Krugman on the surprising 7.2% Quarter. It does appear that sending out several million tax refund checks, several hundred billion spent on defense, and several hundred billion of tax credit to business moved the economy; but as Krugman points out...what's next?

Senate Panel Demands White House Hand Over Papers on Iraq Arms by Friday
By DOUGLAS JEHL
NY Times
Published: October 31, 2003


WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — The Senate Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, demanded Thursday that the White House "must lift" its objections and hand over to the panel documents related to intelligence about Iraq and its illicit weapons before the war. The panel set a deadline of noon Friday for compliance by the White House, the same as it has set for the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the Pentagon to provide documents and schedule interviews that the committee has been seeking for months.

The committee — headed by Senators Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia — is trying to determine how the Bush administration reached its conclusions about Iraq's suspected stocks of chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The committee's demand reflects a new impatience on the part of the panel and its staff, who have said some of their previous requests have gone unanswered since July. The committee has not said what it will do if the Friday deadline is not met.

The Internet in the UK circa Fall 2003:

"The net and broadband are experience technologies," Professor William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute told the Broadband Stakeholder Group conference in London. "There is a need to get people using it in order to overcome fear of it," he added. But many people in the UK are still making the "digital choice" not to go online at all, said Professor William Dutton. Recent research by the Oxford Internet Institute showed that 59% of the UK had access to the net. Of those, only 11% had broadband while 24% were not thinking of hooking up to broadband at all.

Citizens for Tax Justice chart shows distribution of tax cuts in Georgia.

Last Update with New Links to The Shils Report: 10/22/99

2/7/97 Shils Report - Impact of Mega-Retail Discount Chains on American Small Businesses
Chapter X: Conclusions and Recommendations

"The writer has devoted almost three years to this study. He has sent out approximately 6,000 questionnaires to small retailers asking their views on strategies for survival in the face of the formidable gains of the mega-retail discount chains. The questionnaire returns have been analyzed statistically and data has presented a picture of fear, sadness and disillusionment about the chance for small retailers to survive the impact of the mass discounters.

Much of the resentment was focused on redevelopment agency plans in many states where tax funds have been made available to the mega-retailers to pay for capital outlay and debt service for these "Big Boxes" which have destroyed the viability of the "Main Street" merchant, while denying the small business merchant the use of development funds to end center city blight. This type of subsidy for the mega-retail discount chains has been described as "corporate welfare." In many instances the retention of sales taxes for 10-15 years has deprived school and other local governments of needed revenues. It is clear that there is only so much demand in a given area, and where a supercenter opens, the result is often the closing of the smaller competitors. While the chain retains the sales taxes, the ultimate closure of the small retailers eliminates a traditional flow of revenue to the schools, counties and state governments.

How Could This Happen?

Suppose a Kmart or a Target was an anchor store opening in the mall 5-10 years before. The square footage of the store ranged from 30,000 to 60,000 feet. Suppose several years later a Supercenter, such as Wal-Mart, with perhaps 200,000 plus square feet were to be constructed one-half mile away, soon, the auto traffic in the older mall lessened. The Target or Kmart with only 45,000 sq. feet closed and surrendered. The anchor store then remained vacant and the decline of the mall accelerated. Throughout the United States, formerly prosperous malls or strip centers have given up. The areas have become desolate and look abandoned and the customers depart for the newest supercenters and their parking areas.

It is reasonable to assume that since Wal-Mart does present strong direct competition and a major challenge to many of the current mall tenants, that many of these tenants may not continue in business. The argument or assumption that Wal-Mart will increase traffic must be questioned. The reverse is more likely to be true. A consumer, who traditionally shops at the mall in some of the smaller businesses or chains may be now more inclined to visit Wal-Mart while in the mall. However, the traditional Wal-Mart shoppers will not leave the store to see what else is available. They are drawn to Wal-Mart in the first place because their needs are met from a selection and price standpoint. Therefore, those traditional mall stores offering the same or similar merchandise as Wal-Mart will lose traffic and eventually close. Their closing may have a ripple effect on other non-competing mall stores as the "traffic" flow weakens.


The new discount stores were in many cases funded by redevelopment funds that were denied to "Main Street" merchants struggling to survive the exodus from downtown. The economic vitality of the downtown oozed out as the highway interchanges were the place to go. As the downtown businesses closed, there was a desecration of civic and cultural life affecting families, education, crime and violence. The new mega-store required municipal and state investments in roads, water and sewer lines, police and fire protection and other governmental services. As one travels through the towns and cities of America, it is easy to note negative change with abandoned buildings, unsightly parks, declining majesty of public buildings and general malaise. Interviews with surviving owners of retail stores disclose a hopelessness. They say "the traffic is gone"; the "future is bleak" --- "I may have to close."

In the four states the author visited, he saw numerous instances of community groups fighting supercenter sprawl. Often they resented the financial packages (RDA) funds offered to developers and chains. They feared the increase in pollution and traffic congestion that would affect school crossings. They deplored a lack of downtown planning that permitted illogical zoning changes. They feared the new chain stores would not add to the size of the consumer market -- but only cause commercial glut until the small retailer was eliminated. They were concerned about the negative impact upon the environment as well as the cultural, scenic, fiscal and economic impacts.

Development that exceeds a community's ability to absorb it will ultimately result in abandonment of prior and public investments -- and possibly the new supercenter will also close as the joblessness in the town increases. Lastly, the major discount chain may close because of losses in the town's purchasing power. The chain then opens in the next county, leaving the town desolate and abandoned. This is more and more becoming true in the United States as new large chains open stores not realizing the demographics and other limits of the market.


Are Large Chains Doomed as Well as Small Stores in the Discount Race?

A 1994 study co-authored by David T. Kresge of Dun and Bradstreet Information Services and retail consultant Gary A. Wright of Denver stated: "Despite predictions that small retailers are doomed, specialty stores are thriving in some important niches, says a new study of retailing. In those retail sectors where personal service, location or expertise are valued such as the women's fashion, accessories and gifts, smaller retailers are doing very well, said co-authors Kresge and Wright."4

In the same Philadelphia Inquirer article the opposite position was taken by a Wall Street investment expert following the retail chain picture: "Senior retail analyst Walter Loeb of Loeb and Associates says the larger firms such as Wal-Mart are gaining increasing sway, with enormous control over pricing, the competitive environment and suppliers." "When Wal-Mart is growing at 18-20 percent a year with the (economy) growing only about 3 percent, somebody is giving up business," he added." The study discussed in the article recommended personalized service as means by which small retailers could survive. On the other hand, the authors warned that powerful chains such as Home Depot were also offering personalized service.

The future of the small retailer is growing desperate, despite recommendations about personalized service, unique product differentiation, and a move from the destroyed "Main Street" of America to more appropriate locations. How can those small retailers, with less than a million in sales, finance a lease termination and the expense of a move to a more desirable location? The proof of the pudding that the major discounters will sooner or later eliminate most of the small retailers is the fact that even the medium size firms are in trouble.

Susan Dentzer in a May 1995 article in US News & World Report, entitled "Death of the Middleman?" points out the growing centralization of power between manufacturers, suppliers and discount retailers. As was stated many times in this study, small retailers have lost the wholesalers that sold to them. Many now buy from Sam's Clubs and other club stores. Dintzer states:7 Yes, the middleman is an endangered species because of the EDI hookups between manufacturers and large discounters. But here again, the small retailers may become a thing of the past, lacking funds and information to survive.

Retailing in Transition

In a study several years ago, the following forecast was provided: "By the end of this decade, more than half of today's retailers will be out of business." They explained: "there is too much retail space for the market, too much "copy cat" sameness among retailers, and far too much leverage on the books. These conditions leave no room for marginal performers." They further predicted: "that by the end of the century, some lines of trade will virtually be owned' by only four or five major players."10 It now appears that this prediction made in 1990, is being corroborated by the retailing change of power in the mid-nineties.


In retailing, analysts say, discount is no longer synonymous with success. "The days are gone when a discounter could be unique or alone in any market," says Allan L. Pennington, a Chicago retail consultant with McMillan/Doolittle. "It's become a difficult business to be in." Analysts trace the trend to a redrawing of battle lines. Until recently, discounters of every stripe sought to steal customers from full-price independent, mass merchants such as J.C. Penney Co. and department stores such as R.H. Macy & Co. But the expansion into nearly every market of the so-called Big Three -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Kmart Corp. and Dayton Hudson Corp's Target chain -- has pitted discounter against discounter in a competition that favors size. Wal-Mart and Target, in, particular are thriving. "The smaller chains are getting caught in a battle between the Bigs." says Linda Kristiansen, a New York retail analyst with Wertheim Schroder.16


The Role of the National Trust for Historic Preservation

The author has endeavored to assess the contributions of the mega-retail discount chains as well as the negative implications of their unprecedented growth.

It's important at this time as the writer comes to the end of his study to once again review the role of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the challenge it sets forth to governments, citizens, planners, developers and local and national economists and sociologists.

The Trust sees the mega-retail discount chains as inputting such negatives as:

1. Sapping the economic vitality of downtowns and "Main Street" by shifting the retail center of gravity out to highway interchanges on the edge of town.

2. Displacing existing businesses, especially independently owned small businesses that contribute significantly to local civic life, by building stores vastly out of scale with town's ability to absorb them.

3. Setting the stage for higher property and state income taxes by creating developments that are costly to serve and require new roads, water and sewer lines, police protection and other public services.

4. Causing the waste or abandonment of previous public and private investments in existing buildings, streets, parks and other community assets.

