South Sudan independence: ‘If I die on Sunday, it will be in a free country’
July 8, 2011 No Comment
Former rebels prepare to fly the flag of independence from Khartoum as South Sudan becomes world’s newest nation The freedom suit is tan, single-breasted and has three buttons. It hangs in Charles Mamur’s tent, covered by a black bag to protect it from the dust that blows in from the dirt streets of South Sudan’s capital, Juba. Mamur bought the suit two years ago for about £50 but he has never worn it. He was keeping it for a special occasion, a time that he had dreamed of since the day nearly 50 years ago when, as a 10-year-old boy, he took up arms against the Arab government in Khartoum in the north. “I never believed that the moment of freedom would come,” Mamur, 58, said this week, unzipping the bag to show off his suit, as well as the yellow tie and black shoes he picked to go with it. “But I wanted to be well dressed if it did.” The moment has now arrived. At around noon on Saturday in the swelter of Juba, a besuited Mamur will be among tens of thousands of South Sudanese and foreign dignitaries, including the British foreign secretary, William Hague, and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who will watch as the flag of Sudan is lowered. Then, a giant South Sudan flag, six metres by four metres, will be raised on a 32-metre electronically operated flagpole that was installed this week by Chinese contractors who claim it is the tallest on the continent. Six years after the end of Africa’s longest-running civil war – and one of its deadliest – its largest country will be officially split in two. The Arab-dominated north under President Omar al-Bashir will remain Sudan, only with much less territory and oil. The ethnically African, non-Muslim south, governed by former rebel Salva Kiir, will become the 193rd country to join the United Nations – the Republic of South Sudan. The excitement and anticipation here in the buildup to independence is hard to overstate, eclipsing even the joy that accompanied the January referendum that saw 99% of voters choose secession over unity. Every South Sudanese knows that the new state, among the least developed countries on earth, faces immense challenges. But those are challenges for tomorrow, and thereafter. For now, for a people who have suffered so much, for so long, it’s a time of celebration. “This is the day we have all been waiting for,” said Luka Loro, a 35-year-old sanitary officer. “Our forefathers fought for
Continue reading …Former Baltimore Colt John Mackey, one of football’s great tight ends and one of the fiercest advocates for the rights of NFL players, has died from dementia at the age of 69. Mackey, who revolutionized his position during his playing days, won better pensions and benefits for players as head…
Continue reading …The ironic thing was that I had been planning to write a positive piece this morning about Obama’s remarks on housing in yesterday’s Twitter town hall , as I was pleased he was acknowledging the mistakes of his housing policy, and was hopeful that this statement — along with the outstanding news this morning of new Treasury rules forcing banks to give some mortgage relief to unemployed homeowners — signaled a tougher stance on Wall Street. And I was hoping that Christine Varney’s departure from the antitrust division at the Department of Justice might give an opportunity for someone more aggressive to be appointed there, so my mood was pretty good before I saw this morning’s all-hope-dies-here headline on Social Security. Oh, well. This administration has specialized at raising progressive hopes one minute and crushing them the very next. The question now on Social Security is what exactly is on the table and what isn’t. The statement the White House put out this morning is this: There is no news here. The President has always said that while Social Security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits. That not slashing benefits part of the statement sure sounds good and makes me feel better, but what does working with the Republicans in a balanced way mean? They want to cut benefits, not raise the payroll tax. And Social Security — unlike Medicare and Medicaid which include a lot of payments to providers that can be tinkered with in different ways to potentially lower costs — is all benefits. So is it on the table or isn’t it? The White House says the President is opposed to cutting benefits, which is wonderful, and I’m grateful for them reiterating that in the wake of the news reports this morning. But if you put it on the table, that means benefits might get cut, which is a disaster for the middle class, and a disaster for the Democratic Party. It would break the Democratic coalition into pieces, do more to alienate the base than any other thing the President could do, alienate seniors, who have never been too crazy about Obama anyway and who we need to move toward us in 2012, take away the political high ground Democrats seized because of the Ryan budget’s attacks on Medicare and Medicaid. It is the high rollers on Wall Street and their friends in the media and D.C. establishment who want to put Social Security on the table. The funders of the “we can solve our budget problems by cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid” PR campaign are people like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson. Billionaires and multimillionaires demanding that retired people getting an average of $14,000 a year in Social Security get their benefits cut has always struck me as just a little wrong. Especially when these wealthy and powerful elitists figure out how to shelter their own income so they can avoid paying the same rate as their