Where's the Apology?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: January 30, 2004

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Instead, he got rid of accountability.

Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such weapons. Those much-ridiculed U.N. inspectors were right. (But Hans Blix appears to have gone down the memory hole. On Tuesday Mr. Bush declared that the war was justified — under U.N. Resolution 1441, no less — because Saddam "did not let us in.")

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations? Where is the investigation of this intelligence debacle? All we have is bluster from Dick Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush — and a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry.

True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup. (Yes, the Hutton report gave Tony Blair a clean bill of health, but many people — including a majority of the British public, according to polls — regard that report as a whitewash.)

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America's credibility has been badly damaged — and nobody is being held accountable. But that's standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. Instead, people are severely punished for telling inconvenient truths. And administration officials have consistently sought to freeze out, undermine or intimidate anyone who might try to check up on their performance.

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence professionals. And whatever becomes of the Justice Department investigation, the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried, in defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry. Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access to crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the original May 11 deadline — and the administration is trying to prevent a time extension.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad powers to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's office in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing); nobody could call her nonpartisan. So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of profiteering in Iraq — as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence — bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the power and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?

Hill Probers Fault Iraq Intelligence
Panels' Early Findings Are Similar to Kay's
By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 30, 2004; Page A01

The House and Senate intelligence committees have unearthed a series of failures in prewar intelligence on Iraq similar to those identified by former weapons inspector David Kay, leading them to believe that CIA analysts and their superiors did not seriously consider the possibility Saddam Hussein no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, congressional officials said.

The committees, working separately for the past seven months, have determined that the CIA relied too heavily on circumstantial, outdated intelligence and became overly dependent on satellite and spy-plane imagery and communications intercepts.

Like Kay, the committees have found that CIA operatives and analysts failed to detect that the Iraqi chain of command for developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons had fallen apart, and that Iraqi scientists and others were engaged in their own campaign to deceive the Iraqi leader, telling him they had weapons that did not exist.

Plan B pill would cut costs, pregnancies

By Dar Haddix
UPI Business Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 (UPI) -- If the Food and Drug Administration gives its approval, over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraception known colloquially as the morning after pill, or "Plan B," could finally give women, especially poor and rural women, an affordable way to prevent pregnancy in an emergency. The progestin-only drug levonorgestrel will come for approval by the FDA on Feb. 20 for over-the-counter dispensing after an advisory committee earlier recommended its approval by a vote of 22-5.

Right now only five states -- Washington, California, Hawaii, Alaska, and New Mexico -- allow sales of Plan B without a prescription. "Being able to go directly into a pharmacy and being able to buy this directly over the counter ... will have the potential to cut in half the number of unintended pregnancies," said Sharon Camp, president and chief executive officer of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington, D.C., which tracks sexual health trends.

Emergency contraception prevented an estimated 100,000 unintended pregnancies and an estimated 51,000 abortions in the year 2000 alone, according to the institute. Plan B works by delivering .75 milligrams of levonorgestrel, a progestin hormone -- about three times the dose in a daily birth control pill -- in each of two pills taken 12 hours apart no more than three days after sexual intercourse.

Available by prescription in the United States since 1999, Plan B currently costs around $20-25, said Carol Cox, spokesperson for Barr Laboratories Inc. of Woodcliff, N.J. That is less than one-tenth the average cost of a first-trimester surgical or medical abortion. Cox said that Barr Labs had not yet settled on a price at which to sell the drug over the counter, but a report on FDA.com estimated that it would sell for between $30 and $40.

A prohibition on Medicaid funding and a dearth of state funding programs prevent many poor women who desire an abortion from having one. But emergency contraception needs to be taken quickly -- it's 95 percent effective if taken within 24 hours of unprotected sex -- so waiting for a prescription or driving long distances to a clinic could mean abortion instead of prevention.