5. Homogenizing America by building stores that have no relation to their surroundings.


The National Trust for Historic Preservation asks the mega-retail discount chains to answer the following challenge:
"Can the consumer benefits provided by the superstore be achieved only through the creation of more urban sprawl and all the sprawl brings: traffic congestion, automobile dependence, air pollution, dispirited or dead downtowns, despoiled country sides and weakened community ties? Or could some of the benefits be provided without so much damage to the environment and local communities? We think these are questions that should be asked."19

The Trust also poses an equally important challenge to the many communities facing the invasion of the super "boxes:

"And communities have choices. They can encourage or discourage certain types of development. If a community doesn't want superstore sprawl, it can take steps to prevent it. If a community wants a superstore, it faces a whole host of other questions relating to whether the store comes in on the communities terms. Where should the store be located? How big should it be? How much new retail space can the local economy absorb without suffering fiscal and economic impacts created by a commercial glut? Can the store be designed to help preserve the communities livability and attractiveness? How can the store minimize negative environmental, cultural, scenic, fiscal and economic effects? Above all, what is the long term impact of the decision?"19

Supercenters and Comparative Labor Costs

A major advantage for Wal-Mart's Supercenter, generally, is its lower labor costs as compared to both the unionized and non-unionized supermarkets. Wal-Mart is presently non-union. Kroger, the dominant supermarket chain, is unionized; nevertheless, it, unlike many supermarkets, continues to be strongly managed, effective and highly profitable. Wal-Mart's low labor costs, high productivity and control of its managerial and inventory processes have weakened not only Kmart, but many regional discount chains as well as supermarkets.

The American food industry is the finest in the world. Its distribution of goods, and quality of service are the shining example world wide. Its products, from produce to paper towels, are available night and day for everyone's convenience. Primary locations make shopping easily accessible for all concerned customers. Different types of stores service all the needs of customers culturally, aesthetically, and most importantly, economically. And now, this industry is in jeopardy.

For example, in Southern California, 90% of the market share in the food industry is under a collective bargaining agreement. Labor contracts between the United Food and Commercial Workers and food employers such as Ralphs, Food-4-Less, Hughes, Vons, Albertsons and Luckys have been negotiated through collective bargaining over the past several decades. The end result of these deliberations, as one might expect, has been a livable wage plus important benefits. Here the community is truly the beneficiary with healthy, independent tax paying residents who contribute to the tax base rather than drain it. A full-time wage earner working at Ralphs, paid at top scale, will earn a more than livable salary with health costs and dental coverage paid additionally.

Wal-Mart and Other Mega-Retail Discount Chains Enter the Food Industry in a Most Powerful Way

In the near future Wal-Mart will probably enter the food business in California and several other states and what may be at stake will be the additional loss of many quality high paying jobs now found in supermarkets. Wal-Mart's increasing assimilation into the food industry is apparently motivated by the drive to increase total retail sales. According to company statements, total retail sales should increase some 30% due to the synergies established at combination stores.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that Wal-Mart might use food as a loss leader in order to increase store traffic. There will be a positive transfer effect in the sale of general merchandise by having more visitors to the store, particularly if the sales of food are in the "loss leader" category. The impact that this will have on the food industry will parallel the effect it has had on the traditional retail industry. The problems created for employees within the traditional food industry could be nothing short of catastrophic. Supermarkets work on very thin margins, and their shrinking market share resulting from the combination of cheap labor and low prices will have murderous impact on the traditional food stores, large or small. The fallout could be compared to that of GM, Chrysler and Ford; not in overall job loss, but in weekly earnings, while company paid health benefits and retirement plans now prevalent in supermarkets might disappear. The shift in health benefits costs will go directly to the taxpayer while desperate worker who can't get jobs and retirees without pension funds may be adversely impacted and may have to be taken care of by federal, local and state governments. With a Social Security system already in jeopardy, increased drains will only shorten its lifespan. The elderly will certainly become more dependent on government subsidies as the shrinking "middle" will be further demonstrated.

The Supercenter's impact on the food industry will not be transparent to the causal observer. The entry of mega-retail discount chains like Wal-Mart, Kmart and Target into the food business is to increase their retail sales possibly by as much as an estimated 30% - in the case of Wal-Mart. However, there will be a further negative impact upon the local, state and federal economies as jobs go from full time to part-time and as wages drop and fringe benefits disappear.

Small retailers anxious to survive do not have the relative financial ability to compete with the mega-discount chains in advertising, promotion, public relations or radio and television. They rely on the small business techniques replete with flyers, leaflets, brochures, using the yellow pages of the telephone book and the local newspaper. This, despite the fact that many proponents for the mega-retail discount chain movement believe that small retailers can survive by employing specialization, improved marketing, utilization of information and computerized systems and other MBA driven techniques.

When one mixes the anger of not having adequate and free downtown parking with the tax abatements and other grants provided the large chains -- yet generally denied to rehabilitate downtown businesses -- the reason for the anger comes through loud and clear. The customer base of the retail respondents, described in Chapter III, depends greatly on highways and parking. Naturally the major chains locating outside of "Main Street" have the advantage of parking lots; ease of access; freedom from parking meters and downtown traffic congestion. Added to that, the fear of crime and violence in downtown evening shopping creates major disadvantages for the small "Main Street" retailer.

The State of Mind of the Small Retailer in America; His Fears and Concerns about Survival

One cannot argue with time honored principles taught at the nation's illustrious business schools, i.e., Wharton, Harvard, Stanford - but these schools prescriptions are far away from the financial constraints of small businesses. Those principles being such as "satisfy your customers"; "study the success of others"; "gather and analyze management information regularly"; "sharpen your marketing skills"; "increase the customers perception of value"; "position your business uniquely"; "eliminate waste"; "find something to improve every day," for example, the Kaizen, Japanese method of incremental improvement; "embrace change with a positive attitude"; and pull the trigger and start the battle."

The writer has visited many strip centers, "Main Streets" and malls, in number of states and has interviewed a number of valiant survivors. In Part II of Chapter IV, the reader certainly has to recognize the discouragement and disillusionment of the respondent retailers about the end of their "American Dream."

Taylor and Archer, while truly attempting to encourage small retailers to survive, nevertheless did recognize the present devastation going on in malls, strip centers and the former "Main Streets" of middle America. Furthermore, it is easy to see that observers are shocked by the decline and elimination of most small retail stores in the ethnic and minority enclaves of our very large cities in the East, Midwest and the West. The elimination of small retail stores in the neighborhoods results in job loss and contributes to the ultimate conversion of a formerly socially stable neighborhood into a ghetto, beset by violence, crimes, drugs and an underground economy.

An End to "Corporate Welfare" - Recommendations to Congress for Federal Legislation to Combat and Restrict "Big Box" Abuses

The following recommendations set forth in Chapter VIII, hopefully would restrict "Big Box" abuses by mega-retail discount chains, developers and redevelopment authorities operating under existing state redevelopment laws by taking away state and local tax giveaways and providing a vehicle for Congressional Hearings.

The idea is to attach strings to federal monies given states and localities: for example, such strings are often attached to highway monies. This would make sense here because these "Big Box" stores create additional burdens on federal highways as they are often built in areas accessible only by federal highway.

The legislation would say that highway money would be reduced to any state which allowed these stores to go up in any of the following circumstances:

(1) If the development received state or local tax incentives;

(2) If it was within x miles of a federal highway;

(3) If the developer/retailer did not pay the government for the full social costs of building such a store (not just for repairing highways more often, but also cleanup of air pollution) (a study to determine those costs should be required); or

(4) if a required "small business impact report" showed existing small businesses would be injured significantly.
Ideas for titles such as Small Business Survival Act; Retail Overdevelopment Act; Tax Financing Restraint Act (or any combination of these).

Further since the Internal Revenue Code is filled with provisions which aid, help or restrict the activities of certain industries, it is a natural place to consider curtailing the redevelopment agency, developers and "Big Box" abuses.

The idea might be to impose an excise or penalty tax on any state or local tax giveaways these "Big Boxes" wangle out of state and local government. The legislation possibly could apply only to retailers with an income over x billion dollars or a minimum of square foot. Our logic is this: The federal agencies and Congress are the only people who can stop the states and cities from cannibalizing each other as each gives away more and more in the form of tax breaks to win these mega-retail discount stores, only to rob their neighboring town or state of tax revenues (and jobs) from the existing retailers.
Only states or the federal government can step in to stop the current warfare; warfare which makes local governments more dependent on Washington D.C. No new jobs are created, and because the mega-retail chains pay their employees less and kill jobs at other retailers, they cause the federal government to receive less in income taxes. This should certainly interest Congress and the U.S. Treasury Department.

It is also obvious that there are incidental costs to the federal government for "Big Box" store development. They tend to expand near interstate highways, adding additional traffic which certainly costs the federal government more.

The mega-retail discount chains generally don't provide health insurance to employees, adding these people to the governments' burden. These chains are quite profitable, so an excise tax would not put them out of business.

Further, the environmentalists and preservationists should see the need to reduce the tax incentives for "Big Box" development. Finally, those in favor of reducing the federal deficit should be eager to embrace new sources of revenue.

Greg LeRoy, previously cited in Chapter VII, made it very clear that the state and federal governments have been wasting large sums on "corporate welfare" for enormously powerful and rich retail corporations. Whether it is a tax abatement or the right to retain sales tax revenues to pay for capital outlay or debt service; these are funds, which based upon earlier objectives, should have been applied in great part to rehabilitation of the "Main Streets" of the United States. Further, as Greg LeRoy pointed out, the grants help build structures which are often abandoned while the companies receiving the financial assistance move elsewhere.


The Need to Combat Urban Sprawl (The Work of the National Trust for Historic Preservation)

It is clear that the cities and towns of America, are gradually succumbing to urban sprawl. Moreover as described in many places in this study, the same type of sprawl is taking place in malls and strip centers away from the downtown areas. All of the abandonments of stores that were a delight to see ten years ago have taken place in great part due to the restless mobility of such competing giants as Kmart, Target, Wal-Mart and other mega-retail discount chains, as they feverishly move from area to area building larger and larger superboxes in a desire to kill off their competition. Soon the nation will appear to be scenes of desecrated malls looking like ravaged cemeteries, abandoned, looted, boarded up and loaded with graffiti.

