AT&T says it owns data on file The New York Times THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2006 The largest U.S. telephone company, AT&T, has revised its privacy policy for its television and Internet customers, asserting that the personal information it collects is owned by the company and may be shared in response to court orders and other legal processes. "While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the statement said. "As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others or respond to legal process." The new policy seems to differ from the old policy, which was last revised in September 2004, in at least two areas. Where AT&T said then that the company could share information "to respond to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process," it now says such records are business records owned by AT&T. The new policy also requires that customers agree to AT&T's privacy policy before they can use its services. The changes in the privacy statements come as AT&T and two other phone companies have been accused in lawsuits of violating the privacy of customers by giving U.S. federal investigators access to its records. The companies - AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon Communications - have come under criticism for cooperating with the government investigators trying to track terrorists through domestic phone records. But AT&T said there was no connection between the lawsuits and the policy revision. A spokesman, Michael Coe, said the revisions had been in the works since December and were intended to remove legal jargon from the old policy statement. Under the revised policy, which takes effect Friday, AT&T plans to track the television viewing habits of its customers. Coe said AT&T would use the information to explore new products, like a video service, to meet its customers' needs. The statement said AT&T had no plans to share individual customer information with third parties for those parties' marketing purposes. ***** Religion Beware the Yoga Demon! The Christian Right’s fear of self-realization and spirituality By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D. Online Journal Contributing Writer Jun 22, 2006 They’re still at it. Those paranoid Christian fundamentalists are again attacking yoga. This is not the first time they’ve done so. On September 6, 2005, the Christian “news service” Agape Press carried an article titled “School Yoga Fitness Programs May Be Unhealthy Alternative, Author Warns.” The author cited was Dr. Walter Larimore, who wrote Alternative Medicine: A Christian Handbook. Dr. Larimore argued that because yoga has spiritual roots outside Christianity, the practice can be dangerous. He argued that “involvement with Eastern spiritual practices is known to cause psychological and emotional problems in some people.” In all probability those “some people” had psychological and/or emotional problems before even considering taking a yoga class. Or perhaps Latimer defines “psychological and emotional problems” as questioning the no-thinking-allowed dogma of Christian fundamentalism. The billions of people worldwide who have practiced yoga for centuries certainly do not support Larimore’s preposterous claim. On June 15, 2006, Agape Press carried this article: Author Wants to Enlighten Christians About Yoga's Demonic Influence Christian author Dave Hunt, co-founder of the Oregon-based ministry, The Berean Call, has written a new book called Yoga and the Body of Christ. In it, he contends that yoga is a spiritually dangerous practice designed to expose people to demonic influences. Mr. Hunt is quoted as saying, “If you want to benefit yourself physically, then do exercises that were designed for that. Do not get into things that were designed for self-realization . . . If you want to do some exercises, please don’t call it yoga, because as soon as you do, you’ve put a certain connotation on it.” Why would Mr. Hunt fear “self-realization”? Why would he advise “Christians” to avoid it? Could it be that if people achieve self-realization they will recognize the sinister mind-control techniques of “ministries” such as The Berean Call? Could it be that they would also realize that if they develop a “personal relationship with God,” there is no need for ministries? The clergy would become little more than “middlemen” who, like all middlemen, leech off others for their own self-aggrandizement. In fact, the clergy would become “demonic influences” interrupting, twisting and poisoning one’s personal relationship with Divinity for their own power and profit. Matthew 4:8-9 comes to mind: “The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. ‘All this I will give you,’ he said, ‘if you will bow down and worship me.’” The socio-political message of the Christian Right to Americans is exactly the same, especially at election time. “Please don’t call it yoga, because as soon as you do, you’ve put a certain connotation on it.” Why does Mr. Hunt fear the word “yoga”? Is he saying that the word alone invokes demons? If one intones the word “yoga” does Mephistopheles appear in lotus position? Aside from centuries of spiritual healing, the health benefits – both physical and mental – of yoga are well documented. What really seems to be at the heart of Dr. Larimore’s and Mr. Hunt’s warnings is a desire to prevent Christians from knowing about or exploring other belief systems and the self-realization true spirituality brings. But that Machiavellian “Christian” message – and the call to ignorance – is a common one. One place it can be heard loud and clear is at TrueU.org, which isn’t a university at all but part of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family media syndicate. Dobson is the “religious” middleman who has set “himself up as the