Friday, January 26, 2007

John Mellencamp

Q&A: John Mellencamp

The king of the heartland returns with renewed optimism, a new album and a Chevy ad

AUSTIN SCAGGS

>> HEAR THIS INTERVIEW! Mellencamp talks to our Austin Scaggs about selling his song "Our Country" to a Chevy ad, his early years playing James Brown tunes and his gigantic vinyl collection.

I always do the same thing," says John Mellencamp, comparing himself to Sisyphus. "I never get to the top -- I just keep rolling that rock. I get knocked down, I dust myself off and I start over again." This time, Mellencamp is not only bouncing back from the red-state backlash he endured as an early critic of President Bush's war agenda but also a full decade of making records that even he considers subpar. "I tried -- a little," he says. Though he says that long ago he lost faith in the record biz, a recent reunion with his old label, Universal, has re-energized him. "I told them, 'I don't want to spend a year and a half making a record for no one to hear,' " he says from his home in Bloomington, Indiana. "I'm a songwriter and I want to get my message out, but I didn't feel like there was an avenue to do that." That avenue was finally provided by Chevrolet, whose ads endlessly pump his single "Our Country." Mellencamp hopes it will provide a gateway to his new album, Freedom's Road, which mixes Sixties garage rock and Woody Guthrie plain talk with a more hopeful take on American life. (The harsh political criticism comes on the album's hidden track, "Rodeo Clown.") "I tried to make a positive statement," he says. "As opposed to bitter and angry."

How much shit have you taken for selling "Our Country" to Chevrolet?
First of all, the thought that an album can be tainted because of overexposure is crazy. There's certain people who will say, "I can't believe Mellencamp's done that!" But at the time I was making this record, Tom Petty had just put out a beautiful record, you know?

Yeah. "Saving Grace" is one of his best songs ever.
It's unbelievable! Do you know how many times I heard that song on the radio?

Zero?
Nobody played the fucking record! So Chevrolet is talking to me, and I ask, "How many times are you going to play this commercial?" They said, "You'll have more airplay than on any record you've ever had." I couldn't believe it. I believe it now.



What about the moral dilemma? In the past, you've been adamant that artists should not license their songs.
I was outspoken about it. But times have changed. Dylan's selling his songs. If nobody's playing Petty's record, why the fuck would they play mine?

"Our Country" borrows a lot from Woody Guthrie.
Are you kidding me? I would steal, borrow, beg, learn and practice Woody's songs. The same goes for the Sixties music that this record is so based around: "How'd they get that guitar echo on all those old San Francisco records?" Instead of doing some bullshit digital imitation of it, we bought the echo unit. The way I look at it, anything that I've ever seen or heard, I own. It's not the Byrds' sound, it's my sound. That's what Picasso did, and that's what Dylan did.

Your song "Rural Route" is about a meth addict who rapes and kills a young girl. Was that based on a true story?
My mom called me a couple of years ago and said a dead little girl had been found behind their house, a couple of acres away. That was loosely the story, and I embellished it a bit. It's about methamphetamines and the poor kids who get addicted to this stuff. As it says in the song, let's show some forgiveness for this.

To me, it's saying that we should show mercy toward the perpetrator.
It is. It absolutely is. It has to be hell to be addicted to that stuff.

Do you have a big record collection?
It's huge! When I was a kid I fuckin' sold my clothes for records. "I'll trade you my tennis shoes for your Terry Reed album." Half of the 13,000 songs on my iPod I transferred on this TEAC machine from vinyl to digital to the iPod.

Have your boys turned you on to anything?
Their iPods are wacky. The older Speck gets [age eleven], the more Slayer comes out of his iPod. But he's also learning how to play guitar. He's serious -- he said he wants to be as good as Jimi Hendrix. I told him that was a tall order, so he said he wants to at least be as good as John Mayer [laughs]. The other day, both kids were on YouTube watching James Brown on the T.A.M.I. Show. How good was that?

When you were fourteen, you were singing James Brown songs.
Fuck, yeah! I was in a band called Crepe Soul. We were a James Brown jukebox. We had the short pants like James had, the high-waisted jackets and the thick-and-thin socks -- the whole bit. It was 1966 and we played everywhere. I was making thirty-six bucks a night. It was sweet.

Did you ever meet JB?
I did the Tom Snyder show in 1978. I was just starting out, and we sucked a big dick, and we were on the show with James Brown and Muhammad Ali. Ali was the sweetest guy, but James was angry. I'm not kidding you, he scared me to death. He was having a fit in the hallway, yelling about "goddamn fuckin' whitey." When I heard him talk, though, I thought, "Yeah, fuck white people!"

Is George Bush the "devil" you sing about on "Freedom's Road"?
No, not really.

But he's the "Rodeo Clown," right?
There's no question about that.

Baby Spice Expecting a Baby

Former Spice Girl Emma Bunton is pregnant with her first child, PEOPLE has confirmed.

"I guess I will be handing over the 'Baby' tag now to a deserving little new owner," the 31-year-old known as Baby Spice said in a statement.

Bunton and boyfriend Jade Jones, 27, a former member of the British boy band Damage, have been together for eight years. They moved in together to a five-bedroom home in north London in 2005.

"We are so happy, it's unbelievable news," the couple said in a statement. "What a great start to the New Year." The baby's due date or sex was not revealed.

In 2000, Bunton had to have pre-cancerous cells removed from her cervix. Last year, she revealed she'd been diagnosed with endometriosis, a painful condition in which the lining of the uterus begins growing in other areas of the body, making it difficult to conceive.

In December, she told the U.K.'s The Mirror that she hoped to have a baby of her own, but feared she might not be able. "Obviously I'd like to try for my own first," she said. "But I would be open to adoption."

Bunton, who came in third in last year's BBC show Strictly Come Dancing, recently reached No. 3 in the U.K. charts with her version of Petula Clark's 1960s hit "Downtown." And she's not the only pregnant former Spice Girl – Melanie "Scary Spice" Brown, who was romantically linked to Eddie Murphy, is expecting her second child in the spring. (She has a 7-year-old daughter, Phoenix Chi, with ex-husband Jimmy Gulzar.)