The following long term strategy for combating sprawl may be found in the work of the National Trust for Historic Preservation released in 1994.33
"One of the best long term strategies for combating sprawl is to revitalize the downtown, the community's traditional center of commercial, cultural, and social activity. Making downtown "the place to be" helps to attract businesses, shoppers, and appropriate development to Main Street'." "Sometimes a downtown's problems seem overwhelming to local citizens. By flooding the community with more commercial space than can reasonably be supported and by diluting the downtown's economic vitality, sprawl can add to those problems. Yet downtown's problems are not insurmountable. Rebuilding the historic commercial district's economic strength simply requires persistence, collaboration, and a clear vision of what you hope to achieve."

"By identifying the downtown's major problems, then breaking large tasks down into smaller, achievable steps that gradually bring about positive, incremental change, a community can restore the downtown's economic vitality and make downtown, an exciting place to shop, conduct business, dine, live, and visit."

A Successful Downtown Revitalization Program Will Usually Have These Characteristics

1. A clear focus on a historic or traditional commercial district (either a downtown or a neighborhood commercial district).

2. Comprehensive and coordinated design, promotion, organization and economic development activities.

3. Strong support from both public and private sectors.

4. Broad-based community involvement and support.

5. A strong historic preservation ethic and a commitment to preserve the district's historic commercial buildings.

6. Willingness to take risks and try new approaches.

7. Trained, professional staff, whose primary function is to coordinate the activities of committed volunteers.

8. An active and effective board of directors and committees.

9. An evolving track record of individual and overall successes in preservation-based commercial revitalization.

10. Ongoing contact, sharing information and affiliation with other local, state and national preservation-based commercial revitalization programs, through correspondence, memberships, volunteer service and conferences.34


The National Historic Preservation Trust Tells Communities, How Should You Get Started?

In their publication, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, pulls on successful strategies in combating Superstore sprawl and offers the following advice on methods communities can use:


"Publicize the issue. Talk with community leaders. Hold a community meeting. Put together a slide show illustrating the successes other communities have had in revitalizing their downtowns, and show this to civic groups, school classes, local businesses and others. Ask the local newspaper to write a series of articles about the downtown and its revitalizing efforts."

"Recruit participants. The downtown program must involve groups and individuals throughout the community in order to be successful. Main Street revitalization requires the cooperation and commitment of a broad-based coalition of public and private sector groups: Business; civic groups; local government; financial institutions; the chamber of commerce; consumers; and many others. It also involves mobilizing a large number of volunteers to implement activities."

"Form an organization. Sometimes an existing organization or institution can take on the downtown revitalization initiative. It is usually more effective, though, to create a new organization that focuses exclusively on the revitalization process and that is unhampered by an existing reputation or by the expectations and particular interest of existing members. The new organization should include broad-based community representation."

"Identify barriers to downtown development. Ultimately, it should be as easy for a new business to locate downtown as it is to locate out on the strip. Examine your community's planning and land-use policies, financial programs, building codes, and other tools to see if there are regulatory or financial incentives that encourage sprawl instead of downtown development. List other problems affecting the downtown as well."

"Develop a realistic, incremental work plan. Articulate what the community wants the downtown to achieve. Develop a written mission statement and three or four major goals. Then identify some high-priority, but achievable activities the organization can do to meet these goals. In the early years try to include highly visible physical improvements and promotional events. Remember that you can't tackle all the downtown's problems in one year. Some of the problems may take years to overcome. Take one step at a time."

"Measure your progress. Keep track of the amount of money invested in physical improvements and of the number of new jobs created and new businesses that open. Track the downtown's vacancy rate. Count the number of people who take part in promotional activities. Ask downtown businesses to let you know if their sales are increasing. Publicize the progress the downtown revitalization is achieving."

"Be persistent. Downtown revitalization doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual, incremental process. As your organization succeeds in mobilizing resources to tackle small problems, it will strengthen its capacity to confront bigger challenges."35

Key Actions in Fighting Sprawl

The National Trust for Historic Preservation advises community groups as follows; "Don't let anyone tell you that sprawl is inevitable...The biggest enemy is a sense of hopelessness."36

Small businesses must stress the idea that fighting sprawl or rebuilding the "Main Street" is anti-competitive. The superstores spend a great deal of money to secure rezoning, win referenda and influence local decisions. Small business has to collectively make a decision to invest in its own future.

Key actions proposed by Beaumont which were taken from the Sierra Club Guide on this issue are as follows:37


"1. Obtain a copy of the developer's proposal and analyze it.

2. Find out if the proposed development complies with relevant federal, state and local laws.

3. Make a flow chart of the development review process and include time deadlines.

4. Think your objectives through carefully set priorities.

5. Organize a committee and delegate responsibility.

6. Develop a well-reasoned position on the proposed development and back up your position with careful research.

7. Develop grass-roots organizing and media strategies.

8. Generate letters to the editor and opinion pieces in the local paper early.

9. Meet with local officials and opinion leaders. Draw their attention to facts they need to know.

10. Turn out and speak out at public hearings.

11. Ask the city council to analyze the development's probable fiscal, economic, environmental, traffic and other impacts. Make sure long-term impacts are considered.

12. Circulate petitions.

13. Distribute similar fliers clearly summarizing your position and the reasons for it.

14. Raise money to pay for radio spots, newspaper ads, bumper stickers, and other ways of getting your message across.

15. Above all, build broad public support for your position. Work to reach different segments of the community, especially local business and civic leaders."

CONCLUSION

The author concludes this extensive review of the impact of the mega-retail discount chains on the economics and sociology of urban, suburban, "rurban" and rural areas with strong concern for the future of Young Americans. Where will they work? Where will they live? Will we live in an economy of hopelessness or one of opportunities and entrepreneurial growth? While intelligent government policy is creative; nevertheless, the spirit of entrepreneurship should be enacted into our enterprises, from a private as well as a public point of view.

Myth & Reality at Wal-Mart

The World is drowing in oceans of data:

"Growing net, computer and phone use is driving a huge rise in the amount of information people generate and use.
US researchers estimate that every year 800Mb of information is produced for every person on the planet.
Their study found that information stored on paper, film, magnetic and optical disks has doubled since 1999.
Paper is still proving popular though. The amount of information stored in books, journals and other documents has grown 43% in three years.

The researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, last carried out a study of how much information was being generated and where it was kept three years ago, based on data from 1999. The most recent study has revealed that every year since then the amount of information generated has grown about 30%.

But these percentages belie the vast mountains of information involved.
Study authors Prof Peter Lyman and colleagues found that in 2002 alone about five exabytes of new information was generated by the worlds print, film, magnetic and optical storage systems. By comparison the US Library of Congress print collection, comprising 19 million books and 56 million manuscripts, equates to about 10 terabytes of information.
It would take 500,000 Libraries of Congress to equal five exabytes.

But even this figure is dwarfed by the gargantuan amount of information flowing through electronic channels such as the telephone, radio, television and internet.

In 2002 the study estimates that 18 exabytes of new information flowed through these channels. The vast majority of this, 98%, was in the form of person-to-person phone calls. It also found that most of the information transmitted via radio and TV is not new information, the vast majority are repeats.

Of the 320 million hours of radio shows only 70 million hours are actually original shows. On TV only 31 million hours of the total 123 million hours of broadcast programmes count as new information. Prof Lyman said he was surprised that paper was still proving popular as a storage medium but put its resilience down to the fact that a lot of the information generated on computer is printed out.

The study also revealed an image of the average amount of time people spend with different sorts of media. It showed that the average American adult spends 16.17 hours on the phone a month, listens to 90 hours of radio and watches 131 hours of TV. The 53% of the US population that uses the net spends more than 25 hours online a month at home and more than 74 hours on the net at work. The researchers point out that this means we are accessing information media 46% of the time.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3227467.stm

Published: 2003/10/31 01:33:31 GMT

© BBC MMIII

<------------------------------------->

According to Robert McIntyre, a Director of Citizens for Tax Justice, Corporate tax rates are the lowest they have been in fifty years, and are heading lower.

How Low Can We Go?
Robert S. McIntyre is Director of Citizens for Tax Justice

"With President Bush's backing, Congress is considering bills to provide the third major corporate tax reduction in the past two years. In light of the government's dire budget straits, enacting still more tax cuts is irresponsible and reckless. Given the extraordinarily low level of corporate tax payments today, further corporate tax reductions are especially unwarranted. Instead, Congress should move in exactly the opposite direction, by closing loopholes and restoring corporate tax payments back up to a reasonable level.

Corporate taxes have already been slashed—with no positive effect on jobs. In the just completed fiscal year, combined federal personal and corporate income taxes fell to only 8.4 percent of the economy, their lowest level since before World War II and a third lower than in fiscal 2000—with no relief in sight.

Due in large part to the Bush tax cuts, personal income taxes have fallen to their lowest level as a share of the economy in more than 50 years. Corporate taxes have plummeted even more than personal taxes. In fact, at only 1.2 percent of the economy over the past two fiscal years, corporate taxes are at their lowest level since the 1930s, except for one year during Ronald Reagan's first term. The most recent OECD data show that U.S. corporate taxes as a share of the economy are now virtually the lowest in the industrialized world.

Some of the corporate tax shortfall reflects the weak economy, but most of it stems in roughly equal parts from Bush's big corporate tax cuts enacted in 2002 and 2003 and the huge amount of offshore tax sheltering that corporations now engage in.

The 2002 and 2003 tax bills provided business tax breaks officially estimated to cost $177 billion in fiscal years 2002 through 2005, with $64 billion of that in fiscal 2004 alone. While the exact cost of offshore corporate tax sheltering is unknown, reasonable estimates peg the cost at upwards of $50 billion a year.

Thus, recently created loopholes have slashed corporate tax payments by $100 billion or more annually—more than a 40 percent reduction since 2000. Counting tax breaks that have been on the books for longer, corporations now pay considerably less than half of what they should. They also pay far less than they used to pay. In fact, at 1.2 percent of the economy, corporate taxes are now three-fifths less than the 3.0 percent of the economy that corporate taxes averaged from 1950 through 2000.