secretaries. But these hypocritical powerbrokers are exactly the ones for whom the entire Republican Party is fighting so hard. The question now: will Obama join them in screwing the middle class? When it comes to government policy, there is no way to avoid the question of who wins and who loses. And over the last three years, in this massive economic crisis America has faced, it is the Wall Street big boys, the overgrown banks who own assets equal to 64 percent of our country’s GDP, who keep winning. When they blew up the economy and taxpayers bailed them out with no strings attached, Wall Street won. When the biggest banks swallowed up their competitors and got even bigger, Wall Street won. When bonuses and profits returned to record levels a year after they were bailed out, in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, Wall Street won. When the legislation allowing judges to force them to negotiate on mortgage writedowns failed, Wall Street won. When their carried interest tax loophole failed to get repealed, Wall Street won. When the amendment to force the break-up of the biggest banks lost, Wall Street won. When loopholes were added to derivatives regulations, Wall Street won. When the antitrust division at DOJ refused to lift a finger against the huge mega-banks, Wall Street won. When none of the top executives at these banks that had manipulated the economy went to jail, and few of them even lost their job, Wall Street won. The biggest question of our times is this: in spite of the naked greed, corruption, and excess exposed in the 2008 panic, will the win streak keep going? Will they succeed in taking Social Security money away from low and middle-income seniors? Or will, just maybe, the Obama administration stand up to Wall Street corruption this time? If Obama knows he needs to change his policy on housing, and starts doing more truly great things like the announcement today in terms of helping unemployed people keep their homes, that would be a major victory for the middle class over the Wall Street titans. If Obama were to replace Christine Varney with a head of antitrust who was more aggressive at breaking up huge companies who have too much market power, like the Too Big to Fail banks, that would be a blockbuster victory for both the economy and our democracy. If Obama finally does the right thing and gives Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that would be an exciting victory for the middle class over the big banks who have been trying to stop her. These issues are all tied together in the same question: does the middle class win, or does Wall Street win? If Obama chooses Wall Street, gives into the banks on all these issues, and hurts senior citizens with Social Security cuts, he will break apart the Democratic coalition and doom his re-election chances. If he challenges Wall Street and fights for the middle class, he will win the 2012 election in a landslide. No matter what Obama does, though, progressives need to keep fighting for what we believe in: we need to fight with all our strength to preserve Social Security benefits, and we need to take on the Wall Street banks on behalf of homeowners and consumers.
Continue reading …The ironic thing was that I had been planning to write a positive piece this morning about Obama’s remarks on housing in yesterday’s Twitter town hall , as I was pleased he was acknowledging the mistakes of his housing policy, and was hopeful that this statement — along with the outstanding news this morning of new Treasury rules forcing banks to give some mortgage relief to unemployed homeowners — signaled a tougher stance on Wall Street. And I was hoping that Christine Varney’s departure from the antitrust division at the Department of Justice might give an opportunity for someone more aggressive to be appointed there, so my mood was pretty good before I saw this morning’s all-hope-dies-here headline on Social Security. Oh, well. This administration has specialized at raising progressive hopes one minute and crushing them the very next. The question now on Social Security is what exactly is on the table and what isn’t. The statement the White House put out this morning is this: There is no news here. The President has always said that while Social Security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits. That not slashing benefits part of the statement sure sounds good and makes me feel better, but what does working with the Republicans in a balanced way mean? They want to cut benefits, not raise the payroll tax. And Social Security — unlike Medicare and Medicaid which include a lot of payments to providers that can be tinkered with in different ways to potentially lower costs — is all benefits. So is it on the table or isn’t it? The White House says the President is opposed to cutting benefits, which is wonderful, and I’m grateful for them reiterating that in the wake of the news reports this morning. But if you put it on the table, that means benefits might get cut, which is a disaster for the middle class, and a disaster for the Democratic Party. It would break the Democratic coalition into pieces, do more to alienate the base than any other thing the President could do, alienate seniors, who have never been too crazy about Obama anyway and who we need to move toward us in 2012, take away the political high ground Democrats seized because of the Ryan budget’s attacks on Medicare and Medicaid. It is the high rollers on Wall Street and their friends in the media and D.C. establishment who want to put Social Security on the table. The funders of the “we can solve our budget problems by cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid” PR campaign are people