Bunton's new baby will join the rest of the growing Spice Girl brood: Geri Halliwell gave birth to her first child, Bluebell Madonna, eight months ago and Victoria Beckham has three children: Brooklyn, 7,


Inventor Touts Caffeinated Doughnuts

(AP) That cup of coffee just not getting it done anymore?

How about a Buzz Donut or a Buzzed Bagel? That's what Doctor Robert Bohannon, a Durham, North Carolina, molecular scientist, has come up with.

Bohannon says he's developed a way to add caffeine to baked goods, without the bitter taste of caffeine. Each piece of pastry is the equivalent of about two cups of coffee.

While the product is not on the market yet, Bohannon has approached some heavyweight companies, including Krispy Kreme, Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks about carrying it.

Toddler Dies In Hide-And-Seek Game

NEW YORK, Jan. 26, 2007
(CBS/AP) A 2-year-old boy was found dead in a plastic storage container in his family's apartment on Thursday after what his mother called a fatal game of hide-and-seek with his young siblings, police said.

The 24-year-old mother told police that she last saw little Anthony Pena alive at about 9 p.m. Wednesday, when she put him and two siblings, ages 4 and 6, to bed in their Bronx home.

She claimed that during the night the children sneaked out of bed to play hide-and-seek. She said one of the older children apparently put Anthony in the container and went back to sleep without letting him out.

The mother awoke Thursday to discover Anthony's body inside the container.

She and the boy's 28-year-old father were questioned by police, but there were no arrests.

The New York Daily News said the parents had no criminal records and police had never been called to their home before. The city's Administration for Children's Services had also never been involved with the family, police said.

The two surviving siblings were taken from their parents' custody, but caseworkers were expected to return them after determining Anthony's cause of death.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Now you're in the public comment zone. What follows is not CBS News stuff; it comes from other people and we don't vouch for it. A reminder: By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comments [ + Post Your Own ]
Next Comment Page
Page 1 of 2 | First | 1 2 | Last
This is a terrible tragedy. There have been plenty of times when my children have gotten out of bed and I either did not hear them at all or did not hear them right away...the most notable time was when my oldest got a hold of some finger paints and gave it to his younger brother to play with in the crib. I had to give my youngest son a bath at 11 at night. There were other times there room had been spotless when put to bed and a complete mess when they woke up...which means one or both of them got up in the middle of the night. It CAN and HAS happened to everyone, of that I am sure. And to all those parents and govt. agencies condemning these poor parents...are you 100% positive and sure that your children never got into anything while you were sleeping or snuck outside in the middle of the night and then snuck back in? Look back at all those little things that happened that could not be explained away and think about if your children may or may not have been the one to do it. You very may well be singing a different tune about these parents. They just lost a child which is terrible, I know, although I lost mine through misscarriage. These parents have had their other children taken away from them until govt. agencies decide to give them back. It is a travesty that this family cannot grieve together and that these chidlren who will have to live with the fact that they indrectly killed their sibling can't be with the two people that will be able to help them out the most.
Posted by scullymom at 01:41 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
mdc76082 you should be ashamed of yourself. Would it have made a difference if the child/family was white, black, green or purple? Or would it have made a difference if they had been British or German? No it would not have mattered. And for your information they do have fasteners on storage boxes that snap and you would have a difficult time opening it from the inside out, it is difficult to open them from the outside alot of times!!!!!! You should keep your vulgar and inappropriate remarks to yourself. I hope that nothing ever happens to your child or family member that is a freak accident you PIG!!!
Posted by nolesfan1997 at 01:37 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
As a Mom of 4, my heart goes out to this family for the tragic ACCIDENT that has changed their lives forever. I also send out my deepest sympathy to everyone posting judgemental comments about this family and this incident and I can only hope that something like this never happens to them or someone close to them. To all of the family and close friends of this family - may you find peace within your sorrow and please let the other children know they are not to blame, either are the parents....
Posted by notaturkey at 01:33 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
Hey mdc76082 ... I guess you think this kid deserved to die because he is Hispanic? Too bad it wasn't you instead. ;-)
Posted by SPARKLING2 at 01:30 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
Hey orville, heres my accusations: First of all they are of hispanic origin (the father definitely), secondly they are young, dumb and full of ***. Thirdly, I will bet my income, home, etc., they don't speak a lick of english and R illegal aliens. Fourth and final, I bet some well-to-do American attorney's (of hispanic decent) will come a knockin on their door to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the container manufacturer. After all, to a young illegal alien couple, a ton of money will replace any child. Sorry orville, but this family doesn't deserve squat from me. I'm already paying for it in the welfare assistance! It's a shame that the child had to die. I base this tragedy from the environment he was raised in. Oh, and did the lid on this container lock? I've never heard of one. You say tragic, I say fishy.
Posted by mdc76082 at 01:22 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
It's so sad to see what parenting in America has come to today. I feel so sorry for parents. You can't discipline your children without intervention from Social Services, oh and God forbid an "accident" occur. If this couple gets their other children back they will be lucky. What happend here is clearly a tragedy, but what is happening all over the nation as far as our kids are concerned is an even larger tragedy on a grander scale. My thoughts are with the parents at this difficult time.
Posted by itogood4u at 01:06 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
hollyt2,

Just to let you know I don't have kids, but I am an uncle many times over. I think having kids makes it easier to sympathize here, but any level headed individual knows that tragedy can strike anyone at any time. To blame the parents is the American way these days. It always has to be somebody's fault.
Posted by jonw1115 at 12:51 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
You think you hear EVERY sound that your child makes during the night but you don't. You just hear the ones that wake you. One day you'll find a half-eaten bologna sandwich and wonder where it came from, a mess in the bathroom, or just any old occurrence that you slept through. You like to think that you will wake up at the slightest indication of noise from your child but you won't always. There's nothing wrong with that! Some people are lighter sleepers than others, some sleep more soundly. There's no way you can turn on a switch with parenthood that makes you wake up EVERY time your child moves, twitches, goes to the bathroom or plays by himself or herself during the night. You just do your best! Taking away her children? Don't be ridiculous. So many of you are being holier than thou because an accident happened for which you claim you could never have "allowed" in your home but you are not present in your children's lives 24/7 and things, as terrible as they sometimes are, just happen.