Rather than address this egregious level of corporate tax avoidance, however, Congress and the President seem intent on preserving or expanding it.

The Senate Corporate Tax Bill—Missed Opportunities, Funny Bookkeeping

In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has expressed deep outrage over the past year about rampant corporate tax sheltering, particularly offshore abuses. But Sen. Grassley doesn't seem to understand that corporate tax avoidance is wrong not only because it's underhanded, but also because it drains the Treasury of needed revenue and shifts the burden onto ordinary Americans.

Sen. Grassley does include some useful curbs on corporate shelters in his bill. But those reforms would raise a total of only $39 billion over the next decade. At least that much in corporate loophole closing annually would be more serious.

Even worse, Sen. Grassley proposes to use the revenue raised from his modest reforms to open even more corporate loopholes, at a 10-year cost of $103 billion, including $37 billion to facilitate offshore tax avoidance!

Sen. Grassley actually asserts that his bill is "revenue-neutral"—as if that were a reasonable goal of corporate tax reform. This claim is based on the fact that the bill maintains $18 billion in customs fees that everyone agrees will be extended anyway and also because it complies with a World Trade Organization ruling against a foolish U.S. corporate export subsidy that ought to be counted as a $45 billion revenue-increasing offset, too.

Senator Grassley's approach of closing loopholes that ought to be closed, but then using the money to create new tax breaks is a lot like a bank forcing a would-be robber to put down his gun, but then giving him the money anyway so long as he asks nicely. A triumph of form over substance, you might say.

The House Bill—Deep Corporate Tax Cuts No Matter The Cost

Unfortunately, in the House, things are much worse. At the end of last July, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), with President Bush's blessing, introduced a bill to provide companies with a staggering $259 billion in new loopholes over the next decade. Among the items on this corporate wish list are $79 billion worth of expanded tax shelters for multinational corporations.

Rep. Thomas doesn't even give lip service to covering the enormous cost of his bill. He grudgingly offers a few minor reforms, but they raise a mere $9 billion over a decade. And like Sen. Grassley, he takes credit for extending existing customs fees and complying with the WTO ruling. But even if you mistakenly count those so-called offsets, Thomas's bill still costs a net of $186 billion over 10 years.

From Stock Fraud Newswire
What is Stock Fraud

"Stock fraud occurs when a broker manipulates customers into trading stocks without regard for the customer’s interests. Stock fraud can be orchestrated at the company level, or can be committed by a single employee; stock fraud can also range in size financially from multi-million dollar deals to penny stocks, but stock fraud consistently involves intentional disregard for the financial situation of customers and obsession with personal gain.

Stock fraud is comprised of a few basic categories, with enormous variations on each. Some examples of broker-related stock fraud:

Misrepresentation/Omission: this form of stock fraud occurs when the broker intentionally misleads the customer about material facts regarding the stock. Stock fraud involving misrepresentation or omission often disguises risk factors associated with that particular stock.

Unsuitability: stock frauds involving unsuitability occur when the broker recommends stocks that are outside the client’s risk tolerance. Stock frauds committed through unsuitable matches allow the broker to push undesirable stocks; this stock fraud frequently results in losses much higher than the client can bear.

Overconcentration: failure to diversify a client’s portfolio can be a form of stock fraud. In order to protect a client’s assets, the broker should vary the types of stock purchased, stock fraud through overconcentration strips the client of the protection diversification can afford.

Churning: In order to create additional broker’s fees, a form of stock fraud called “churning” is used. Churning requires a large numbers of transactions; often this form of stock fraud consists of selling stocks with small gains in order to show a profit.

More elaborate forms of stock fraud may occur at the executive level, and in some cases, investigators have found that stock fraud is essentially company policy, with many employees taking part in committing or concealing illegal practices. Stock fraud on the larger levels can destroy entire companies by manipulating their stock values, but some stock fraud schemes are actually designed to keep failing businesses funded, using the same tactics.

Many stock fraud investigations in recent years have found an enormous amount of insider trading: brokerages committing stock fraud by selling IPO stocks before the release date to favored clients and friends; corporations construct stock fraud schemes designed attract and retain customers and investors.

All forms of stock fraud are designed to violate the investor/broker trust. The key principle of stock fraud is that the investor’s interests are secondary to the financial gain the broker can make. Stock fraud can destroy individuals and business simply by manipulating the stock market. If you suspect that stock fraud caused you to lose investments, you may wish to contact an attorney familiar with stock fraud law. A good attorney can help you determine if you have a potential stock Fraud Claim that would enable you to recover financial losses.

Click Here for Stock Fraud Breaking News.....

From a commentary in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Wal-Mart makes workers pay
By ANNETTE BERNHARDT


Federal officials missed the boat last week when they arrested 300 undocumented workers whom contractors had hired to clean Wal-Mart stores. The real offenders aren't uncarded custodians. They are their employers and not simply because they employ undocumented immigrants.

Wal-Mart -- and other low-wage employers that follow its lead -- relentlessly and systematically cut costs by reducing the wages and health benefits of both its in-house and subcontracted workers, regardless of their immigration status. Jailing janitors after a long night shift of cleaning up after shoppers isn't the answer. Ultimately, the only effective response is to reinstate America's wage and workplace standards that have been decimated over the past 30 years.

Wal-Mart pays its in-house workers only $7 to $8 an hour. The federal poverty line for a family of four is $8.70 an hour. Wal-Mart's health insurance is so costly that fewer than half its workers can afford it. Many aren't even eligible.
Lawsuits pending against the company in 30 states charge that Wal-Mart routinely forces workers to work off the clock without pay, locking them in stores until they finish cleaning up.

This is not about keeping prices low for consumers. A recent calculation based on payroll data showed if Wal-Mart gave all of its workers a $1-an-hour raise, the impact on prices would be one half of one cent. Last year, Wal-Mart had profits of $8 billion. The CEO received $18 million in total compensation. Yet Wal-Mart aggressively violates workers' right to organize.

As documented in the nearly 50 complaints issued by the National Labor Relations Board, Wal-Mart has prevented its employees from distributing union materials, interrogated and threatened employees who are trying to organize, taken unlawful disciplinary action and fired union supporters, and even gone to the extreme of closing entire departments in a community like Jacksonville, Texas, when Wal-Mart meat workers voted for a union.

In short, Wal-Mart is not playing by the rules. Nor are many other employers who are pursuing its low-wage, cost-cutting business model in a wide range of industries, from hotels, hospitals, and call centers, to laundry, food processing, child care and home health care.

The cost to our society is enormous. Every day, one in four American workers does not earn enough to live on and support a family. There are now 30 million low-wage workers in this country. With no health insurance, they are forced to go to emergency rooms for routine care. To make ends meet, they must apply for food stamps and rental assistance, use subsidized child care vouchers and draw on other government services.

This means we the taxpayers are involuntarily subsidizing low-wage employers, and in the process, are supporting a business strategy antithetical to the American dream: that hard work opens the door to upward mobility and economic freedom. Turning the tide will take an enormous commitment. It will take re-establishing he right to organize for all workers -- both by enforcing existing labor laws and by instituting long-overdue changes to cover millions of Americans, including many "new economy" workers.

It will take raising our national wage floor. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour since 1997. That's 40 percent lower in real terms than it was in 1968, and $3.50 an hour below the federal poverty line for a family of four.
This falling wage floor has created the wrong incentives. High-wage employers can simply subcontract jobs to other firms that have no problem paying poverty wages.

And it will take charting a clear path to citizenship for undocumented workers. With or without papers, immigrants have become a vital part of America's economy. They do the work that keeps this country running -- in construction and restaurants, child care and home care. Ensuring their right to the protections that the rest of us take for granted will go a long way toward stopping exploitative employers.

Wal-Mart has set a trap for us by pitting consumers against workers with the myth that living wages are incompatible with affordable goods. The truth is, in the long run, poverty wages undermine the health of our workers, our families, our communities and, ultimately, our economy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Bernhardt is a senior policy analyst at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

The Weekly Standard says Sen. Zell Miller (D) from Georgia supports, and will campaign for Pres. Bush's Re-Election in 04.

Amazon.com expands it's offerings with "Search Inside the Book", an extention of their previous "Look Inside the Book" which has been around since 2001. One hundred ninety publishers with over 120,000 titles are available. You can seach by keyword, and page back/forth from your search items. Wonderful research tool !!

October 28, 2003
NY Times Article

A Willful Ignorance
By PAUL KRUGMAN

According to The New York Times, President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly that war — which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and minds — is going.

Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity: "The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.

But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version of political correctness has made it difficult even to discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to understand — not condone — the growing world backlash against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered in a tone of high moral indignation. The attackers claim to be standing up for moral clarity, and some of them may even believe it. But they are really being used in a domestic political struggle.

Last week I found myself caught up in that struggle. I wrote about why Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister — a clever if loathsome man who adjusts the volume of his anti-Semitism depending on circumstances — chose to include an anti-Jewish diatribe in his speech to an Islamic conference. Sure enough, I was accused in various places not just of "tolerance for anti-Semitism" (yes, I'm Jewish) but of being in Mr. Mahathir's pay. Smear tactics aside, the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment anti-Semitism — and looks for ways other than military force to combat the disease — is an apologist for anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.

Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.

Why is aiding a brutal dictator O.K., while trying to understand why others don't trust us — and doing something to create that trust — isn't? Why won't the administration mollify Muslims by firing Lt. Gen. William Boykin, whose anti-Islamic remarks have created vast ill will, from his counterterrorism position? Why won't it give moderate Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned, and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly critical of Mr. Sharon?

The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does. It's sheer folly to keep General Boykin in his present position, but as Howard Fineman writes in a Newsweek Web-exclusive column, the administration doesn't want "to make a martyr of a man who depicts himself as a Christian Soldier, marching off to war."

Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration — no longer able to claim the Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans — looks more and more like a crusade. "Election Boils Down to a Culture War" was the title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme. This isn't a culture war — it's a religious war.

Which brings me back to my starting point: we'll lose the fight against terror if we don't make an effort to understand how others think. Yet because of a domestic political struggle that seems ever more centered on religion, such attempts at understanding are shouted down. "

<------------------------------------->

From a public message on Ecunet about sectarianism, territorialism, and denominationalism:

To: UCCHRIST CHATTER NEWSGROUP
by Rev. Robert Campbell

"Sue, I find this response difficult to write to you, but I feel I must. What I am going to share with you is not easy for me, and so do not think that I say this without some trepidation.

What I am talking about is territorialism. I am working against this issue in my town. People are divided between them and us, their church and my church, etc.

Sharing ministry with other ministers is often impossible because we instill in pastors loyalty to their own particular denomination or church rather than challenge them to break down the barriers of division and consider all the churches as part of the Body of Christ-united despite our petty denominationalism. I certainly do not like what the pastor did, but only because I suspect that he does not consider his ministry as a part of your ministry. Radical relationship, I know.

Churches are also fighting over people for survival rather than uniting to survive. We divide our resources and so starve ourselves. I am reminded of what Jesus said when the Pharisees thought he was Satan casting out demons, and Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Yet, we take the Body of Christ and divide itself against itself. We are blessed that Jesus exists beyond our ability to work against Jesus.

What I propose is by no means easy. Some of us have firm foundational differences and practices. Some misuse their power and position. Some are so infant in their relationship with God and passing on such an infant relationship to its parish that one hurts for the people. Compassion and understanding is often felt to be pressed to its limits, and I fall on my knees in humility before a God that can love them so-even when they choose to walk in self-destructive ways. Being able and willing to walk in discipleship with and in conjunction with such people is the toughest calling one can respond to.

The attitude presented by the pastor is often the same for the person in the pew. Church members usually have the same territorial attitudes, for they have been taught to believe that. So I know that there is much work to do to change the average church goer. But the place to begin is with one's own church members.

Sue, I did not mean to ramble. But I write to you from my heart about something I saw in your post. My hope is that you might find something in what I say here that may help you grow and move in a direction that the Holy Spirit may direct and move you. If I have offended you, I am truly sorry. My intention was not to offend-only challenge

Report: Florida loses more than $1 billion a year in tax loopholes

Associated Press

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Ninety-eight percent of the estimated 1.5 million businesses in Florida paid no corporate income tax last year while a state estimate shows exemptions and loopholes cost Florida $1.2 billion a year in taxes, a newspaper reported Sunday.

A report by the St. Petersburg Times found:

_ Corporate income tax collections as a percentage of state tax revenue are at their lowest point since 1972-73.

_ In 2001, Florida lost a larger percentage of revenue because of questionable tax shelters than all but two of the 45 states that impose a corporate income tax, according to a recent study by the Multistate Tax Commission, a nonpartisan group of state taxing authorities. It found that tax shelters cost Florida more than $500 million in 2001.

_ The system is increasingly inequitable for businesses, with just 5,303 companies paying 98 percent of the tax in 2001.

_ By one state estimate, legal exemptions, credits, deductions and loopholes cost Florida $1.2 billion a year - more than the corporate tax generates.

Florida has a low corporate income tax rate - a flat 5.5 percent of a company's net income in the state. Analysts said businesses have avoided corporate taxes through aggressive tax planning, the help of a state tax code full of loopholes and politicians unwilling to revisit the rules.

"The real explanation is that the corporate tax has become a voluntary tax," said Richard Pomp, a tax professor at the University of Connecticut Law School. "The Legislature doesn't control it. The (state) tax department doesn't control it. Accountants and lawyers control it."

"There's a good side to it," said Jim Zingale, executive director of the Department of Revenue. "We appear to have a strong business climate today that we didn't have in past recessions."

State officials also stressed that many of the zero-paying businesses are small and most pay property, unemployment, sales and use taxes as well as annual filing fees. The companies also employ tens of thousands of Floridians who also pay sales and property taxes.

Businesses said they have a duty to seek any legal way to cut their tax bills and noted that they are simply following the rules set by the state.

"A lot of our shareholders rely on that stock to live their daily lives," said Bob Elek, spokesman for Verizon. "Obviously, we are going to position ourselves the best way we can from a tax perspective."

Sen. Walter "Skip" Campbell, D-Tamarac, chairman of the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee, said he plans to examine corporate income tax loopholes next year but acknowledges tax reform stands little chance. "The Legislature doesn't have the guts to stand up to corporations and say, 'Come on, contribute,'" he said.

Do you remember your last geography lesson? Know where the West Bank is? Gaza?


Have you seen the changes in the area maps for any length of time? Ancient, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, Pre-1946, Pre-1968, Pre-2001?
The area around Jerusalem has experienced more redistricting episodes than any other land area on Earth.

Here's a view of the Wall's Route

...and some more info on it from a moderately objective journalist.

Viewing this activity constantly brings to mind the famous poetic line: "...and what rough beast, it's hour comes round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born." One of the holiest sites on the planet claimed by three world religions. Who expects anything different? Three major wars in fifty years versus Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon; but unfortunately for the Palestinians the Israelies have won all. Plus the Israelies get to claim they were, and still are only trying to protect themselves from [Fanatics/Fundamentalists/Terrorists/Autocratic Arab States bent on their distruction/etc] Based on recent voting at the UN, 140+ Nation States don't buy that argument any longer; but 5 or so do. Wanna guess who the 4-5 countries are that never seem to be able to vote against Israel for anything?

In the latest vote, condeming the building of the Wall, the four countries voting against were: Israel, yeah...and America, ok....and....The Marshall Islands !! ... and Micronesia !!! Now please tell me how this can be viewed by any rational person as a supportable position for a neutral person? Everyone else other than Israel and America is wrong about the Wall's construction? (Sorry, don't mean to ignore the other two...but come on, their combined population is less than the population of any reasonably sided city!). And what use is it if America publicizes it's "Official" dislike for the "Security Fence"; but will not vote for a condemnation of it on the World stage? It seems to the World a tacit admission that America doesn't vote against Israel ever, regardless of what it does.

General Boykin's remarks pale in comparison as a reflection of the Americana Realpolitik with Israel, especially when compared with it's actions toward the Islamic/Arabic/Third World. If I were not an American, I can easily see I'd have a real problem with viewing America favorably as a Model World-Class Citizen.

Despite another overwhelmingly negative vote by the UN against the further construction of The Wall in Israel, the Sharon Government is continuing building it.

Well it's now time to dispose of the Direcway/Earthlink Satellite system we bought last year.

In September of 2002 we paid about $700 USD to purchase the equipment, and have it installed. The cost was broken down as: $495 for the equipment, and $195 for the installation. Having signed a one year access agreement with Earthlink, we also paid $69.95, plus tax/etc per month. The system provided decent service, only going down for brief periods when it rained, or snowed. The only real gripe about it was the latency involved, and the terrible upload speed which hovered around 38kbps or less than a standard 56k analog modem. Sure, the download was reasonably quick in the 250k-300k range; but the online experience quickly became a nuisance, especially since we had DSL service at our store location.

Taking a quick run to eBay, it appears the current selling price for the complete system is around $300 plus $50 for shipping, so we bought a product that did not depreciate that much: ($495 to $300); but when combined with the "lost" installation fees, we can only hope to recover half of our outlay for the unit.

Comparing this to the DSL we obtained from Alltel shows why the satellite option only should be used by folks who have no likely access to DSL or Cable service. With DSL, we received a small package in the mail containing a tiny Ethernet/USB modem, a few patch cords, software, and a couple inline filters. With almost no experience with this equipment, we had the unit setup and functioning within 30 minutes tops.

When we used the Direcway satellite system, we had to designate a "Gateway" machine as a server, and then attach it to our in-house network. The installation of Microsoft ICS, (Internet Connection Sharing) on this "Gateway" machine made it possible with the aid of DHCP to then have each machine on the network be able to access the Internet via the "Gateway" machine. It worked fine, although it took well over two hours to set it up correctly as we did not want the "Gateway" machine to "see" the other machines for security reasons. The Speedstream 5200 DSL modem came with both an Ethernet and USB connection, either of which was simple to configure. The only thing that took time was getting the modem attached to the network. We kept trying different configurations, different wiring schemes, but could not get the other machines on the network to see the Speedstream. After the third call to tech support, we found out that the reason we had the problem was we were installing the software on each network machine when that was not necessary, and would not work in that manner.

Instead, we removed the Alltel installation software on all the machines, used IE to address the modem, set a few standard parameters, rebooted and voila, each machine on the net was able to see the DSL modem, get a IP address from the DHCP function in the modem, and go online. Piece of cake. It would really have been so much better if the documentation has said, or even implied that the software was not necessary for the installation, instead of showing how to install it. Anyway, our mistake for not thinking about the necessity of the Alltel software for networked installations.

Regardless, the difference between the Direcway Satellite vs the DSL is significant. DSL offers better upload speed, much better latency numbers, it's highly resistant to thunderstorms, and it just works. The only issue of any kind we had is with the default setting of the Speedstream unit which activated a firewall thus causing a problem with Kaaza; but that was easily corrected.

Something else for the technophobes: RFID tags to be added to all kinds of products. The Military is on schedule to require everything they use to be identified with the RFID tags by 2005.

These tags are somewhat like Smartcards since they can be read wirelessly by a scanning device at a moderate distance from the item. Barcodes can provide considerabale information, especially in the 3D format; but the RFID tags are much less obtrusive, and considerably more capable of holding lots of information. Civil libertarians complain that these tags could be inserted into a broad range of consumer goods, and data from the tags could be extracted without the knowledge or permission of the person using the product with the tag inserted.

