Is this any more on topic than what's in the Subject Line and what's in the message? S. > Institute for Public Accuracy > 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 > (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@xxxxxxxxxxxx > ___________________________________________________ > > Friday, December 17, 2004 > > Oil for Food: What's the Real Scandal? > > DENIS HALLIDAY, djhalliday@xxxxxxx, http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=5771 > Former head of the U.N. Oil for Food Program in Iraq and assistant > secretary general of the U.N., Halliday resigned in protest in 1998. > Currently in New York City, he is available for a limited number of > interviews. Halliday said today: "The Oil for Food 'scandal' is not a > scandal of the United Nations, but rather of the member states, > particularly of Washington and London." > > JOY GORDON, jgordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Author of the article in the current issue of Harper's magazine, "The U.N. > is Us: Exposing Saddam Hussein's Silent Partner," Gordon said today: "What > is being consistently overlooked is a distinction of enormous significance: > the U.N. is being attacked for the policies and failures of particular > member nations. The Oil for Food Program was not some concoction of Kofi > Annan's. It was created by a vote of the members of the Security Council. > And every aspect of how the program ran -- what goods were allowed, the > monitoring procedures, the transfer of funds, everything -- was explicitly > established by the members of the Security Council. Kofi Annan did not have > a vote; but the U.S. and Britain did, and they approved every resolution > and decision that determined how the Oil for Food Program worked." > > BERT SACKS, bert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/202902_berts09.html > Sacks was involved in repeated efforts to get humanitarian relief into Iraq > during the 1990s. In 2002 he was fined by the U.S. government for a 1997 > trip which helped bring $40,000 in medicine to children in Iraq in > violation of U.S. sanctions. Sacks said today: "The U.N.'s Oil for Food > Program didn't begin until 1996, more than six years after sanctions began. > A 'scandal' in a program that didn't yet exist cannot be blamed for six > years of Iraqi deaths. When the Oil for Food Program was finally allowed, > it permitted $4 billion in oil sales a year for humanitarian needs: this > came to $10 per person per month for each Iraqi living in South/Central > Iraq. Of the total amount of oil sales, 30 percent went immediately for war > reparations -- $16 billion to Kuwaiti Petroleum -- while the U.N. reported > 960,000 Iraqi children were chronically malnourished." > > RAHUL MAHAJAN, rahul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.empirenotes.org > Mahajan is author of the book "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq > and Beyond." He said today: "The recent resurgence of the Oil for Food > 'scandal,' through Sen. Norm Coleman and others, very conveniently gives > the U.S. government a way to keep Kofi Annan on the defensive so he > criticizes neither the U.S. assault on Fallujah nor anything around the > severely flawed prospective Iraqi elections. For all the talk of a lack of > U.N. accountability, consider that after the August 2003 bombing of the > U.N. in Iraq there was a full investigation and several people, some high > up, were fired or demoted. Now there's an investigation into Oil for Food, > which has reached as high as Benon Sevan, Director of the Office of the > Iraq Program. Compare this to the total lack of accountability in the U.S. > government following 9/11, administration stonewalling over the 9/11 > commission's creation, and the minimal investigation of corruption in the > Coalition Provisional Authority, which has not involved any high officials." > > For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: > Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Fate of Silver Gelatin Paper > In a message dated 12/17/04 2:16:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, > wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > "Auto white balance" , along with auto-focus and auto-exposure are > double-edged swords. > ************************************** > Yes I thought about the auto white balance being thrown off by the purple > towel but it extended to a shot without the purple towel. So with film cameras > you have less varaibles to go wrong. You just have to worry about too much sky > or the white sand throwing off the exposure with film. I did get the shot > finished for the Christmas card. It's the equivalent of shooting a triple exposure > film shot thru a red , green and blue filter. > > >