S.S. former New York State Emergency Medical Technician-Critical Care (I have a friend who lost a child to SIDS, would you blame the parent for that too?)
Posted by Puzzler125 at 12:50 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
Yes this is a parents worst nightmare..From the comments so far you can tell who has children and the ones that dont that think they have the authority to judge.
Posted by hollyt2 at 12:42 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
This is strange to me. I'm a mother of two active boys and my ears are on 24/7. Even throughout the night. I hear them always because I am in tune to life around me. I get up several times a night to check on my kids, to cover them up with blankets and to check for any onset of a fever. To have this mother sleep without a care in the world just doesn't make any sense. The siblings didn't mean to do it but you would think the parents would hear the kids playing, the toddler crying for help when he couldn't get out, etc. It just sounds too fishy. We'll see what they investigate.
Posted by getreal at 12:40 PM : Jan 26, 2007
+ report this comment
Next Comment Page
Page 1 of 2 | First | 1 2 | Last


Post A Comment

You must be registered to comment on CBSNews.com


Login Name Forgot Login Name?


Password Forgot Password?


Your Comment (No HTML; Comments are limited to 1500 characters.)



Your acceptance of the Rules of Engagement is required for you to post comments.Your use of the CBSNews.com Web site acknowledges your acceptance of our Terms of Service.

Accept



INSIDE U.S.
Snow Causes 50-Car Pileup In Pennsylvania
Meanwhile, Most Of Eastern U.S. Experiences Frigid Temperatures
Toddler Dies In Hide-And-Seek Game
MLK Party At Texas College Called Racist
Small Town Pays Big Price In Iraq
More

TOP STORIES
Bush: "I'm The Decision Maker" On Iraq
President Challenges Congress Not To Condemn His Plan Before It's Had A Chance To Work
U.S. Will Confront Iran In Iraq, Bush Says
14 Killed In Baghdad Pet Market Blast
Snow Causes 50-Car Pileup In Pennsylvania
More


Back To Top Back To Top

Bush: "I'm The Decision Maker" On Iraq

CBS/AP) President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his plan.

"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Mr. Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.

The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas. "Some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," he said.

Mr. Bush said lawmakers agree that failure in Iraq would be a disaster and that he chose a strategy that he and his advisers thought would help turn the tide in Iraq.

The president met with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq.

"My instruction to him was 'Get over to the zone as quickly as possible, and implement a plan that will achieve our goals,"' Mr. Bush said.

"You're going into an important battle in the war on terror," he told Petraeus.

During a photo opportunity, Mr. Bush was asked about stepped-up activities in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.

Mr. Bush defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.

"That's a presumption that's simply not accurate," Mr. Bush said.

But added: "Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense."

The majority of senators oppose sending more troops to Iraq and have grave doubts about the change in strategy the president chose Patraeus to implement, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. But they voted unanimously – 81-0 – to promote the general and send him over there to do his best.

"It's going to be an extremely complex mission," Sen. John Warner, a leading Republican on defense issues, said of the task awaiting Petraeus.

Warner, who has crafted a bipartisan resolution saying the Senate opposes the troop increase, said he hopes American troops will be instructed that "wherever possible, the Iraqis should bear the brunt of the sectarian violence."

In testimony to Congress this week, Petraeus said the situation in Iraq is "dire" but said he believed Mr. Bush's strategy would work – assuming the Iraqi government provided additional troops and helped crack down on militias.

Petraeus, who will replace Army Gen. George Casey. is just one of the new faces Mr. Bush is bringing to his team of top military and diplomatic officials in Iraq and the Middle East. He has already replaced Donald H. Rumsfeld with Robert Gates as defense secretary, and is changing the top military commander in the Middle East and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Petraeus, 54, has served two previous yearlong tours in Iraq as commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion in March 2003 and as commander of the training program for the Iraqi Army in 2004-05.

After the Nov. 7 elections, Mr. Bush announced he would change his strategy in Iraq, including deployments of the additional troops.

"We'll now have our very best general in charge of the operations in Iraq," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. "If it can't be done under Gen. Petraeus, then it cannot be done at all. We ought to give him a chance to succeed."

Next Tuesday, the committee plans to hear from Navy Adm. William Fallon, Mr. Bush's pick to replace Gen. John Abizaid as the top commander in the Middle East. Casey, nominated to be the next Army chief of staff, is expected to testify on Feb. 1.

Fallon is expected to testify next Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services.


Wikipedia, you are the strongest link


The Networker

Wikipedia, you are the strongest link



John Naughton examines the loop between Wikipedia and the major search engines and asks whether the encyclopedia is now as dominant as Google

Friday January 26, 2007
Observer.co.uk


There are two kinds of people in the world - those who think Wikipedia is amazing, wonderful, or inspiring; and those who simply cannot understand how a reference work compiled by thousands of 'amateurs' (and capable of being edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry) should be taken seriously. Brisk, vigorous and enjoyable arguments rage between these two camps, and provide useful diversion on long winter evenings.

What's more interesting is the way Wikipedia entries have risen in Google's page-ranking system so that the results of many searches now include a Wikipedia page in the first few hits. There are several reasons for this. One is the sheer size and comprehensiveness of the online encyclopedia (1.6m articles in English when I last checked). Another is the burgeoning trend whereby bloggers, when mentioning a person, place or product, link to the relevant page in Wikipedia to avoid a digression from their discourse. They use Wikipedia links, in other words, as footnotes. A third is that fact that if you add the work 'wiki' to any Google search, you will be


So there's a nice positive feedback loop between Wikipedia and the major search engines. The prominence of the online encyclopedia, however, also makes it very desirable to have a link from it to your site. This has not escaped the attention of spammers, who edit Wikipedia pages to include spurious links to their meretricious web properties.

Recently, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder, decreed that henceforth all outbound links on the site would be given a special HTML tag ('No Follow') - which meant that the links become invisible to search engines. Google searches will still lead users to Wikipedia pages, but will not bring up further links from those pages.