like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson. Billionaires and multimillionaires demanding that retired people getting an average of $14,000 a year in Social Security get their benefits cut has always struck me as just a little wrong. Especially when these wealthy and powerful elitists figure out how to shelter their own income so they can avoid paying the same rate as their secretaries. But these hypocritical powerbrokers are exactly the ones for whom the entire Republican Party is fighting so hard. The question now: will Obama join them in screwing the middle class? When it comes to government policy, there is no way to avoid the question of who wins and who loses. And over the last three years, in this massive economic crisis America has faced, it is the Wall Street big boys, the overgrown banks who own assets equal to 64 percent of our country’s GDP, who keep winning. When they blew up the economy and taxpayers bailed them out with no strings attached, Wall Street won. When the biggest banks swallowed up their competitors and got even bigger, Wall Street won. When bonuses and profits returned to record levels a year after they were bailed out, in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, Wall Street won. When the legislation allowing judges to force them to negotiate on mortgage writedowns failed, Wall Street won. When their carried interest tax loophole failed to get repealed, Wall Street won. When the amendment to force the break-up of the biggest banks lost, Wall Street won. When loopholes were added to derivatives regulations, Wall Street won. When the antitrust division at DOJ refused to lift a finger against the huge mega-banks, Wall Street won. When none of the top executives at these banks that had manipulated the economy went to jail, and few of them even lost their job, Wall Street won. The biggest question of our times is this: in spite of the naked greed, corruption, and excess exposed in the 2008 panic, will the win streak keep going? Will they succeed in taking Social Security money away from low and middle-income seniors? Or will, just maybe, the Obama administration stand up to Wall Street corruption this time? If Obama knows he needs to change his policy on housing, and starts doing more truly great things like the announcement today in terms of helping unemployed people keep their homes, that would be a major victory for the middle class over the Wall Street titans. If Obama were to replace Christine Varney with a head of antitrust who was more aggressive at breaking up huge companies who have too much market power, like the Too Big to Fail banks, that would be a blockbuster victory for both the economy and our democracy. If Obama finally does the right thing and gives Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that would be an exciting victory for the middle class over the big banks who have been trying to stop her. These issues are all tied together in the same question: does the middle class win, or does Wall Street win? If Obama chooses Wall Street, gives into the banks on all these issues, and hurts senior citizens with Social Security cuts, he will break apart the Democratic coalition and doom his re-election chances. If he challenges Wall Street and fights for the middle class, he will win the 2012 election in a landslide. No matter what Obama does, though, progressives need to keep fighting for what we believe in: we need to fight with all our strength to preserve Social Security benefits, and we need to take on the Wall Street banks on behalf of homeowners and consumers.
Continue reading …
When you attend a wedding at church, what passages of Scripture do you expect to hear? Congregations occasionally invite me to speak on the current same-sex marriage debates, and I ask them this question. Their answers are remarkably consistent. Someone invariably mentions 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “Love Chapter.” Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage. Others call out, “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16; NRSV). Another moving passage, but it’s certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi. The second creation story in Genesis comes up: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, but he isn’t exactly discussing marriage. Instead, his topic is divorce (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). When ministers read the Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I’d rather not hear about divorce at a wedding. One other passage frequently surfaces in weddings but rarely in mainline Protestant churches, the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodists and United Church of Christ congregations that invite me to speak. Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Not a Lot to Say The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage. My church, the United Church of Christ, has developed a new wedding liturgy, but it retains this common formula: “As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God’s reign of love.” So we know Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding? That’s the best we can do? No wonder it’s common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn’t have much to say on the topic. Let’s Be Honest Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently. It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation) — advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values? Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles? Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance — and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial — but not victimized — love. That’s a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.