moral authority of the nation.” TrueU frequently offers “lectures” explaining why Christianity is the only true religion and why Jesus is the only “God” and, by implication, why those who wish to avoid thinking for themselves as well as self-realization should enroll in TrueU, which is actually Focus on the Family Institute. One TrueU lecture, “Choosin' My Religion” by J.P. Moreland, claimed to offer “objective principles to guide one in choosing a religion.” The oxymoron is obvious: religion is anything but “objective.” “Why Believe That Jesus Is The Only Way?” by Douglas Groothuis presented incestuous, self-serving “biblical evidence for Christ’s lordship” [italics added]. Groothius also offered “Learning From an Apostle” in which he argued “Unless we establish a Christian worldview . . . people will likely place Jesus into the wrong worldview, taking Him to be merely a guru or swami or prophet, rather than Lord, God and Savior.” Eastern religions are a favorite target for these middlemen profiteers, as one of the books promoted by TrueU attests. Jesus Among Other Gods: as the TrueU promo stated, “Ravi Zacharias’ latest work is a brilliant defense of the unique truth of the Christian message. Exposing the futility of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism . . ." In another “lecture,” Denver Seminary professor Groothuis “explained” why Islam is false: “Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?” His “reasoning” bore a striking resemblance to the “thinking” of Pat Robertson – who called for the assassination of the Venezuelan president and blamed Hurricane Katrina on the choice of (lesbian) Ellen Degeneres to host the Emmys – on Islam (and other “false religions): Under no circumstances is Jehovah, the God of the Bible, and Allah, of the Koran, the same. First of all, the God of the Bible is a God of love and redemption, who sent His Son into the world to die for our sins. Allah tells people to die for him in order to get salvation, but there is no understanding of salvation. Allah was the moon god from Mecca. That is why Islam has the crescent moon. The flag of Turkey has a crescent moon with a star in it. Well, the crescent moon is because Allah was the moon god, and that is the deal. But we don’t serve a moon god. We serve the God of creation, the Creator of everything. They are not the same. To translate Allah as God is wrong. When you see something in there and it says Allah, you translate it Allah. Don’t call it God because it is different. God is Elohim. He is the Creator, the Jehovah God, Yahweh. Yahweh of the Old Testament was the Father who brought forth Jesus into the world. Organized religion is, by definition, predicated upon bigotry and discrimination: the “my God is better than your God” mentality. As a direct result, the fundamentalist dogma of organized religions is responsible for the torture and murder of millions of people throughout human history. Even today, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, some Christian fundamentalists continue the call for hatred and the violence that inevitably follows. Although not calling for their execution, Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder and chairman of the rabidly homophobic Traditional Values Coalition, has claimed gays and lesbians need “an exorcism” and has called for their segregation into “cities of refuge” (aka “concentration camps”). Another notorious homophobe is Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries. His former vice president, George Grant, wrote Legislating Immorality, a sermonic tome that included a fire-and-brimstone rant on America’s abandonment of a Scripture-inspired death penalty for homosexuality. And then there’s Michael Marcavage of Repent America, a radical fundamentalists organization, who claims he’s not calling for the extermination of gays, but some take his words to mean just that. At least fellow “Christian” crusader and certified wing-nut Rev. Fred Phelps – of “GodHatesFags.com” infamy – is blunt about his desire to execute gay Americans. Fanatical Phelps has much in common with other dogmatic monotheists, such as Muslim cleric Yusuf Qaradawi who couldn’t decide whether gay people should be “throw[n] from a high place” or whether “we should burn them.” Not surprisingly, Yusuf Qaradawi is also a vocal supporter of suicide bombers. It must be noted, however, that the Eastern spiritual philosophies that spawn yoga do not advocate hatred toward or the murder of gays, or anyone else. Indeed, the Dali Lama supports “gay rights.” When’s the last time you heard a yogi call for the execution of gays, or doing harm to any living creature? So feel free to join the estimated 30 million Americans who practice yoga, and beware those who argue against self-realization and thinking for yourself. ***** http://www.themeparkinsider.com Good-bye Magic Mountain? Six Flags puts six parks up for sale or closure 2006-06-22 By Robert Niles Six Flags announced plans Thursday to sell or close six of its properties, including the chain's once-flagship park, Magic Mountain, in Valencia, Calif. In a press release issued after the U.S. stock market closed Thursday, Six Flags announced that it would sell the properties, to either a single buyer or multiple buyers, or that it might sell or redeploy the properties' attractions, to clear the land for real estate sale. The six parks on the block are Magic Mountain, Elitch Gardens in downtown Denver, Colorado, Darien Lake near Buffalo, New York, Wild Waves and Enchanted Village outside Seattle, Washington and the waterparks Six Flags Waterworld in Concord and Six Flags Splashdown in Houston. Long-time TPI readers are familiar with our coverage of Six Flags' financial struggles, and we predicted some of the parks would be going back in January. With