The implications of this development are being hotly debated on the net. One obvious risk is that Wikipedia essentially becomes the web's equivalent of a 'black hole', sucking in links from all over the web, but giving nothing back. Here's how one blogger, Amit Agarwal, put it:

'Say you discover a cool feature in the iPod (called Stylus) and blog about it. Tomorrow, the Wikipedia contributors append the details of iPod Stylus (your discovery) to the Wikipedia page on iPod. They do attribute your blog but search engines will never see that attribution (or read your blog via Wikipedia) because of the no follow tag.

'Now that Wikipedia enjoys higher credibility and trust ... the search algorithms will rank the Wikipedia iPod page higher than yours (for queries like iPod Stylus) because the search engines are not aware that Wikipedia's content is actually based on your blog page. Result, your site appears after Wikipedia in the "iPod Stylus" search results and you get less or no traffic while Wikipedia gets to enjoy all the fruits of your labor.'

It's not clear what should be done about this. The problem of 'link spam' is real and growing, so it's reasonable for Wikipedia to protect itself. Some people are saying that the encyclopedia is now so dominant that links to it should henceforth be ignored by the search engines. After all, you don't google Google (so to speak) to find it. Is Wikipedia now in the same league?

One of the most useful concepts in technology is the 'success-disaster'. This is a product or service that is so successful that it overwhelms the organisation that invented it. The term was coined by the late Roger Needham, the great Cambridge computer scientist, and one of the wisest men I ever met.

Web 2.0 is riddled with incipient success-disasters because new web services can be created with very little upfront investment and, if popular, tend to expand exponentially. That's why, if you're a successful Web 2.0 start-up, salvation depends on being acquired by someone big before you are overwhelmed by your inability to cope with exponential growth. Blogger, YouTube and Flickr are classic cases in point - the first two taken over by Google and the third by Yahoo! just as they were staggering under their self-induced loads.

But now a fascinating article by David Carr in Baseline magazine reveals that it really matters who your saviour is. He describes the struggle of MySpace engineers to cope with exponential growth. Their difficulties are formidable because supporting MySpace users' activities is a very demanding task. Engineers are having continually to upgrade their back-end systems while supporting an ever-increasing body of subscribers. It's a bit like rebuilding the wings of a Boeing 747 in flight.

Ah yes, you say, but MySpace is owned by News Corporation - a big company with deep pockets. Surely it has the resources to cope? My reading of Carr's analysis is that while News Corp may have the money, it doesn't necessarily have the expertise. Managing a computing cluster of MySpace dimensions requires very sophisticated technical competencies. Only a handful of companies in the world - Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft and eBay - possess them. News Corporation doesn't.

Political muscle raises hopes of saving Doha


Davos 2007

Political muscle raises hopes of saving Doha



Davos blog: Groundhog day

Larry Elliott, economics editor
Friday January 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Hopes of a final breakthrough in the long-running global trade talks rose today as President Lula of Brazil joined Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in calling for a speedy end to the stalled negotiations.

Ahead of a meeting of 30 trade ministers in Davos tomorrow, the head of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, said the involvement of political leaders and finance ministers had changed the atmosphere of the talks.

"The winds have restarted blowing in the direction of a conclusion of this round", Mr Lamy said this afternoon.


Negotiations on a new round of trade liberalisation started in Doha in November 2001, but attempts to broker an agreement covering agriculture, manufacted goods and services have been beset by crises and broke down in July last year.

The prime minister arrived in Davos this afternoon to urge trade ministers to show enough flexibility over the coming days to allow Mr Lamy to restart the negotiations in Geneva early next month. Earlier Mr Lula had called on the US and the European Union to make concessions in order to get the talks moving.

"We are fighting ... to make rich countries aware that if there is no deal on the Doha round, there will be no point in blaming things on Iraq, or thinking that they can resolve wars by giving out financial help every now and again," he said.

"It's the possibility of growth, creating jobs and distributing wealth that will create a peaceful world," the former trade union leader said in Davos.

Mr Brown said: "It is imperative that we come together and get a deal. The consequences of not getting a deal are that protectionism would rise. People should realise that there are benefits of the deal and there will be real damage if we don't get it."

Mr Lamy said he would be unwilling to restart the talks if there was any risk of a repeat of last July's problems, when hopes of a deal were raised by world leaders meeting at the G8 summit in St Petersburg, only to be dashed when trade negotiators started to discuss the details of a deal in Geneva a week later.

He added that tomorrow's meeting would not provide the vital breakthrough, but the WTO director-general is looking for signs that the main players in the talks are ready to make a deal. Negotiators have spent the past few weeks seeing if they can find common ground, and Mr Lamy said that the technical work together with the political pressure from the top made him confident that an agreement was "doable" over the coming months.

"There is a political energy. It is about more than trade. It is about the geo-political consequences of failure", he said.




Japanese gunning for a World Championships spot - Osaka Ladies Marathon preview

Osaka, Japan - The 2007 Osaka Ladies Marathon, which doubles as the selection race for the Japanese Marathon team for August’s World Championships in Athletics, will be held on Sunday (28). The first Japanese in the race will be automatically selected for the Marathon team provided she dips below 2:26. The course, which starts and finishes in the Nagai stadium, the venue for the upcoming World Championships, is the same as the course to be used when the world’s best compete in August.

IAAF announces improved broadcasting deals with Latin America

Monte-Carlo - The IAAF is delighted to announce the conclusion of television rights agreements covering virtually all the key territories in Latin America. After negotiations handled by the Japanese corporation Dentsu Inc, our exclusive worldwide partner for the exploitation of commercial rights, a total of 10 territories, including the three major economies of Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, will receive greater than ever coverage of IAAF World Athletics Series competitions.

As part of the IAAF strategy to pursue maximal "free to air" coverage, the new agreements include many new partners and mostly terrestrial broadcasting partners. For example, in seven Latin American territories, coverage of the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, Osaka 2007 will be assured through a deal with the Latin American broadcasting union OTI. In Mexico and Chile renewals have also been completed with leading terrestrial broadcasters Televisa and TVN respectively, not only for Osaka but also for other IAAF World Athletics Series competitions.