Continue reading …
When you attend a wedding at church, what passages of Scripture do you expect to hear? Congregations occasionally invite me to speak on the current same-sex marriage debates, and I ask them this question. Their answers are remarkably consistent. Someone invariably mentions 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “Love Chapter.” Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage. Others call out, “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16; NRSV). Another moving passage, but it’s certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi. The second creation story in Genesis comes up: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, but he isn’t exactly discussing marriage. Instead, his topic is divorce (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). When ministers read the Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I’d rather not hear about divorce at a wedding. One other passage frequently surfaces in weddings but rarely in mainline Protestant churches, the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodists and United Church of Christ congregations that invite me to speak. Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Not a Lot to Say The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage. My church, the United Church of Christ, has developed a new wedding liturgy, but it retains this common formula: “As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God’s reign of love.” So we know Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding? That’s the best we can do? No wonder it’s common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn’t have much to say on the topic. Let’s Be Honest Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently. It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation) — advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values? Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles? Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance — and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial — but not victimized — love. That’s a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.
Continue reading …
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Hours after the shooting stopped, a car chase ended and a gunman wanted for killing seven people took three hostages, Michigan authorities still hoped that the suspect might surrender without another death. But instead, he took his own life. Police in Grand Rapids tried to talk an agitated Rodrick Shonte Dantzler into giving up late Thursday. They said his thoughts seemed to swing between surrender and asking officers to shoot him. “He was talking about coming out, giving himself up,” Police Chief Kevin Belk said. “He decided at the last moment to fire the gun.” The 34-year-old ex-convict from Grand Rapids killed himself with a single shot to the head, ending the standoff with his hostages unharmed. But authorities say Dantzler left behind a pair of bloody crime scenes – the result of an unexplained rampage in which he killed his daughter, an ex-girlfriend and five others, including a second child who police couldn’t immediately identify. “It makes no sense to try to rationalize it, what the motives were,” Belk said. “You just cannot come up with a logical reason why someone takes seven peoples’ lives.” The names of the dead were not immediately released. Autopsies were scheduled for Friday. Records show that Dantzler was released from state prison in 2005, after serving time for assault less than murder. A spokesman for the prison system said Dantzler had not been under state supervision since then. Police initially got a 911 call early Thursday afternoon from someone saying that a man had admitted to killing three people, Belk said. Police went to Dantzler’s home, but he wasn’t there and officers couldn’t find him. It wasn’t long before authorities got a call from a woman who said her relatives had been shot. Next came a call about someone finding four gunshot victims at another house. Officers soon found three bodies in a home on Plainfield Avenue. An hour later, they discovered the other four across town in a ranch-style house on a cul-de-sac called Brynell Court. Two of the dead were children. Kyle Gietzen lives with his wife a few blocks from the home where three bodies were found. He was nearby and saw five to six officers trying to break in the front door, while several others went to the back door. He said he didn’t know what had happened until later. “I had no idea anybody had been shot,” he said. “I just thought it was a drug sting or something. It’s awful.” While police were investigating the seven homicides, Belk said police received a report of a “road rage” shooting. Dantzler had apparently shot at a man through the rear window of the vehicle he was driving. Police spotted him, and began a chase that included Dantzler crashing into a patrol car in the city’s downtown and exchanging gunfire with officers, during which a female bystander was shot in the shoulder. Karissa Swanson, 18, said her mother, 35-year-old April Swanson, was the woman who was shot, and that she had known Dantzler for many years. Karissa Swanson told The Associated Press that her mother was driving and chatting with her sister on her cellphone when Dantzler suddenly pulled up beside her. “My mom turned her head and he was right there, yelling her name, like, `April, April, I gotta