This is why over-the-counter access would also benefit rural women. As of 2000, only 3 percent of all non-metropolitan counties had an abortion provider, and 94 percent of all abortion providers were in metropolitan counties. Nearly one in four women obtaining an abortion in 2000 traveled more than 50 miles; 8 percent traveled more than 100 miles, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Offering the drug over-the-counter would solve the problem of some hospitals not offering the drug to rape victims. An estimated 32,000 women per year get pregnant due to rape or incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Only California, Washington, New Mexico and New York have state laws that guarantee rape victims access to emergency contraception. Also, some pharmacies, including Wal-Mart don't carry the drug.

The fact that women do most of the shopping in pharmacies will hurt those pharmacies that don't carry Plan B, Camp said. "Pharmacies that refuse to carry Plan B are going to lose business to the pharmacies that do. This is a product that is so important to women. ... If pharmacists choose to offend women by not carrying something that important, they will lose business to their competitor down the street," she said.

Carol Cox, spokesperson for Barr, described the company as "very committed to female health care," and that it sees Plan B as a "commitment to female health overall." In the end, Camp said she believes that Plan B will be approved. With a few exceptions, "The support of the medical community is virtually unanimous," she said.

Race Shifts From Personal to National
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 27, 2004; 9:37 PM

John Kerry prevailed, Howard Dean survived -- and the Democratic presidential contest between the two New Englanders now moves to a set of southern and border states where many Democrats think John Edwards may pose the biggest challenge to Kerry's strong claim on the nomination.

China to issue new intelligent ID cards
Xinhuanet Online
www.chinaview.cn 2004-01-28 09:28:23

BEIJING, Jan. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- China is planning to issue new intelligent ID cards for its 1.3 billion people, and some citizens will be issued computer readable cards as early as March. According to officials with the Ministry of Public Security, the new ID card will hopefully be an effective way of preventing rampant forging of old ID cards in use.

The new card contains a module that integrates a special chip containing information on the card holder. The chip-module was jointly developed by the Institute of Microelectronics under elite Qinghua University and Qinghua Tongfang Microelectronics Co. Ltd., a subsidiary controlled by Qinghua University.

According to ministry officials, the thumbnail-sized module will make the new card greatly superior as information within the module can be read and processed by computer. This will greatly increase security because police can use a card processing machine to check if information in a new card matches a preset code storedin the machine.

The information stored in the chip includes digital data for management and anti-counterfeiting. The new ID card, 85.6 mm by 54 mm, will be put into use in March in Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Changsha, according to ministry officials. The ministry expects that the nationwide replacement program will be fully completed by the end of 2008 when a total of 1 billion ID cards will be given out.

General Urges NATO to Send Afghanistan More Troops
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
NY Times
Published: January 28, 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — NATO's top commander in Europe voiced frustration on Tuesday that members were not providing enough troops for the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, which he said was a "defining moment" for the alliance as it adopted a broader agenda in the world. In testimony intended to bring members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee up to date on Afghanistan, the commander, Gen. James L. Jones of the United States Marine Corps, said NATO's plans to expand beyond the capital, Kabul, and the northern area of Kunduz would require more troops than the current 5,500.

He said he expected the number of United States troops in Afghanistan — 11,000, most of them involved in counterterrorism — to remain the same. "The political will has been stated," he said. "The alliance has agreed, the donor countries have been identified, and yet we find ourselves mired in the administrative details of who's going to pay for it, who's going to transport it, how's it going to be maintained."

The rebuilding of Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001 involves NATO's first mission beyond the European Atlantic area. Unlike the war on Iraq, this effort has been embraced by NATO's European members. The alliance's new secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has called Afghanistan its "No. 1 priority." During the testimony, senators from both parties expressed concern that the Bush administration might become distracted with Iraq and fail to solidify the gains made in Afghanistan in health care, education, women's rights and road building.

"Are we winning or losing?" asked Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican and the committee chairman. "Why should we have confidence this is going to work out?" Security has not been established in huge swaths of the country, and the Taliban are resurgent along the Pakistan border. President Hamid Karzai is still trying to wrest control from provincial governors. Congress approved a total of $1.6 billion in aid for Afghanistan in 2004. President Bush is expected to ask for $1 billion more in his 2005 budget request next week.

Note: Some creative chartmaking above...look carefully, and then go to the OMB and see what their charts look like.