In Brazil, which is the biggest economic market in South America, for the first time since Dentsu has been handling the sale of rights, the IAAF has secured a new long term deal with Globosat, the leading pay TV operator, that will ensure coverage of all IAAF World Athletics Series competitions 2007-2009 throughout the territory.

Together with the new USA agreements that were announced in November 2006, this means that the best athletics competitions in the world will be widely seen throughout the Americas.

"On behalf of the IAAF, I am very pleased to announce that more people than ever before in Latin America will be able to watch the best athletes in the world on free to air and pay TV broadcasts," said IAAF President Lamine Diack. "This is part of our on-going strategy to build up our fan base by allowing as many people as possible, all over the world, to enjoy the action from our top competitions."

With other broadcasting agreements soon to be announced, the IAAF and Dentsu Inc., anticipate that by the time of the 11th IAAF World Championships in Athletics, Osaka, Japan (25 Aug to 2 Sep 2007), the TV distribution and exposure of the IAAF WAS across the world will be greater than the 187 territories achieved for the last edition of the World Championships in Athletics: 'Helsinki 2005'.




Bombing at Hotel in Pakistani Capital

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 26 — A man blew himself up today outside a major hotel used by government officials and foreign dignitaries, killing himself and a security guard, police and security officials said. Three other people were wounded.

No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. The government put security forces on high alert across the country to guard against any follow-up attacks.

The bomb went off at 2:40 p.m. in an affluent section of the Pakistani capital, and seemed to demonstrate that extremists are able to readily mount attacks in what have been regarded as zones of high security.

Foreign visitors regularly stay at the hotel, the Marriot, and it is often the site of government and business conferences and functions. The residences of the prime minister and several cabinet ministers are nearby; so are the parliament complex and a number of embassies.

The United States embassy issued a caution to American citizens in Pakistan, saying it “strongly advises all Americans to avoid the area, exercise caution, and limit unnecessary travel.”

Government officials and witnesses said the suicide bomber, apparently a man in his 20s, tried to enter the hotel through a side entrance near the hotel’s parking area. “There is an emergency gate which is used by the employees of the hotel,” said Javed Iqbal Cheema, a retired army brigadier who heads the national crisis management office, in an interview at the site of the blast. “He wanted to make a forced entry into the hotel for himself. The guard, as a matter of fact, resisted entry into the gate and did not allow him to get inside. On seeing that he can’t make his entry, he blew himself up.”

Mr. Cheema said the police had not yet established how the bomber traveled to the hotel, saying only that he was on foot as he approached the entrance.

Police officials said that the bomber’s head and upper body were obliterated in the explosion, leaving little intact for forensic scientists to examine other than parts of lower limbs.

The blast also shattered the window glass of several vehicles parked nearby.

No guests of the hotel were harmed, according to a statement by the district magistrate’s office. But three hotel employees were injured; they were sent to the Poly Clinic hospital for treatment.

Pakistani officials said it was too early to say who might have planned the attack. Local militants and Al Qaeda-related groups have assailed Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, since he allied the country with the United States in fighting terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. But multinational chains like Marriott and Sheraton hotels and KFC and McDonalds restaurants have also been frequent targets.

“One should not speculate whether it’s a reprisal or a continuation of what is going in this country and region,” Mr. Cheema said. “I think it is only when we get into the investigation and get some leads that we can say anything.”

Even so, Syed Kamal Shah, the interior secretary, said there was no sectarian motive to the attack, and said it was a simple act of terrorism. “It is certainly not aimed at creating disturbance on the eve of Ashura,” Mr. Shah told the state-run news agency.

Ashura is the preeminent religious event of the year for Shiite Muslims, commemorating the death of one of the sect’s founding martyrs, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussein. Tensions between extremist Shiites and extremist Sunnis often run high around Ashura, which falls this year on Jan. 29 and Jan. 30.

President Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz each condemned the attack at the hotel and said they were resolved to fight terrorism.

In October 2004, an explosion at the entrance to the same Marriott hotel injured five people, including an American diplomat. Officials said at the time that it was an accident, caused by an electrical short circuit, and not related to terrorism.


US urges aggressive NATO action against Taliban

NATO has agreed to step up military and economic efforts to counter Afghan insurgents and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for a "new offensive" against Taliban-led fighters.
The United States has already announced it will spend an extra 10.6 billion dollars in Afghanistan and extend the tour of duty of more than 3,000 US troops there by four months.
"The message has been clear that the international community intends to keep up the initiative in Afghanistan," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after talks between alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.
"That means more reconstruction, and we have heard more nations stepping up to the plate as far as their activities are concerned in the field of reconstruction and development," he said.

Scheffer said extra troops would probably be discussed when NATO defence ministers meet in the Seville, Spain on February 8-9.

With the Taliban expected to step up attacks this spring as the weather warms, Rice said the allies must launch a broad compaign across several fronts.

"If there is to be a 'spring offensive', it must be our offensive," she told the ministers.

"It must be a political campaign, an economic campaign, a diplomatic campaign, and yes, a military campaign," she added in remarks prepared for the conference.

Rice presented details of the new 10.6 billion-dollar aid package for the next two years.

Since 2001 US spending in Afghanistan has totalled 14.2 billion dollars.

The new money would in part finance extra Afghan army and police forces. Two billion dollars will go to develop roads, electrical power supplies, rural development and counter-narcotics operations.

"These are substantial new US commitments -- financial, military and political -- to advance our common effort in Afghanistan," Rice said.

"Every one of us must take a hard look at what more we can do to help the Afghan people -- and to support one another," she said.

There was no immediate announcement from other countries of increased resources.

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai said: "Allies are going to step up their civilian, military and economic efforts, with increased pledges for funding... and more forces on the ground."

However the upbeat assessment belied developments in Afghanistan, the world's biggest opium producer whose border regions with Pakistan are a haven for drug runners and extremists like the Al-Qaeda network.

Around 4,000 people were killed in the insurgency last year -- many of them rebels -- and US officials say suicide attacks have more than quadrupled since 2005.

In Kabul, an Afghan analyst told AFP that the US package was not the answer.