talk, I gotta talk to you,’” Karissa Swanson said. “So my mom hung up the phone and called the police and was like, `He’s right next to me.’” The daughter said Dantzler chased her mother until they got caught at a stoplight, at which point he shot at her car. Karissa Swanson said her mother was shot twice. Pickup driver Robert Poore, who also was shot during the chase, told WOOD-TV that the bullet ricocheted off a titanium plate that had been inserted in his nose during cancer treatment when he was a child. He escaped with minor injuries. Dantzler drove a sport utility vehicle north from downtown and onto Interstate 96, crossing a grassy median and heading the wrong way down the highway while more than a dozen squad cars pursued him. Belk said he crashed the vehicle while driving down an embankment into a wooded area of the highway, which remained closed hours later. “I look in my rearview mirror and see this big white SUV coming up behind me,” said Carrie Colacchio, who lives a little more than a mile away from where Dantzler later took his three hostages. “The only way to get out of it was to push the gas pedal.” Colacchio said she couldn’t turn off the road or slow down or go any other way, and she reached about 85 mph. “I almost got smacked,” she said. “I had to go up on the curb.” From the highway, Dantzler made his way toward a nearby single-family home, firing several shots as he forced his way inside and took hostages he did not know, police said. Dozens of officers with guns drawn cordoned off the neighborhood, near a small lake in the northern part of the city, as authorities shut down nearby Interstate 96. That was around 7:30 p.m. During the next five hours, Dantzler fired sporadically at officers and inside the house. He vacillated between threatening to shoot the hostages and pleading with police to take him out, even asking negotiators whether there were snipers outside the home and where he should stand, Belk said. “The suspect fired at our officers many times throughout the night,” he said. “Even in the home, there was an exchange of gunfire. He fired as they made entry to the house.” Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell expressed huge pride for the police department, lauding those involved for their relentless pursuit of the suspect as he shot at them and “the patience that they showed the hostage negotiating team that resulted in three lives being saved.” Officers entered the house to protect the hostages, and remained inside throughout the negotiations with Dantzler. He changed course after several hours and asked how he could surrender. Belk said officers were talking with him about how to turn himself in when they heard the gunshot. “Obviously, we’re extremely disappointed at the outcome,” Belk said. “We would much rather have had the suspect surrender and have him in custody.” ___ Associated Press writers Kathy Barks Hoffman in Grand Rapids, and Corey Williams, Jeff Karoub and David N. Goodman in Detroit contributed to this report.
Continue reading …GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Hours after the shooting stopped, a car chase ended and a gunman wanted for killing seven people took three hostages, Michigan authorities still hoped that the suspect might surrender without another death. But instead, he took his own life. Police in Grand Rapids tried to talk an agitated Rodrick Shonte Dantzler into giving up late Thursday. They said his thoughts seemed to swing between surrender and asking officers to shoot him. “He was talking about coming out, giving himself up,” Police Chief Kevin Belk said. “He decided at the last moment to fire the gun.” The 34-year-old ex-convict from Grand Rapids killed himself with a single shot to the head, ending the standoff with his hostages unharmed. But authorities say Dantzler left behind a pair of bloody crime scenes – the result of an unexplained rampage in which he killed his daughter, an ex-girlfriend and five others, including a second child who police couldn’t immediately identify. “It makes no sense to try to rationalize it, what the motives were,” Belk said. “You just cannot come up with a logical reason why someone takes seven peoples’ lives.” The names of the dead were not immediately released. Autopsies were scheduled for Friday. Records show that Dantzler was released from state prison in 2005, after serving time for assault less than murder. A spokesman for the prison system said Dantzler had not been under state supervision since then. Police initially got a 911 call early Thursday afternoon from someone saying that a man had admitted to killing three people, Belk said. Police went to Dantzler’s home, but he wasn’t there and officers couldn’t find him. It wasn’t long before authorities got a call from a woman who said her relatives had been shot. Next came a call about someone finding four gunshot victims at another house. Officers soon found three bodies in a home on Plainfield Avenue. An hour later, they discovered the other four across town in a ranch-style house on a cul-de-sac called Brynell Court. Two of the dead were children. Kyle Gietzen lives with his wife a few blocks from the home where three bodies were found. He was nearby and saw five to six officers trying to break in the front door, while several others went to the back door. He said he didn’t know what had happened until later. “I had no idea anybody had been shot,” he said. “I just thought