As the world's largest retailer, Walmart has been the standard bearer on RFID tags, but has retreated somewhat from it's stated goal of having RFID technology used by all it's vendors for inbound shipments due to citizen complaints about it's use.

Christian Aid, a UK based faith organization charged today that the US/Iraqi CPA has failed to account for $4B of reconstruction aid.

"The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure. The agency that is supposed to oversee these funds has not even been set up yet. 'This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest,' said Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director.

The current situation goes to the heart of claims and counter-claims about how Iraqi oil revenue should be used. It can only fuel the serious suspicion in Iraq that a disproportionate amount of cash is being creamed off for the benefit of US companies - money that should be spent on alleviating the chronic unemployment and other serious problems faced by Iraqis, including the poorest and most vulnerable.

Independent observers agree that, despite the huge amounts of money allocated to repair a country shattered by decades of war and sanctions, not nearly enough has been done and not nearly fast enough in the six months since the US announced an end to hostilities. There are still power cuts, fuel shortages, and a lack of medicine and equipment in hospitals. Clean drinking water is not available in many areas and raw sewage can be seen on the streets of many towns, including Basra - which is controlled by British forces.

The fact that billions of dollars of Iraq's own money cannot now be accounted for can only add to a burning sense of injustice. 'We have absolutely no idea how the money [from Iraqi oil revenues] has been spent,' one senior European diplomat to the UN told Christian Aid. 'I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea.' The missing billions are a combination of pre- and post-war oil revenues now controlled by the CPA, plus seized Iraqi government assets and funds vested overseas. Conservative estimates put the total at US$5 billion, of which less than US$1 billion can be accounted for.

This money is distinct from the reconstruction funds promised by the US and UK governments, and from any cash that is raised from other governments at the Madrid conference. This is Iraqi money that should be spent for the benefit of all Iraq's people, not sat on in secret by an unelected foreign administration. 'The situation is little short of scandalous,' said Roger Riddell. 'The British government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.' The dangers of such a situation persisting in the future were highlighted in the Christian Aid report Fuelling Poverty - Oil, War and Corruption, published in May. Compared with countries of similar size, the report found that oil-producing developing countries are characterised by greater degrees of:

� Poverty (for the great majority of the population)
� Dictatorial, authoritarian or unrepresentative government
� War and/or civil strife
� Corruption.

'A properly constituted, democratic government must be established for all the people of Iraq as soon as possible,' said Roger Riddell. 'Otherwise, once again, oil could prove a curse rather than a blessing.' "
� Iraq: the missing billions - Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq

In an Oct 17th article, Morgan Stanley's Global contributor: Stephen Roach, makes a compelling case for understanding our current jobless recovery as "Imported Productivity". One of his key points is about sustainability of the current outsourcing model:

"Wage and salary disbursements -- by far the dominant component of personal income -- are basically unchanged in real terms fully 21 months into this recovery. By contrast, at this juncture in the past six upturns, real wage income has been up, on average, by about 9%. The gap between the current cycle and the norm of earlier cycles works out to a shortfall of about $320 billion in real terms, or 4.4% of the current level of real disposable personal income...

The flip side of this saga is, of course, quite beneficial to Corporate America. Sourcing demand through low-cost, offshore labor input has become an increasingly important tactic to enhance the operating efficiency of US businesses... While this has resulted in a significant improvement in corporate earnings, the American workforce is not sharing the benefits. The resulting clash between the owners of capital and the providers of labor has resulted in profound tensions in the US body politic. Imported productivity, together with the jobless recovery and income leakage it implies, is the stuff of heightened trade frictions, mounting protectionist risks, and a populist assault on Corporate America.

Which takes us to the bottom line: In my view, the income leakages of imported productivity raise serious questions about the sustainability of this recovery from an economic point of view. At the same time, the political reaction to the resulting jobless recovery raises equally profound questions about sustainability from a political standpoint."

As we approach the one year anniversary of the storming of the theatre in Moscow where 129 people were killed by Soviet security forces in conflict with 50 Chechan rebels who had threatened to kill all 700 theatre occupants, it might be time to check in with the FAS group attempting to influence a rational policy on the use of "non-lethal" force by U.S. military and security agencies.

Have you read what the doctors themselves say about "partial birth abortions"?

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

For Release: October 3, 2003
http://www.acog.

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

It has taken forever to get one, but the US Senate today passed the first National Anti-Spam bill: S.877. As a first step, it is laudable for what it does: charges the National ISP's to identify and file claims against spammers, targeting pornsters, unsolicited body part enhancement ads, and well established fraud come-ons. Equally important is it's relatively benign countenance, as opposed to the considerable number and range of draconian measures in the Patriot Act.
Some of it's measures for violations are open-ended enough that the really big boys of spam will be vunerable to considerable penalties for pumping out offending spam. Unfortunately while the bill passed the Senate, the bill is stalled in the House. The vote in the Senate was 97-0 with three abstentions. Bizmarts recommends you get on your horse, ride into town, and tell your Representative you support the CAN SPAM bill.

There are two dominant perspectives for the so-called "American Empire", one that views America in decline, and one in ascension. Politicians and pundits from the Left and Right agree there are major problems we face which they assert should be addressed before our Republic collapses under the weight of unresolved issues. Clintonians point to the progress achieved during the 90's in the technological and economic realms; but seem incapable of accepting the reality that corporate greed came to full fruition during theses years. Reaganites claim they were responsible for the demise of the USSR, and the results of their economic plan lead directly to the capital explosion of the past twenty years; but will not consider that Russia collapsed primarily from internal pressures, or that during the Reagan years supply-side economic policy created such huge deficits that one of the largest single non-military component of our Federal Budget for several years was simply servicing that debt.

The culture wars bring us today to the spectacle of the U.S. Senate passing a law, previously passed and twice vetoed by President Clinton, outlawing "partial birth abortions" which at most directly affect less than 0.025% of the population, while approving the Administrations request for a supplemental expense of $86b dollars to ameliorate what is considered by the international community as an illegal occupation of a foreign country. And then have the President threaten to veto the appropriation because it includes some attempt to add accountability of how the money is spent. The media outlets gave equivalent space to the two stories; but it appears to other nationals that America is now either adrift in another of their silly phases at best, or no longer worthy of respect and consideration at worst.

Empires have been phenomenally important in the advance of civilizations around the globe; but when they come apart, no one escapes the repercussions, nor can historians usually point to a specific action that caused it to fail. The HRE, Ottoman Turk, Han and Song Dynasties, Spanish, French, Prussian, British, and Russian versions came apart to be replaced by mostly democratic models. Let's hope that process continues when it's our turn to come unglued.

And you thought the penalty for simple possesion of less than an ounce of pot in Georgia is no big thing? Look at what the current penalty is, and look closely at the penalty progression. How does that compare to the terms for aggrevated battery or homicide? Surprised?

NORML has a well researched article on the economic, social, legal, and political issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana.

The SEC seems to think there is some funny-business going on with AOL's accounting history. They subpoenaed records from several senior directors including Steve Case.

When the Evening Standard starts publishing articles that criticize Pres. Bush's policies, then it's obvious there is a problem for the Political Right. George Soros's article does just that.

Curious what $20 billion in aid to Iraq will buy? See the breakdown here.

For the full OMB/GPO Federal Budget historical report and the FY 2004 Budget go here.

Reviewing the data, we have gone from a federal budget surplus of $236.4 billion in 2000 to an anticipated deficit of $350 billion in 2003, an almost $600 billion dollar spending spree, or over $2,000 for every man/woman/child in America. But no one seems to see that as horrendous! In the same period our population has increased by about four million people, and we have lost in excess of four million jobs. Isn't it the Republicans who are supposed to be fiscally conservative? And NO, it has NOT gone to Homeland Defense, nor primarily to National Defense. Every agency of the Federal Government is spending considerably more than it did in 2000. What's up with this?

The incomparable Paul Krugman's article in the NYT: "The Sweet Spot" very simply shows why he is such a highly regarded commentator.


The Sweet Spot
by Paul Krugman
SYNOPSIS:

"What we have here is a form of looting." So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the Bush administration's budget policies — and he's right. With startling speed, we've blown right through the usual concerns about budget deficits — about their effects on interest rates and economic growth — and into a range where the very solvency of the federal government is at stake. Almost every expert not on the administration's payroll now sees budget deficits equal to about a quarter of government spending for the next decade, and getting worse after that.

Yet the administration insists that there's no problem, that economic growth will solve everything painlessly. And that puts those who want to stop the looting — which should include anyone who wants this country to avoid a Latin-American-style fiscal crisis, somewhere down the road — in a difficult position. Faced with a what-me-worry president, how do you avoid sounding like a dour party pooper?

One answer is to explain that the administration's tax cuts are, in a fundamental sense, phony, because the government is simply borrowing to make up for the loss of revenue. In 2004, the typical family will pay about $700 less in taxes than it would have without the Bush tax cuts — but meanwhile, the government will run up about $1,500 in debt on that family's behalf.

George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due — and it will be your problem, not his.

Still, those who want to restore fiscal sanity probably need to frame their proposals in a way that neutralizes some of the administration's demagoguery. In particular, they probably shouldn't propose a rollback of all of the Bush tax cuts.

Here's why: while the central thrust of both the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts was to cut taxes on the wealthy, the bills also included provisions that provided fairly large tax cuts to some — but only some — middle-income families. Chief among these were child tax credits and a "cutout" that reduced the tax rate on some income to 10 percent from 15 percent.

These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.

So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder.

Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?

In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer.


Originally published in The New York Times, 10.17.03

From the Opening Page of the Republican National Committee Website: http://www.rnc.com on Oct. 20th, 2003:

GOP Topline: Iraqi Progress Report by David Kay
October 8, 2003

President Bush was right: Iraq was led by an evil regime; lethal to its own people, in deepening material breach of its Security Council obligations, and a threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein would have stopped at nothing until something stopped him.
Some of the things, in only three months, David Kay’s group have uncovered:
  A clandestine network of biological laboratories and safe houses maintained by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
  "Reference strains" of biological organisms concealed in scientists homes, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, ricin, and aflatoxin.
  Advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles and SCUD missile propellant.
  Newly documented links between Iraq and North Korea with documents detailing Iraq's attempt to buy missile equipment from North Korea.