"The former Soviet Union also spent billions of dollars on modern weapons and military facilities but they failed to defeat the resistance with hardship and weapons," said analyst Waheed Mujda.

The US offer is partly aimed at easing European concerns that Washington is so focused on Iraq that it might leave them to shoulder the burden in Afghanistan, US officials said.

NATO leads some 33,000 troops from 37 nations under the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is trying to spread the influence of President Hamid Karzai's weak central government to outlying regions.

But the Taliban, ousted by a US-led coalition in 2001, is preparing to expand its insurgency in spring.

"What we have to do is get a comprehensive approach that means we can tackle all those difficult problems including corruption and the opium trade," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said.

Scheffer said the allies urged Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda is believed to have a base, to do more to stop insurgents crossing in and out of Afghanistan.


US urges aggressive NATO action against Taliban

NATO has agreed to step up military and economic efforts to counter Afghan insurgents and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for a "new offensive" against Taliban-led fighters.
The United States has already announced it will spend an extra 10.6 billion dollars in Afghanistan and extend the tour of duty of more than 3,000 US troops there by four months.
"The message has been clear that the international community intends to keep up the initiative in Afghanistan," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after talks between alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.
"That means more reconstruction, and we have heard more nations stepping up to the plate as far as their activities are concerned in the field of reconstruction and development," he said.

Scheffer said extra troops would probably be discussed when NATO defence ministers meet in the Seville, Spain on February 8-9.

With the Taliban expected to step up attacks this spring as the weather warms, Rice said the allies must launch a broad compaign across several fronts.

"If there is to be a 'spring offensive', it must be our offensive," she told the ministers.

"It must be a political campaign, an economic campaign, a diplomatic campaign, and yes, a military campaign," she added in remarks prepared for the conference.

Rice presented details of the new 10.6 billion-dollar aid package for the next two years.

Since 2001 US spending in Afghanistan has totalled 14.2 billion dollars.

The new money would in part finance extra Afghan army and police forces. Two billion dollars will go to develop roads, electrical power supplies, rural development and counter-narcotics operations.

"These are substantial new US commitments -- financial, military and political -- to advance our common effort in Afghanistan," Rice said.

"Every one of us must take a hard look at what more we can do to help the Afghan people -- and to support one another," she said.

There was no immediate announcement from other countries of increased resources.

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai said: "Allies are going to step up their civilian, military and economic efforts, with increased pledges for funding... and more forces on the ground."

However the upbeat assessment belied developments in Afghanistan, the world's biggest opium producer whose border regions with Pakistan are a haven for drug runners and extremists like the Al-Qaeda network.

Around 4,000 people were killed in the insurgency last year -- many of them rebels -- and US officials say suicide attacks have more than quadrupled since 2005.

In Kabul, an Afghan analyst told AFP that the US package was not the answer.

"The former Soviet Union also spent billions of dollars on modern weapons and military facilities but they failed to defeat the resistance with hardship and weapons," said analyst Waheed Mujda.

The US offer is partly aimed at easing European concerns that Washington is so focused on Iraq that it might leave them to shoulder the burden in Afghanistan, US officials said.

NATO leads some 33,000 troops from 37 nations under the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is trying to spread the influence of President Hamid Karzai's weak central government to outlying regions.

But the Taliban, ousted by a US-led coalition in 2001, is preparing to expand its insurgency in spring.

"What we have to do is get a comprehensive approach that means we can tackle all those difficult problems including corruption and the opium trade," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said.

Scheffer said the allies urged Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda is believed to have a base, to do more to stop insurgents crossing in and out of Afghanistan.


US Senate Confirms Petraeus as Top US Commander in Iraq

The U.S. Senate has unanimously confirmed Army General David Petraeus to be the next coalition commander in Iraq, succeeding General George Casey. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee's confirmation hearing, 23 Jan 2007
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Senate Armed Services Committee's confirmation hearing, 23 Jan 2007
The Democratic-led Senate confirmed General Petraeus' nomination after less than an hour of debate.

General Petraeus, who will be making his third tour of duty in Iraq, is the principal author of the Army's new counter-insurgency manual, and is one of the U.S. military's most experienced field commanders.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, praised the nominee ahead of the Senate vote.

"General Petraeus is professionally qualified for the command," he said. "He is widely recognized for the depth and breadth of his education, training and operational experience."

Carl Levin
Carl Levin
While praising Petraeus, Levin also took the opportunity to again criticize President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq - a plan Petraeus will oversee.

"I am very deeply concerned about this new strategy, because I believe it is based on the wrong assumption that there is a military solution to a sectarian war, when, in fact, the only solution to a sectarian conflict, is for those groups to finally share power, share resources, resolve differences over autonomy that could end the violence," he said.

The top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia, echoed the concerns.

"I am very concerned about the American GI being thrust in the middle of the violence that really has root causes that go back a thousand years between the divisions of thought between the Iraqis as to whether they are Sunnis or Shi'ia," he said.

Warner and Levin have each cosponsored separate nonbinding resolutions expressing opposition to the troop increase in Iraq, and each measure has bipartisan support. The Senate is expected to debate the resolutions as early as next week.

At the White House, President Bush met with General Petraeus as he prepares to return to Iraq, and defended his decision to increase troops.

"My instructions to you, General, is to get over to the zone as quickly as possible, and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals," he said.

The president acknowledged the skepticism toward his plan among U.S. lawmakers. But he said some are condemning the plan before giving it a chance to work.

Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing this week that he believed the plan could work to restore order and to allow the Iraqi government to establish its authority. But he said the effort would not be easy.




Searchers.

There seem to two kinds of searchers: those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. -

Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei


Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Sex email blow for banker

A CITY investment banker has been humiliated after photos of her preforming oral sex were emailed to her boss and colleagues.

The anonymous email also found its way on to the internet, giving thousands the chance to see her perform the act on the unidentified man.

The highly paid woman, in her 20s, has been off work, with her bosses’ permission, since the email was circulated last Thursday.

The bank said that she was “extremely distressed”.

Now bank chiefs have launched a probe to identify the emailer who could also work for the bank.

It is understood the photos were stolen from a memory stick that the woman owned.