U.S. arms hunter says no Iraq WMD
Sat 24 January, 2004 02:22
Reuters
"I don't think they existed"
U.S. former weapons inspector David Kay
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay has stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq, saying he does not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview on Friday he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the '90s," he said. The CIA named former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who had expressed his own doubts that unconventional arms would be found in Iraq, to replace Kay.

Kay said he believes most of what was going to be uncovered in Iraq had been found and that the weapons hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis in June. Top Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees seized on Kay's comments.

"It increasingly appears that our intelligence was wrong about Iraq's weapons, and the administration compounded that mistake by exaggerating the nuclear threat and Iraq's ties to al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is paying a very heavy price," said Senator John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. No banned arms have been found in Iraq since the United States went to war against Baghdad last year.

In his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programmes right up to the start of the U.S. attack in March.

Democracy at Risk
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
Published: January 23, 2004

The disputed election of 2000 left a lasting scar on the nation's psyche. A recent Zogby poll found that even in red states, which voted for George W. Bush, 32 percent of the public believes that the election was stolen. In blue states, the fraction is 44 percent.

Now imagine this: in November the candidate trailing in the polls wins an upset victory — but all of the districts where he does much better than expected use touch-screen voting machines. Meanwhile, leaked internal e-mail from the companies that make these machines suggests widespread error, and possibly fraud. What would this do to the nation?

Unfortunately, this story is completely plausible. (In fact, you can tell a similar story about some of the results in the 2002 midterm elections, especially in Georgia.) Fortune magazine rightly declared paperless voting the worst technology of 2003, but it's not just a bad technology — it's a threat to the republic.

First of all, the technology has simply failed in several recent elections. In a special election in Broward County, Fla., 134 voters were disenfranchised because the electronic voting machines showed no votes, and there was no way to determine those voters' intent. (The election was decided by only 12 votes.) In Fairfax County, Va., electronic machines crashed repeatedly and balked at registering votes. In the 2002 primary, machines in several Florida districts reported no votes for governor.

And how many failures weren't caught? Internal e-mail from Diebold, the most prominent maker of electronic voting machines (though not those in the Florida and Virginia debacles), reveals that programmers were frantic over the system's unreliability. One reads, "I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded." Another reads, "For a demonstration I suggest you fake it."

Computer experts say that software at Diebold and other manufacturers is full of security flaws, which would easily allow an insider to rig an election. But the people at voting machine companies wouldn't do that, would they? Let's ask Jeffrey Dean, a programmer who was senior vice president of a voting machine company, Global Election Systems, before Diebold acquired it in 2002. Bev Harris, author of "Black Box Voting" (www.blackboxvoting.com), told The A.P. that Mr. Dean, before taking that job, spent time in a Washington correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files.

Questionable programmers aside, even a cursory look at the behavior of the major voting machine companies reveals systematic flouting of the rules intended to ensure voting security. Software was modified without government oversight; machine components were replaced without being rechecked. And here's the crucial point: even if there are strong reasons to suspect that electronic machines miscounted votes, nothing can be done about it. There is no paper trail; there is nothing to recount.

So what should be done? Representative Rush Holt has introduced a bill calling for each machine to produce a paper record that the voter verifies. The paper record would then be secured for any future audit. The bill requires that such verified voting be ready in time for the 2004 election — and that districts that can't meet the deadline use paper ballots instead. And it also requires surprise audits in each state.

I can't see any possible objection to this bill. Ignore the inevitable charges of "conspiracy theory." (Although some conspiracies are real: as yesterday's Boston Globe reports, "Republican staff members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media.") To support verified voting, you don't personally have to believe that voting machine manufacturers have tampered or will tamper with elections. How can anyone object to measures that will place the vote above suspicion?

What about the expense? Let's put it this way: we're spending at least $150 billion to promote democracy in Iraq. That's about $1,500 for each vote cast in the 2000 election. How can we balk at spending a small fraction of that sum to secure the credibility of democracy at home?