it was a drug sting or something. It’s awful.” While police were investigating the seven homicides, Belk said police received a report of a “road rage” shooting. Dantzler had apparently shot at a man through the rear window of the vehicle he was driving. Police spotted him, and began a chase that included Dantzler crashing into a patrol car in the city’s downtown and exchanging gunfire with officers, during which a female bystander was shot in the shoulder. Karissa Swanson, 18, said her mother, 35-year-old April Swanson, was the woman who was shot, and that she had known Dantzler for many years. Karissa Swanson told The Associated Press that her mother was driving and chatting with her sister on her cellphone when Dantzler suddenly pulled up beside her. “My mom turned her head and he was right there, yelling her name, like, `April, April, I gotta talk, I gotta talk to you,’” Karissa Swanson said. “So my mom hung up the phone and called the police and was like, `He’s right next to me.’” The daughter said Dantzler chased her mother until they got caught at a stoplight, at which point he shot at her car. Karissa Swanson said her mother was shot twice. Pickup driver Robert Poore, who also was shot during the chase, told WOOD-TV that the bullet ricocheted off a titanium plate that had been inserted in his nose during cancer treatment when he was a child. He escaped with minor injuries. Dantzler drove a sport utility vehicle north from downtown and onto Interstate 96, crossing a grassy median and heading the wrong way down the highway while more than a dozen squad cars pursued him. Belk said he crashed the vehicle while driving down an embankment into a wooded area of the highway, which remained closed hours later. “I look in my rearview mirror and see this big white SUV coming up behind me,” said Carrie Colacchio, who lives a little more than a mile away from where Dantzler later took his three hostages. “The only way to get out of it was to push the gas pedal.” Colacchio said she couldn’t turn off the road or slow down or go any other way, and she reached about 85 mph. “I almost got smacked,” she said. “I had to go up on the curb.” From the highway, Dantzler made his way toward a nearby single-family home, firing several shots as he forced his way inside and took hostages he did not know, police said. Dozens of officers with guns drawn cordoned off the neighborhood, near a small lake in the northern part of the city, as authorities shut down nearby Interstate 96. That was around 7:30 p.m. During the next five hours, Dantzler fired sporadically at officers and inside the house. He vacillated between threatening to shoot the hostages and pleading with police to take him out, even asking negotiators whether there were snipers outside the home and where he should stand, Belk said. “The suspect fired at our officers many times throughout the night,” he said. “Even in the home, there was an exchange of gunfire. He fired as they made entry to the house.” Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell expressed huge pride for the police department, lauding those involved for their relentless pursuit of the suspect as he shot at them and “the patience that they showed the hostage negotiating team that resulted in three lives being saved.” Officers entered the house to protect the hostages, and remained inside throughout the negotiations with Dantzler. He changed course after several hours and asked how he could surrender. Belk said officers were talking with him about how to turn himself in when they heard the gunshot. “Obviously, we’re extremely disappointed at the outcome,” Belk said. “We would much rather have had the suspect surrender and have him in custody.” ___ Associated Press writers Kathy Barks Hoffman in Grand Rapids, and Corey Williams, Jeff Karoub and David N. Goodman in Detroit contributed to this report.
Continue reading …
It’s hard to even believe these words, but they’re true: the last scheduled US space shuttle launch happens today. What started as a frenetic race to another world has ended as program that will forever be remembered for sparking the interest of mere tykes, and if this so-called economy ever gets turned around — heck, maybe we’ll see the hiatus ends. In all likelihood, it’ll be Sir Richard Branson making the next moonwalk, but rather than sit around and mourn the quiet death of the space shuttle, we’d prefer to share a few of our fondest memories here. And by all means, please deliver any final words of your own in comments below. Continue reading The end of an era: what the space shuttle means to Engadget The end of an era: what the space shuttle means to Engadget originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …
This week's boomlet of smearing Republicans as fiscal Wahhabis and budgetary suicide bombers was the top agenda item when MRC president Brent Bozell appeared on the Hannity show's “Media Mash” segment Thursday night. First, they discussed how Chris Matthews repeatedly called Republicans terrorists who want to “abolish” the federal government at the mere prospect that they're resisting tax hikes. Bozell remarked that on MSNBC, Mark Halperin was banned indefinitely for calling Barack Obama a crude anatomical term for “jerk.” But an MSNBC host can repeatedly call conservatives a band of terrorists out to destroy America, and that’s just another day at the office. [See video below. MP3 audio here .]
Continue reading …