They were attached to an email and sent from a Yahoo account set up in her name.

The email also contained a weblink to another website where the pictures were also displayed.

But that site now appears to have been disabled. One recipient of the email said: “Whoever sent it clearly went to some trouble.”

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Sides...

One side will make you larger; the other side will make you smaller.

Lewis Carrol

Monday, January 22, 2007

Can a single man force a nation to fight an unpopular war? Here's how Congress can stand up to Bush.

For the Republic




World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. The Democratic Party is against it. The Congress of the United States is against it. The Iraq Study Group is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Many Republican lawmakers are against it. The top brass are against it. But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? These are the unwelcome questions that President Bush's decision has forced on the country.

The troop increase itself is not likely to change much in Iraq. Troop strength fell to about 115,000 in early 2004. By late 2005 it had risen to 160,000, only to fall to 130,000 again in mid-2006. Neither the 2005 increase (much larger than the one now ordered by Bush) nor the 2006 ebb had any demonstrable effect on the course of the war. In any case, almost everyone declares by now that there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one. But the hard truth is that there is probably no political solution, either. Certainly, it is beyond the power of the United States to achieve one. Only Iraqis have the capacity to solve their political problems, yet there is no sign that they are headed in this direction. On the contrary, they are sliding deeper into a sort of half-smothered, underground civil war of extraordinary brutality. The professed mission of the American troops is to stop this internal war. But how can that be done with an M-16? "Whom do you shoot at--the Sunni or the Shia?" Senator John Warner has appropriately asked. Perhaps both? In that case, which Iraqis are American troops fighting for?

The only thing new about the increase is its prime-time announcement by the President and its label, the "surge." But the Iraq War is not going to be won by a label--or by the very modest military step that it refers to, either. Indeed, the problem with American policy was never that it chose this or that bad strategy in Iraq but that it planted itself in Iraq at all. Once that was done, all strategies were bad, condemning the United States to stumble from error to error--doing more of the fighting, doing less; attacking Shiites, attacking Sunnis; helping Shiites, helping Sunnis; writing a Constitution, letting "the Iraqis" write a Constitution; disbanding the Baath Party, inviting back the Baathists; letting Kurds opt out of Iraq, dragging them into Iraq. Now, four years into the game, American policy has gone from mistaken to unintelligible--its actions not so much misguided as irrelevant to the ghastly conflict now under way. The killing is real, but Bush's war is a fantasy.

The President, then, has not bought victory, but he may have bought more time. But for what? One much-mentioned possibility is a wider war, perhaps against Iran. That possibility was explicit in his announcement that he will "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq" and also deploy Patriot missiles to Gulf allies. The very implausibility of the "surge" as a solution forces us all to ask now what will happen when it fails. When the President said his support of the Maliki government is not "open-ended," he fanned dovish hopes that his escalation was one last roll of the dice, after which he would order a withdrawal. However, nothing else he said supported that prospect. It was only from the Maliki government, not from the American intervention in Iraq, that Bush withdrew open-ended support. Regarding the war itself, he was still staying the course. "Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States," he said. And, "for the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq." The new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, said to the press, "At this pivotal moment, the credibility of the United States is on the line in Iraq." Nothing in these statements suggested a readiness to withdraw.

Unwanted war, the threat of a wider, even less wanted war, a constitutional crisis: The United States has experienced this combination before, and not so long ago. The war of course was Vietnam, ending in defeat in 1975, and the President was Richard Nixon, driven out of office under threat of certain impeachment the year before. Commentators of every stripe have been reaching back to this period for analogies. Is the present moment a repeat of 1968, when President Johnson, facing defeat in his renomination bid in the Democratic primaries, resigned from the campaign and opened peace negotiations; or of 1970, when Nixon widened the war by invading Cambodia and touched off an explosion of protest around the country that forced him to reverse course (and led Congress to prohibit funding for Cambodian operations); or of 1974 and 1975, when the Nixon Administration and the war ended (not accidentally) seriatim? Iraq is different from Vietnam and Bush is different from Nixon, yet the elements of the crisis are the same, as if we were still looking through the same kaleidoscope but after it had been given a shake. Again, we have the war launched on the basis of deceptions, again the duel between popular opinion and executive power, again executive secrecy, again the contempt for law, again the smearing of political opponents as abettors of the foe, again wiretapping, again defiance of Congress, again the imperial pretensions.

But more important than the similarities is the direct continuity between the two crises. The war in Iraq was framed as the culmination of a long campaign to overcome what the current President's father called the "Vietnam syndrome." The goal--probably the most important of the many aims of the whole enterprise--was to demonstrate that the United States had at last restored its ability, thrown into question by Vietnam, to determine the political future of nations (to accomplish regime change) through the use of military force. And this aim was in turn a pillar of the grandiose ambition, announced in White House documents, of achieving global dominance for the United States. Likewise, the most important theme of Bush's other usurpations--for example, of power to wiretap without a warrant, in contravention of statute, and to imprison and torture citizens as well as foreigners without due process--was to swell the power of the presidency at home. For in the minds of the Bush officials, Nixon's pre-impeachment presidency was not a cautionary tale but a model to be imitated, as Vice President Cheney, for one, has stated on many occasions. It is not only the Vietnam syndrome but the Watergate syndrome that they want to overcome. If the keynote of Nixon's character was covertness (not for nothing was he called Tricky Dick), then the keynote of Bush's character is brazenness: He seeks to carry out in broad daylight, as his formal right, the usurpations that Nixon committed under cover of night.

Thus, the deepest theme of the whole three-decade story, now presented in almost outlandish caricature by the President's tug of war with the nation and the world over Iraq, is the issue of power and how it shall be constituted in the United States, and the deepest question the crisis presents is whether this country will continue to be a constitutional republic or bow down to the new system of one-man rule asserted by President Bush. It's an issue that must concern every citizen, and the antiwar movement is in fact reviving it. It is calling its renewed effort a "peace surge." Meanwhile, Congress faces concrete choices. For the time being it is picking its way through a minefield of remedies. Should it simply pass a resolution disapproving of the troop increase, as favored by Senator Carl Levin? Should it aim at a reauthorization for the war on the ground that its fundamental purposes defined in the original authorization have changed, as proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy? Should it condition new funding on policy requirements (no more escalation, no wider war), as proposed by Representative Jack Murtha? Should it provide funds only to protect and withdraw the troops, as proposed by Representative Jerrold Nadler? Should it simply set a date for withdrawal and look at cutting off funds after that date, as proposed by Senator Russell Feingold? Should it attempt to pull many of these elements together in a broad proposal, such as that being advanced by Progressive Caucus co-chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey? Or will it be better to pursue the myriad investigations that may produce the evidence for impeachment?

