
The remainder, or about $7 million, came out of the city budget.With all that money floating around, I'm having trouble understanding why Lacy Park needs a nonresident fee -- as well as our state and federal tax dollars -- to stay afloat.
But I'm in a generous mood this holiday season. I think I'll give San Marino city officials a little more time to rethink the policy before I start organizing the bus caravans.
Is overnight camping allowed, I wonder?steve.lopez@latimes.com
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