Lawyer Says Cuba Detainees Face Unfair System
By NEIL A. LEWIS
International Herald Tribune via NYT
Published: January 22, 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 — The military lawyer assigned to defend an Australian, David Hicks, detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, said on Wednesday that the military commission system under which his client might soon be tried was inherently unfair and was explicitly created to improve the likelihood of convictions. The lawyer, Maj. Michael D. Mori, said, "Using the commission process just creates an unfair system that threatens to convict the innocent and provides the guilty a justifiable complaint as to their convictions."

Major Mori was one of five uniformed military lawyers assigned as defense counsel to Guantánamo detainees who filed a brief with the Supreme Court last week arguing that President Bush had overstepped his bounds as commander in chief by planning to prosecute prisoners in a system that does not allow for any appeal to civilian courts.

The administration says the detainees are illegal enemy combatants. Major Mori said: "The military commissions will not provide a full and fair trial. The commission process has been created and controlled by those with a vested interest only in convictions."

He said that one example of unfairness was that the individual with the authority to approve any charges was also detailed to rule on defense motions. "This rule alone demonstrates that the designers of the commissions intend to exercise central control of the process without interference by independent checks and balances," Major Mori said.

Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the office of military commissions, said in response that the military commissions were needed because they took into account battlefield conditions and were thus preferable to courts-martial. "Courts-martial, which are used to maintain order and discipline, do not make as much sense with acts committed on the battlefield," Major Smith said. "While the commission rules may be different in some respects, they are certainly very fair."

He said they provided for considerations like the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jan. 23, 2004
Sharon vows to stay in power until 2007
Jerusalem Post News
By GIL HOFFMAN

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon attempted to put an end to speculation that his resignation is imminent, telling the leaders of the Likud Youth organization on Thursday that he may even run for a third term in 2007. Sharon continued with his schedule in the face of businessman David Appel's indictment on charges of bribing Sharon, his son, Gilad, and Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Ehud Olmert.

"I am prime minister and head of the Likud – jobs I intend to keep for many years to come, until at least 2007," Sharon told Likud Youth at the party's Tel Aviv headquarters. "I have many missions that are not so simple and I intend to complete them." Channel 2 reported that Sharon intends to remain in office even if he is indicted on charges of accepting bribes from Appel. He would, in fact, not be required by law to resign if he is indicted, but Sharon's spokesman, Asi Shariv, denied that the prime minister has considered the matter.

The Justice Ministry will decide in the coming weeks whether to press charges against Sharon.
Channel 2 news reported Wednesday night that Acting Attorney-General Edna Arbel is in favor of indicting Sharon, and will recommend doing so in about two weeks' time. But in response to the report, the Justice Ministry said in a statement that no decisions had been made yet regarding Sharon. Justice Ministry officials said a final decision in the case will likely be made by the incoming attorney-general, Deputy Attorney-General Manny Mazoz, and not by Arbel alone. Mazoz is due to take up his position next week.

eWaste: In India
(c) 2004, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Visit MercuryNews.com, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at
http://www.mercurynews.com.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
By Karl Schoenberger
(KRT)

NEW DELHI, India � Atul Maheshwari has something to hide. He will not permit photographs inside the high-walled courtyard of his mud-brick factory, where a half-dozen workers scurry about dipping circuit boards in and out of blue plastic drums filled with acid, stripping the boards of their last remnants of copper and traces of silver.

None of the workers wears a mask to ward off noxious fumes, and only one has thin yellow gloves to protect his skin from the toxic brew. When the acid is depleted, the men dump it into the open sewer lining a rutted dirt side-road in the Mandoli industrial area, a collection of small, decaying factories in the northeastern corner of India's capital.

Maheshwari said he ignores city regulations and burns the bare plastic boards in the open air, just like the 10 rival scrap yards doing the same work in the area. He boasts of procuring his scrap from North America, South Africa and Hong Kong, which he processes along with computer waste generated throughout India. ''If your country keeps sending us the material, our business will be good,'' he said, speaking through an interpreter.

As India emerges as a technology powerhouse, poverty, cheap labor and rampant corruption make it a prime market for the dumping and burning of unregulated electronic waste, environmental activists say. And Maheshwari's business is a stark example of this growing global industry that begins as trash in Silicon Valley and throughout the developed world and ends in India, China, the Philippines and other developing countries.