Paramount Parks already selling out to Cedar Fair, one wonders what company will be able and willing to mount a bid to purchase the Six Flags parks. Real estate sales, alas, seem the most likely result for most of the parks. Magic Mountain, obviously, is the most viable park among the six, but Cedar Fair already has a Southern California park, in Buena Park's Knott's Berry Farm. The land underneath Magic Mountain would be worth many millions, even in SoCal's stalled real estate market, if no theme park company is willing to add this roller coaster haven to its portfolio. Six Flags shares plunged, losing nearly a fifth of their value in after-hours trading, following the announcement. Update: A comment I've made in a couple TV interviews since the story broke: It'd be ironic if Magic Mountain were sold off for real estate development, given that real estate development is the reason the park was built in the first place. Magic Mountain was not always a Six Flags park. Its builder and original owner was the Newhall Land Company, the developer that built many of the communities around the park. Newhall Land thought it needed a big attraction to lure families over the pass from the San Fernando Valley into the Santa Clarita. So it contracted SeaWorld's designers and built Magic Mountain. How ironic, now, that the park might fall victim to the success of the real estate market it was built to inspire. ***** Friday, Jun. 23, 2006 San Francisco's Latest Innovation: Universal Health Care With an ambitious new plan, the city hopes to provide a nationwide model that grants health access to all By LAURA A. LOCKE/SAN FRANCISCO Time.com San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has a habit of treading where other elected officials are loath to go. First, he took on same-sex marriage. Now Newsom is angling again to bestow city residents with rights that Americans living elsewhere don't have. San Franciscans, he announced this week, are poised to become the first recipients of universal health care. This means uninsured city dwellers will gain access to basic medical services they otherwise couldn't afford. While not free, the care will come at sharply reduced costs. Enrollment fees will range from $3 to $201, depending on participants' incomes. Most, however, will pay $35 a month—far less than what HMOs typically charge. It's part of an unprecedented program called "San Francisco Health Access Plan," which Newsom hammered out with labor, business, and city leaders. More than 82,000 San Franciscans who lack health insurance and do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid stand to benefit. The majority are employed adults (children already have access to subsidized care); others are unemployed, self-employed, homeless, or have pre-existing conditions like diabetes, AIDS or cancer; some are even undocumented (yes: illegal) workers. Starting in early 2007, every uninsured San Franciscan can seek comprehensive primary care at the city's public and private clinics and hospitals, including top research facilities like the University of California at San Francisco. Coverage includes lab work, prescriptions, X rays, hospitalization and surgery. Annual funding for the $203 million program will come from re-routed city funds (including $104 million that now goes toward uninsured care via emergency rooms and clinics), business contributions and individual enrollment fees, which will be income-adjusted. Newsom considers San Francisco's historic undertaking a "moral obligation," one that other city, state and federal officials have shirked. "We are implementing this. We're not waiting around," he told TIME. "It's no longer good enough to explain away our problem and to point fingers." Around 41 million Americans are uninsured. They inevitably wind up seeking medical attention from overburdened emergency rooms. The political dialogue must change, Newsom insists. "If it's not going to happen through national leadership or statewide leadership," he says, "then it has to happen on a local level." Newsom and his supporters are convinced their ambitious plan will fly despite failed health reforms previously floated by Hillary Clinton and others. The key difference is that San Francisco's plan focuses on health access, not insurance. "This is really a plan that's focused on providing ëmedical homes' for people, preventive care. We can't solve all of the problems," says Dr. Mitch Katz, the city's public health director. "If our goal was to provide health insurance, at this point in time, we would fail, too." Unlike medical insurance, San Francisco's health access program doesn't travel. It applies only to local residents who go for care within city and county limits. Emergency room visits outside San Francisco, for example, aren't covered. There's no dental or optometry coverage, and participants must be willing to apply for any state and federal benefits they are entitled to. Still, universal health care in San Francisco isn't a slam-dunk. The city's board of supervisors must vote on the proposal, and details over financing must be sorted out. "It's wrought with potential pratfalls," Newsom acknowledges. The biggest snag is likely to come from the 15% of local businesses that don't provide their workers with health insurance and oppose a mandate that requires them to. Such a mandate is on the table now, but the public still needs to weigh in. On Monday the board of supervisors will take public comments. Lobbying will continue. "There's going to be a lot of rancorous debate," says Steve Falk, president of San Francisco's Chamber of Commerce. Should the mandate prevail, however, a legal challenge will surely follow, he warns, since hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses would be unfairly put at risk. "This mandate will