The experience of the earlier round of the crisis in the Nixon years offers food for thought. That episode presents a paradox. Faced with the most dangerous President in American history so far, the public passed up the easy route for getting rid of him--voting him out of power in 1972--and instead chose the harder route of impeachment two years later. More paradoxical still, opposing the unpopular war had a political cost attached, whereas impeachment did not. The challenge to Nixon's misguided war policies in 1972 by Democratic candidate Senator George McGovern, leading to Nixon's landslide re-election that year, created a horror of opposing any President's war policies that has paralyzed the Democrats down to this day. But the more drastic remedy of impeachment produced no such backlash, leading in fact to huge Democratic gains in the Congressional races that fall and to Jimmy Carter's election as President in 1976. It is true that between the 1972 re-election and the 1974 impeachment, American combat operations in Vietnam had ended. Therefore, a vote for impeachment was no longer a vote against the war. The curse of looking "weak" on national security had been lifted. Still, it remains a noteworthy fact, on which today's Congress members may want to reflect, that the drastic remedy of impeachment was more acceptable to the public than the apparently less drastic one of defunding a rogue President's war. Should Congress, then, impeach President Bush while letting him fight his war? Decency and respect for human life forbid such a conclusion. What is quite permissible, however, is to recall that investigations that could lead to impeachment may, as one ingredient of Congress's activity, strengthen rather than weaken the efforts to end the war. Investigations, resolutions, legislation, not to mention citizen action, can all find their place as part of the common effort. For the Republic, for peace, let all these surge together.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Buddha

If you do not tend to one another then who is there to tend to you? Whoever who would tend me, he should tend the sick.

Kenya tightens border with Somalia

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Kenya sent extra troops to the Somali frontier, stepped up security checks and said it saw no reason for Somalis to flee, underlining fears about Somali Islamic militants slipping across the border after losing a power struggle.

Kenya stopped short of closing the 675-kilometer (400-mile) border Wednesday after troops of Somalia's transitional government and Ethiopian forces routed Islamic militiamen who had controlled most of southern Somalia. Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said in a statement that neighboring Kenya had a humanitarian obligation to take in civilians at risk.

"Anyone coming to the border has to be screened properly," Kenya's Foreign Affairs Minister Raphael Tuju told journalists in Kenya. "There's no reason at all to allow an influx of people unless there are women and children and it's really, really obvious that they are in danger in their own country. At this particular time, we don't see that danger."

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi has said he believes major fighting was over. But fighting in recent weeks has displaced hundreds, many of whom have headed toward Kenya, and the Islamic movement has declared itself unbowed. In the southern town of Jilib, a lone gunman shouting "God is great" killed three Ethiopians, including a commanding officer, before another Ethiopian soldier killed him, witnesses said Wednesday.

Government forces have captured two more southern towns from Islamic militants, and were moving to take a third, Defense Minister Col. Barre "Hirale" Aden Shire said in Kismayo.

Three al Qaeda suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa are believed to be leaders of the Somali Islamic movement. Islamic movement leaders deny having any links to al Qaeda.

In Washington Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. Navy vessels were deployed off the Somali coast of Somalia looking for al Qaeda and allied militants trying to escape.

In Brussels, the European Union and Norway called on the government and Islamic militants to hold talks to forge a lasting peace plan that could be backed by African-led peacekeepers.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni planned to fly Thursday to Ethiopia to meet with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi about a peacekeeping mission. Uganda has said it had a 1,000-troop battalion ready to deploy in a few days. Nigeria also has promised troops.

Meles has said his forces cannot afford to stay for long.

Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki told his Somali counterpart Tuesday that his country had strengthened patrols along the border, a statement from the presidential press service said.

A Kenyan police report seen by The Associated Press said that unidentified gunmen fired smalls arms at a Kenyan security helicopter Wednesday from Ras Kamboni, a region at Somalia's southernmost tip where remnants of the Somali Islamic movement were believed holed up. The report did not give further details.

Later Wednesday, two patrolling Kenyan Air Force planes came under fire after flying over an unidentified armored vehicle to observe it, another police report said. One plane was hit and the windscreen damaged, the report said, without giving further details.

A day earlier, four Ethiopian helicopters apparently mistook a Kenyan border post at Harehare for the Somali town of Dhobley, one of the towns the Somali government reported capturing Wednesday, and fired rockets at several small buildings, a security officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. There were no reports of casualties, the officer said, adding that Kenyan tanks had been sent to the area.

About 4,000 Somalis were reportedly in the Dhobley area, unable to cross into Kenya, the U.N.'s humanitarian agency said.

UNHCR expressed concern in a statement Wednesday that Kenyan authorities may have forcibly returned Somalis from near Dhobley. UNHCR's Guterres acknowledged that governments had to ensure border security, but said "Kenya also has a humanitarian obligation."

"Most of those in Liboi are women and children, and they should not be sent back to a very uncertain situation," he said.

Kenyan Foreign Minister Tuju said Kenya would enforce a tight screening process as long as the refugees waiting to cross were not in immediate danger.

The Islamic movement had filled a vacuum in a country that has been without effective central government since clan-based warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. The warlords then turned the country into a chaotic patchwork of armed, clan fiefdoms.

The transitional government was formed in 2004, after two years of talks in neighboring Kenya. It has international recognition, but little military strength, and was riven by clan politics. Two weeks ago it controlled only one town, central Baidoa, while the Islamic movement held the capital and much of southern Somalia.

Ethiopia sent at least 4,000 well-trained troops into Mogadishu on December 24, dramatically changing the government's fortunes.