Fed largely by the discards of U.S. consumers and businesses, this burgeoning traffic in hazardous electronic waste is attracting growing scrutiny because of the pollution it causes and the danger it poses to unskilled workers overseas. ''The small scrap yards and the back-alley recycling in Delhi are the tip of the iceberg,'' warned Ravigarwal, director of the non-profit watchdog Toxics Link Delhi. ''There's a framework to deal with industrial waste in India, but not for computer waste. It's so complicated because there are multiple components, with varying degrees of toxicity.
And the IT industry is a holy cow in this country. You can't touch it.''

The Indian government, however, maintains that e-waste is not brought into the country, pointing to the Indian Supreme Court's 1997 ban on e-waste imports. Officials also downplay the problem of recycling electronic trash produced at home. ''E-waste as such is not such a severe problem in our country, because the waste goes into a
secondary market. We are not dumping anything,'' said B. Sengupta, a senior official at the Environment Ministry's Pollution Control Board in New Delhi. ''Maybe there will be a problem in five years, but not now.''

Agarwal's group sees it differently. His group has investigated large-scale e-waste operations in the port cities of Chennai (formerly Madras) in Tamil Nadu to the south, and Ahmedabad in the northwestern state of Gujarat. Posing as domestic scrap buyers, they have learned from international brokers that despite the import ban, scrap dealers can easily fill shipping containers with e-waste and bring them ashore if they are identified as used computer parts.

Because of the underground nature of India's e-waste business, statistics are scarce. But Toxics Link Delhi cites reports indicating that perhaps 30 tons of computer waste is imported every month at Ahmedabad alone, much of it contaminated by toxic lead, mercury and cadmium.

What you see are migrant workers from rural areas, way down in the caste system, doing the dirty work, sleeping and working in the scrap yards,'' said Agarwal, whose group issued a report in February, ''Scrapping the High Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India.''

India's e-waste problem serves as a reminder that the United States � the world's largest consumer of electronic goods � is not party to an international accord that bans the shipment of hazardous electronic trash from wealthy countries to poor countries. An estimated 315 million computers will have become obsolete in the United States between 1997 and 2004, and that number is likely to grow at a fast clip, taxing domestic recycling capacity and
making exports the cheapest, easiest solution.

Toxics Link Delhi and other groups have fought a lonely crusade in South Asia. India's environmental priorities are focused on the basic problems of foul air, poor sanitation and unsafe drinking water. New Delhi authorities, for example, shut down polluting industries within the city limits and cleaned up the air dramatically in the past five years by forcing taxis and small commercial vehicles to switch from diesel fuel to liquid natural gas. But 70 percent of Indians still don't have latrines. Chemicals from factories and fertilizers from fields have added to the contamination of the water supply already soiled by untreated human waste. Junked computers might seem like a minor issue in a country that must deal with profound rural poverty and uncontrolled population growth.

E-waste recyclers in New Delhi have felt pressure to clean up their act, but the scale of the recycling is small and it's relatively easy to conceal from authorities. A plume of dark smoke led the Mercury News to a small brick compound in the Mandoli industrial area, not far from Maheshwari's acid-bath operation. Here, PVC-coated wires were being burned to salvage copper. Across the city, in the poor Muslim neighborhoods of Silampur and Turkmangate, workers hacked apart computers and cathode ray tubes by hand.

The Indian government is in denial about the problem of imported e-waste, Agarwal said. It is also neglecting to develop a policy to handle the inevitable flood of domestic scrap as computer consumption � and the trashing of obsolete PCs � rises along with the technological sophistication of India's growing middle class.

Sengupta, the environmental official, rejected the findings of Agarwal's group. ''I don't think it's true,'' he said. ''There was an investigation and we found that no e-waste was coming to this country. The report is not correct.''
He declined to comment on the wire-burning and the acid-bath treatment of circuit boards that the Mercury News observed in Mandoli.

Whether it's a problem for the authorities or not, the low-end trade in e-waste remains relatively lucrative in the underbelly of India's economy, where nearly 60 percent of adults are illiterate and 35 percent of the population lives on an income of less than $1 a day, according to the United Nations Development Program.