The full text version provided by the CIA is here.

If you have concerns about the US arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, consider the situation in Anniston, Alabama. Of the US Army's CBW arsenal, eight thousand TONS of chemical agents, and over 1.3 million munitions have been destroyed by the US Army since 1990. The Army estimates it will take seven YEARS of burns at the Anniston site to destroy their stockpile estimated at 2,254 tons of chemical warfare agents. Additional sites in Utah and on Johnson Atol in the Pacific will process smaller quantities of these agents and delivery systems.

While 2,254 tons is a huge amount, the Army has stated that this comprises about 7% of the total US Cold-War Era CW weaponry! Imagine that America created in excess of 3.2 MILLION TONS of this stuff. Sheeze ! Forget about the $600 toilet, what was the DOD's intent in creating this quantity of weaponry? MAD?

Incredible !!

Unsure of what kind of jobs you'd be good at? Need to evaluate your skills, temperment, preferences? Go here to MAPP for an assessment.

Bay Area Chemist offers one way to get ahead in track and field competition.
United States anti-doping authorities said Thursday they had uncovered widespread use by track and field athletes this summer of a new and previously undetected designer steroid, linking its development and distribution to a Bay Area nutritional supplement laboratory already under investigation by a federal grand jury in San Francisco.

"My God can beat your God", says the General.

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center in December 2002, there are some unusual statistics in a worldwide survey that asked "how important do you consider religion to be in your life".

Find the countries where the survey respondents considered religion not important in their lives, and then compare to countries where it is reported to be very important.

The Bush Administration's push toward criminalizing a wide range of behavior has some unintended consequences. In the area of computer software security, with provisions of the Patriot Act, and with the continued detention of prisoners of war at Gitmo. Amnesty International has stated the concerns of many to the Administration's unlawful and damaging detention of foreign nationals; but has not received any reply.

Halliburton is accused of overcharging the US Government for delivery of gasoline to Iraq.

Still downloading music with Kazaa or Morpheus but concerned about the RIAA subpeonas?

Another look at the Wall around Jerusalem from the Christian Science Monitor.

Did you read the LA Times article about Arnold's "Groping" history?

Let's see, there were large groups of people who were agast about Clinton's consensual sexual episodes with Monica Lewinsky; but either thought the allegations against Arnold were false, or did not matter. If it happens again when he becomes the Governor, will it matter? Is there any difference between unwelcome sexual advances with fondling of subordinates, and what occurred in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?

At least two Army Generals have raised issues about the leadership abilities of Gen. W. Clark.

Worse yet, there are dozens of weblogs reporting portions of Gen. Clark's Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner address, on May 11, 2001 which the Drudge Report and others have fashioned into an indictment of Gen. Clark by fabricating quotes that sound as if the General was a staunch Neo-Com Republican. What he actually said, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal is here. Reading the address one gets an entirely different sense of what Clark knows about the World when compared with a lot of the blog fabrications.

This follows other reported comments by former US Military Officers about Gen. Clark's focus on his upward mobility. Ok, a question: "What position in Business, Government, or the Military is the Apex, the highest one can go in America?" If he becomes President, how will his charged penchant/passion for self-enhancement hurt the Country?

Justice denied at Guantanamo. Has it really been almost two years that the "unlawful combatants" have been held incommunicato at Gitmo; but only now is anything beyond minor reproach being said about it?


And a comparison with Jessica Lynch's "liberation".
By William Saletan
Wednesday, April 2, 2003

"8:30 a.m.: Jessica, Jessica, Jessica. In case you've been without electricity or human contact for the past 24 hours, I'm referring to Jessica Lynch, the U.S. Army POW who was rescued yesterday from Iraq. Last night on television, it was wall-to-wall Jessica. Today in the newspapers, it's yards of column inches on Jessica. U.S. Central Command trumpeted her rescue last night and played video of it at a briefing this morning.

I don't mean to be callous or unpatriotic, but why are we celebrating so loudly? She went into Iraq with a 15-member company. She came out alone. Her company didn't take its casualties while fighting for a bridge or an airfield. It took them because it made a wrong turn.

Worst of all, Lynch isn't one of the millions of Iraqis we're supposed to be liberating. She's one of the putative liberators. We've said this war isn't an invasion. We've said it isn't for us but for Iraq. And yet, while the average Iraqi's liberation gets no Pentagon fanfare and no air time, the liberation of Jessica Lynch is a 24-hour mediathon. We're celebrating her rescue for the worst of all reasons: because she's American."

Win the War, Not Just the Battles.
When we check the daily news there's a tendency to question the tone, accuracy, set and setting of the reports, avoiding flames, mentally precancelling spin, and trying to gain the true nuggets of information in the package. It's not easy navigating through the artificial reality created by advertisers, marketing gurus, on-air celebrities, and politicians.

Some news and articles come through the maze with what appears to be the "ring of truth". Former President Carter's OpEd piece in the WAPO a couple days ago was like that, as he certainly had and still has exquisitve knowledge of the matter at hand, and there was nothing for him to gain or lose by saying what he did. Sure, if he would have come out in support of the Bush Administration's position on OIF there might have been a few grumbles from his audience, and a few less dollars for the Carter Center...but thinking in this manner puts you squarely in the Flexible Reality Zone. It's more realistic to think he wrote what he considered to be the truth.

Retired General Anthony Zinni's address at Forum 2003 was like that too. Nothing Earth-shattering in the address; but a confirmation of one's own view of the situation by what must be considered a knowledgeable and neutral party to and former participant in US Military Actions in the Middle East and elsewhere. Zinni could have said anything he wanted to, and as a USMC General (Ret) he did.

It should be obvious to all that Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al are incapable of winning this War using the current framework. It should also be obvious that President Bush is not the Roman style Pro-Consul one would hope to have in charge at such a juncture in our Nations history. Perhaps a Drei-Kaiserbund entity would be better next time, with Clinton's intellect, Bush's faithfullness, and Zinni's military outlook...say, maybe we will: "Ah, Gen. Clark would you step in please."

Got another choice morsel for you today: how about a master database where your driving history, name, address, neighbor names, kind of vehicle you drive, arrest record, fingerprints, photo, and any other data obtained by State agencies would be maintained for access by law enforcement personnel.

Florida, Georgia, and several other States either have it already, or are planning on implementing it soon. The AJC article today talks about it from the Georgia perspective. It would be funded by the Dept. of Homeland Defense, and maintained by a private firm under contract to the State.

Gee...what could be the problem with that? You have nothing to hide, and think of all the criminals it will help to identify and catch. It's called the "Matrix Project", like in the movie. You see, the State folks don't really care what mental links you make to the Project, otherwise they would have given it an acronym.

A corollary item concerns the lack of uniformity and access to information about inmates in City, County, State, and Federal Correctional Institutions. Here in Atlanta, if you attempt to see if your XYZ got locked up, you need to go online to at least the Atlanta City Jail, Cobb County Jail, Dekalb County Jail, State of Georgia, or the Fulton County Jail to see where they are being held. The State database shows a photo of the prisoners, but none of the others do.

And please remember, the data on these sites varies considerably, from timely, to weeks old. One would assume the databases accessible to law enforcement personnel are uniform, accurate, timely, and relevant, and they were not susceptible to an episode like in Terry Gilliam's movie with the fly. Nor would they be available to unauthorized personnel, or made available to corporate interests only peripherally related to law enforcement, nor accessible to hackers, foreign agents, identity thieves, a no-longer benevolent Government, Watergate-Style Burglars, et al.

But best of all: consider what it would take for a subject to examine their own file, have incorrect information removed, or even gain access to it. Have you ever tried to change the data about your financial transactions which are maintained by one of the three prime Credit Agencies?

Thirty years ago in Florida, the Florida Bureau of Investigation in Tallahassee could spit out a one-page printout on a subject by entering the persons drivers license number into the search engine. By now, it's probably several pages long, and with the Matrix Project, no one will be invisible to the State. Combine the speed of 64bit operating systems, with natural language query tools being developed by all the major DP companies and Doyle would not have to ask whether you ever picked your nose in Poughkeepsie...he'd know the date, time, and location.

But really, relax. You have nothing to worry about, because you are always above-board, have nothing to hide, and don't care what law enforcement agencies know about you. But if you ever happen to end up on the other side by accident or avarice, you will probably be able to handle anything that might come up.


BTW: For those who are unfamiliar with Terri Gilliam's Movie: "Brazil", here's a blurb:

"Very strange, but wonderful movie by Terry Gilliam (Monty Python) about a dark future where bureaucracy rules. It's a wildly imaginative Orwellian comedy about a future society in which a central bureaucracy regulates everything via endless air ducts, tubes and plumbing. A typographical error (well, a bug.. literally...) plunges a meek governmental clerk named Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) into a Kafkaesque nightmare of bureaucracy and brainwashing. DeNiro plays a heroic non-union plumber unplugging the stopped-up pipes. Academy Award Nominations: Best (Original) Screenplay, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. As with all Gilliam films, the cinematography, setting, and effects are amazing."

Andrew Grove, Co-Founder and CEO of Intel Corp said US tech services market set to collapse due to outsourcing. Half a million tech jobs lost because companies must cater to the demands of their shareholders.

Gee...what a novel concept: outsourcing steel production, textiles, semi-conductors, automobile construction, personal electronics, and soon food makes these products cheaper for Americans to buy; however, if there are no blue-collar and skilled labor jobs for Americans the 60% in the middle can't afford to buy anything, help support the bottom 20%, or as these bozos are now learning, have funds available to pay for Dentists, Doctors, Lawyers, Bankers, and Finance Manipulators.