fall on the companies that have the least ability to pay," he says. Nevertheless, the thinking goes, if San Francisco's local plan for the uninsured takes off, it could be a model for other metropolitan regions nationwide. "This is a city that wants to right the proverbial wrongs," Newsom says. "We tend to march to the beat of our own drum and that, hopefully, is something that can awaken people's imaginations elsewhere." ***** Published on Tuesday, June 21, 2006 by the Independent / UK Veteran Critic of White House Turns on 'Gullible' Press Pack by Andrew Buncombe For almost five decades, White House reporter Helen Thomas has been covering America's leaders with a healthy dose of scepticism and an endless string of pointed questions. Along the way she has ruffled presidential feathers and, since becoming a columnist in 2003, she has made clear her views on some of those incumbents - including George W Bush who she has described as the "worst president in all of American history". Now, 85-year-old Thomas has focused attention on her fellow reporters, accusing them of failing in their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war. "I ask myself every day why the media have become so complacent, complicit and gullible," she writes in Watchdogs of Democracy?, a book published this week. "It all comes down to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to fear among reporters of being considered 'unpatriotic' or 'unAmerican'." Thomas, who has covered every president since John F Kennedy, said she believed the press corps had recently recovered some of its spine and, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, had been asking more searching questions. But she said when it really mattered - when, in her opinion, the media could have perhaps prevented the invasion of Iraq - the press failed to do its public service. She said: "When this war was obviously coming on, for two years we heard 'Saddam Hussein and 9/11'. Every reporter, rather than challenging it and saying [the 9/11 hijackers] were not Iraqis they were Saudis ... The press rolled over and printed it when they knew we were going to war and it could have been challenged." She added: "Reporters have a duty to follow the truth wherever it leads them, regardless of politics. But people do worry about their jobs." Until 2003, Thomas sat at the front of presidential press conferences, though for three years Mr Bush failed to call on her. In March, he asked her for a question and she said: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war?" The President would only say he did not accept the premise of her question. Critics have long highlighted the failure of much of the media to thoroughly challenge the claims of the US and British governments in the run-up to the invasion. The New York Times has been one of the few to examine its own performance. In a "mea culpa" it wrote: "We have found a number of instances of coverage that were not as rigorous as they should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims." Other reporters have highlighted how, in the aftermath of 9/11, the media was less probing, at a time when the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was warning all Americans "need to watch what they say". In 2002, Dan Rather, an anchor with CBS news, said: "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions." ***** USATODAY.com Cheeseburger couplings match 2 favorites Friday June 23, 2006 By Bruce Horovitz, USA TODAY Cheeseburger purists: Cringe now. The cheeseburger is flipping off the grill this summer. It's being stuffed into egg rolls and plopped atop salads at Bennigan's; layered on pizzas at Uno Chicago Grill; and - for the strong of stomach - crammed between Krispy Kreme doughnut halves at one stadium. All in the name of making the nation's most popular entree seem new, again. Burgers have been the top entree order for 28 years, says Harry Balzer, trends watcher at NPD Group. So, why not fuse 'em with other favorites? "If you can mix two favorites, the combination is more pleasurable than any one - as long as it's not grotesque," says Steven Witherly, a food scientist. Recent cheeseburger pairings: Cheeseburger egg rolls. A promotion by Bennigan's Grill & Tavern of this $6.99 appetizer sizzled, so it gets a permanent menu slot in July, says Clay Dover, vice president of marketing. It is stuffed with ground beef, cheese, pickles, onions and mustard, and deep fried. Cheeseburger pizza. Uno Chicago Grill launched a Bacon Cheeseburger Deep Dish Pizza, topped with 6 ounces of grilled ground beef, pickles, mustard and ketchup. Locations are selling about 30 a day, "an unbelievable number for a new item," says CEO Frank Guidara. Cheeseburger doughnuts. The Gateway Grizzlies, an independent baseball league team in Sauget, Ill., started selling "Baseball's Best Burger" this month: a $4.50 cheeseburger with two strips of bacon grilled between a sliced Krispy Kreme doughnut. (The glazed sides are flipped to the inside for less mess.) It comes to the plate with 1,000 calories and 45 grams of fat, but the Grizzlies are selling 150 a game, says team spokesman Jeff O'Neill. "People ask us what to put on it," says O'Neill. "We like to think it doesn't need anything." Cheeseburger tacos. Five kinds of $6.99 Cheeseburger Tacos are sold at Tin Star, a Dallas chain that has copyrighted the name, founder Rich Hicks says. Cheeseburger fingers. These deep-fried cheeseburger sticks, sold as appetizers in bars, restaurants and supermarkets, were created by Advance Food. Cheeseburger salad. Bennigan's tried a $7.99 cheeseburger salad, but it didn't make the cut. "Maybe it was a little 'out there' to sell a salad with a cheeseburger on top," says Dover. An idea so "out there" it died in Bennigan's test kitchen: Cheeseburger Cones.