Political Chowder's NUMBER OF THE WEEK - Sponsored by www.no-deal.org


January 06 , 2008
NUMBER OF THE WEEK
28 Days
From: Daily Mail | December 28, 2007




Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label

The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country's chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."

The Director of Public Prosecutions said: 'We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language."

London is not a battlefield, he said.

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."

His remarks signal a change in emphasis across Whitehall, where the "war on terror" language has officially been ditched.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between Islam and the West.

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities.

In an interview with BBC Radio's World at One, Macdonald made a fresh attack on plans to extend beyond 28 days the length of time a terror suspect can be held without trial.

He said that the evidence had shown that the existing limit was working well and he accused ministers of legislating on the basis of 'hypotheticals'.

_

READ MORE


www.no-deal.org
Verizon-FairPoint deal would be bad for state


By Joseph Dziedzic
Nashua

VA recent Telegraph editorial (Dec. 13) called the FairPoint purchase of Verizon's telephone lines in New Hampshire the "lesser of two evils" and supports the sale. In reality, this sale is probably the worst evil that could be inflicted upon the citizens of our state.

Let's consider customer service. FairPoint has nearly six times the customer complaint level in Maine and Vermont compared to Verizon (2.4 per thousand lines compared to 0.46). Is that something we want here?

Let's consider technology. A few years ago, Verizon began to upgrade its network infrastructure in southern New Hampshire, replacing the antiquated and expensive-to-maintain copper telephone lines with state-of-the-art fiber optic cable.

Television signals can be provided over fiber, and Verizon has done so in many towns in Massachusetts, offering customers an alternative to Comcast. Fiber optic also offers Internet access speeds 10 to 100 times faster than DSL – which is the only technology FairPoint plans to deploy.

If DSL is so great, why does Comcast mock it in its "Slowsky Family" ad campaign? And forget The Telegraph's wish for TV over DSL – FairPoint promised that two years ago in another area, and it still hasn't happened. DSL can't deliver the bandwidth needed for TV.

Let's consider company resources. FairPoint is primarily an acquisition company – it buys rural telephone companies and pays large dividends to its investors instead of investing in its network.

FairPoint's purchase would expand the company by a factor of five and put the new company in a tremendously shaky financial position with a huge debt load. What happens when a natural disaster occurs here – such as the flood in Raymond that destroyed a telephone central office – and FairPoint runs out of money? Will our citizens be abandoned by a bankrupt company?

Let's consider greed – which is what is driving the sale. Verizon structured the sale to take advantage of an arcane tax loophole that grants it $600 million tax-free. A Verizon executive complimented the financial "wizard" who came up with that scheme.

Gene Johnson, the CEO of FairPoint, stands to make millions in bonuses if the sale goes through. Where does that money come from? From the taxes, fees and money we paid Verizon that was supposed to be invested in the communications infrastructure of our state.

The truth is, no sizable telephone company was interested in the Verizon sale, and FairPoint was Verizon's handpicked candidate primarily because of the financial windfalls that would result.

If Verizon wants to leave our state, let it be done in a way that benefits our citizens – and not those who have their own financial interests at stake. Find a buyer – such as AT&T – which has the financial and technical resources to offer our citizens current technologies.

Require Verizon to repair and upgrade its network before approving the sale. This would make the sale much safer and much more beneficial to us, the consumer.



There are many, many more issues that need to be examined. This is just a snippet of what's wrong with this deal. For more in depth details, please go on-line to www.no-deal.org. This is a bad deal for consumers, tax payers, rate payers, our communities and for the economic growth of New Hampshire.