Go ahead, help the Bush Administration and Mega-Capitalists make the "Donald's" of the world the favored social segment. Take away the safety net for the lower 20%, and make it increasingly difficult for the majority to enjoy what they became accustomed to. There will always be plenty of AK47's around to show the present day Ms. Antoinette's of the world, in concrete terms, that they made a mistake putting capital before people! Don't think it can happen here? Neither did Julius Caesar, Louis XVI, or Nicholas II.

Wouldn't you know it...just when I thought I had found an infrequently used but appropriate phrase that would become the title of this blog, I went online to see if anyone else is using it, and lo and behold, it's all over the place !! Website! topics, and key phrases abound.

Re: Bill O'Reilly
There are of course several "Good Doctors"; but the one I had in mind was Sameul Johnson, who wrote:
"Nothing is more despicable than the old age of a passionate man.* When the vigour of youth fails him, and his amusements pall with frequent repetition, his occasional rage sinks by decay of strength into peevishness; that peevishness, for want of novelty and variety, becomes habitual; the world falls off from around him, and he is left, as Homer expresses it, to devour his own heart in solitude and contempt."
Johnson: Rambler #11 (April 24, 1750)

Egads !! Did you hear yesterday's, Wed. Oct 8th, edition of "Fresh Air" on NPR with guest: Bill O'Rilley? He really does that "shut up" thing. Aside from being articulate, opinionated, and quick witted, he came across in the interview as venal, brutish, and displayed a grossly over-inflated ego.

As a book reviewer once said of Ayn Rand: "The author's overconfident sense of their own rightness and persistence at pressing their points with little respect for opposing views can quickly become more than a little annoying."

And like so many other "puffed up on-air celebrities" are prone to do, he stalked out of the interview part way through because the host, Terri Gross, would not respond to one of his baited questions as he expected. While physically he may be 6'4" and 200 some odd pounds, he came across in the interview just like the mentally lightweight bully that we all knew in high school.

His diatribes against Al Franken, the NYT, and "Liberals" sounded like a remake of a TV District Attorney's outtakes. And just as his loud-mouthedness gave a push to Franken's book, it seduced me into listening to Franken's Fresh Air interview which occurred a few weeks earlier.

As Terri Gross said: "...it was a different interview", where O'Reilly was loud and pushy, Franken was mellow and humorous. Befitting their respective public personas. Fine. Samuel Clements or the Good Doctor were highly skilled commentators, and realized the strength of their voice had nothing to do with the strength of their words. O'Reilly proved in the interview he does not value that concept.

Following up on yesterday's post about the disproportionate expenditures made to Israel over the years, former President Carter's Op-Ed piece in the WAPO states the case very plainly about the only possible method of attaining peace in Palestine.

Some considered Jesus, some considered Budda, some thought it was Aristotle, Luther, Roosevelt, Batman, or Arnold. Others think differently.

And speaking of logistics, guess who is the DOD’s prime transporter of military material to OIF troops, responsible for transporting over 50% of the personnel, equipment and supplies? How much money will be passing thru Brown & Roots hands as a direct result of OIF? What about the next closest NGO provider? How much are they handling?

To obtain a realistic picture of the importance America places on other countries in International Affairs it is instructive to do as “Deep Throat” suggested: follow the money. A quick review of available documents from the CIA Worldbook, FAS, Census Bureau and others reveal that in 2001 American spent 0.11% of that year’s GDP, US Gross Domestic Product, on ODA, (Official Development Assistance), a.k.a. second-tier “Foreign Aid”, which was approximately one-third what Japan spent in the same period, or less than one-tenth what Norway spent. Using the same time period and data sources, America came in 22nd in amount spent in development aid to the World as a percentage of GDP. Just two years earlier Japan spent almost six times more than America did in that year.

In a report by the Federation of American Scientists a more vivid picture appeared by comparing the amount of funding from all sources sent to other countries per capita. For example: Israel obtained $2.82 billion dollars in 2001 for its 5.9 million citizens, while Egypt received $1.99 billion for its 70.4 million citizens, and the whole of Latin America, including Mexico received $0.71 billion for its 530 million citizens.

Quick calculations yield:
Israel $477.97 per person per year
Egypt $28.22 per person per year
Latin America: $1.33 per person per year

No current data is available for estimating the ODA headed for Iraq, so just using the figures that have been thrown around by the administration, Operation Iraqi Freedom should involve about $200 billion dollars spread over three years for its 23.3 million inhabitants, and while it not particularly useful comparing oranges to apples, that amount works out to about $2,861.26 per Iraqi per year.

But the bulk of the appropriation for OIF is not going to the citizens of Iraq, it is being spent supporting the two hundred fifty thousand US troops in the theatre; and the bulk of that allocation is being spent for acquisition and transport of military logistics. Of the $87 billion requisitioned by the Bush Administration for OIF this year, approximately $15 billion is alledgedly for actual repairs, reconstruction, and management, for perhaps as little as $643.78 per person during 2003. Still it is several hundred times more than what we spend in our own hemisphere, even in countries like Venezuela that export oil to world markets. The Heritage Foundation used somewhat similar figures to advance a significantly different perspective than offered here.

How can the average American citizen be asked to support such gross inequality, or even be willing to acknowledge that the numbers shown above are representative of America's priorities.

From JECHOLS1@JUNO.COM

Just offering the following comments.

There has to be a lot of truth in the fact that Iraq is being "(re)built" by us- at our expense - and to the benefit of Iraq and its people - as well as to the benefit of some of the administration's friends. BUT - and this is a huge BUT - it is not, nor has it ever been, this country's policy to invade countries in order to:
1. free its people unless from another country's invasion
2. create a democracy where there was none.
3. rebuild its infrastructure
If we start doing this, that probably means more than three-quarters of the rest of the world is next!

It is good that the media is keeping their eye on the ball in looking at:
1. The necessity, or lack thereof, in our invading Iraq.
2. The possibility/probability that we as a nation were talked into it by leaders who misled us at best and deliverately lied to us at worst.
3. The fact that our country and our people are being bled economically, emotionally and literally and for what reason.
4. The fact that there is no practical end in sight to this mess.
5. What good will be accomplished for our people and our country (disregard that for Iraq and its people since that was not the overriding original intent)

Did anyone ever doubt that the U.S.A., were better at freedom, democracy, and running a country than Saddam? Surely we didn't have to spend 180 billion (so far) and hundreds of lives (so far on our side-not counting the lives lost on the other side) to prove it.

Why should the News Media get sidetracked by "How good it is for Iraq". Please let them stay focused on "How good is it for the U.S.A?" and "How right is it?"

The rest of the world will become convinced that it was and is a good thing that we did - only if it turns out that way.

Former Senator Max Cleland said the War in Iraq has a parallel with an earlier conflict.

What he didn't say was how absolutely wrong the Secretaries of Defense have been in initial diagnosis, prosecution, and qualitative cost/benefit analysis in both conflicts. Nor did he point to one of the primary dissimilarities. The Vietcong had no real way of attacking Americans in America; but the Arab fighters are not so hindered. Nor were the Vietcong fighting for the primacy of their religious heritage, or their ancestral homes. Israel and America are both busy building walls, not fences maintained by neighbors. The Maginot Line, the DMZ and the Berlin Wall spoke of the folly of these feeble efforts to earlier generations; but this one is not listening.

Israeli air raid in Syria today brings the problem of pre-emptive military actions against sovereign states into clear focus. The bombing raid by Israel was the first such military action against Syria in almost thirty years. Israel claims it was designed to hit a terrorist training center, and as retaliation for last weeks restaurant bombing in Haifa.

However, in the tit-for-tat world of violence in the Middle East there should be an acknowledgement of the difference between bombings carried out by individual suicide bombers and State Supported Military bombings carried out against targets in neighboring States. If the UN Security Council sits on it's hands in response to these kinds of actions by Israel; it would seem reasonable to argue that the UN should agree that Syria is within it's right to bomb Sharon's Headquarters.

In other words, as from the LA Times Article today: "The predawn bombings unveiled a sharp shift in Israeli policy. After three years of battle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel is now declaring the right to chase armed Palestinian factions into their bases in foreign countries. It's a philosophy that echoes the controversial doctrine of pre-emption that has driven U.S. foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001."

If the International community acquiesces to this political madness where does it end? India bombs sites in Pakistan, or Pakistan bombs sites in India? Russia bombs sites in some of their former Republics? Mexico bombs the homes of vigilante ranchers in Arizona? And how can the US support a censure of Israel, given its entanglements in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Wolfowitz, Rice, and Company might be brilliant scholars; but it appears they are dumb as a stone to propose and support pre-emptive actions against States that are considered a threat. Many countries have some elements in it that can be perceived as a threat to some other country. But does it follow that, for example, America should consider bombing suspected drug cartel sites in Columbia to "Win the War on Drugs"?

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, Arnold appeals to Republican Males in California, but does less well with Females.

Another confrontation today with a so-called "Christian" Fundamentalist reminded me of an article written by Bishop Spong. Vis the Christian Right and Intolerance.

Coke, Cocaine, and Crack. A review of a 1996 article that covers many of the contested ideas in the social pharmacology of cocaine is available here. The authors make the case that cocaine abuse may be psychologically or sociologically; but most likely not physiologically addictive. And certainly much less so than other more common injestibles such as caffeine, nicotine or alcohol.

Abusers overwhelming refer to themselves as addicts; yet studies have shown overwhelming support for viewing abuse as primarily an elective behavior, not a result of physical dependency on the drug, as in the opiates.

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would launch an investigation into who disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent, a leak the Washington Post reported occurred when unidentified White House officials called six journalists with the information. Terence Smith gets two expert views on what journalists' obligations are to both their sources and the public

Canadian Pharmacy can sell select pharmaceuticals to Americans at 40% of the standard US cost. But now that it has gotten the attention of the media, WAPO and the Feds, guess how long it will be before the Pharmacy closes up shop?