Medhi Hasan, who was plucking chips and transistors from some relatively ancient motherboards outside his tiny shop on a cramped alley in the Silampur neighborhood, is a former fruit seller who said he switched to e-waste recycling to improve his lot. He said he acquires his stock of computer scrap from local banks, companies and embassies. Hasan and his two employees recycle 200 to 300 computers a month, but he barely makes a
profit.

''I'm not worried about any toxins or hazardous waste,'' he said. ''I don't burn any wires and we use hammers to strip the circuit boards and stopped melting the lead solder over a stove.'' Maheshwari said he got into the business of e-waste recycling seven years ago when he saw how much money he could make. Dressed as a successful businessman in dress slacks and a spotless white shirt, he declined to say what he did for a living before this, or exactly how much money he makes in a month.

By the time the circuit boards reach his yard, they are already stripped of semiconductor chips � the secondhand components that can be found for resale in tiny three-worker shops around the city. Maheshwari said he does not make much profit unless he processes large volumes of scrap, which is why he is turning more and more directly to international brokers to get his supply by the container-load.

Maheshwari chafed at questions about his business. He then escorted the visiting journalists through the hatch door on the rusted steel gate of his scrap yard and stalked away. The Mandoli industrial zone adjoins a residential area, where barefoot children trudged home in brown school uniforms past a row of shops and an open-air restaurant on one side of the road and factories on the other side. Main Street was a dirt road cluttered by ox carts and pedicabs. One acid-bath worker from Maheshwari's yard, 25-year-old Raj Bhadur, sat on a stool eating a lunch of vegetable curry and fried bread.

Bhadur, a native of a farm village across the city border in Uttar Pradesh state, said he had been doing the e-waste work for three years, and that the pay is good compared to what he could make doing other kinds of labor. He earns about 3,000 rupees ($66) a month, working six days a weeks in eight-hour shifts. He has had no symptoms of respiratory problems or skin irritations, he said shyly, surrounded by co-workers. ''There's a lot of water at the yard to wash up with,'' he said. ''I'm not worried about health problems.''

Dr. Sunil Aggaridal, a respiratory-disease specialist at nearby Gurutegbahldar Hospital in the Dilshad Garden area, said he had not seen any indication of unusual respiratory problems in the local population. He said children are most vulnerable, but he had no information about the people living near the Mandoli industrial zone or the burning of e-waste there.

That afternoon, the air was thick with acrid smoke coming from a compound about 50 yards from the residential area. There, not far from Maheshwari's factory, another scrap broker was burning coils of copper and aluminum wire on charcoal blocks. The crude furnace burns off the last remnants of the polyvinyl chloride insulation, a process that environmentalists say releases toxic levels of dioxin into the air.

An angry manager wasted no time in kicking out journalists. Outside, he declined to explain what was happening inside the small open yard. Standing in the shade down the unpaved alleyway, however, Suphbal Singh, a 37-year-old truck driver, was more obliging. He had delivered the coils of wire to the compound and was waiting for the burning to be completed and the wires to cool so he could take the scrap to the next stage in the recycling processes.

Singh said wire and cable burning has been going on at this spot for about 20 years, unmolested by authorities.
''The people working inside those yards have health problems � lung problems,'' said Singh, who worked as a farmer in Uttar Pradesh until he bought his truck seven years ago. ''The burning is illegal but the police probably won't touch us, because the scrap dealer's association lobbies the government.''

But, with increasing pressure from city authorities to clean up pollution, the lobbying may not be strong enough to protect the most environmentally damaging practices. ''After the local election next year,'' Singh said, ''there's a possibility the government will shut this down.''
���

Text of President Bush's State of the Union speech
Jan. 20th, 2004

(Transcript of speech as provided by the White House.)

"Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them.

As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.

Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America.

Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world. The American economy is growing stronger. The tax relief you passed is working.

Tonight, Members of Congress can take pride in great works of compassion and reform that skeptics had thought impossible. You are raising the standards of our public schools; and you are giving our senior citizens prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

We have faced serious challenges together - and now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve - or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare - or we can turn back to the old policies and old divisions.

We have not come all this way - through tragedy, and trial, and war - only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same of us. In their efforts, their enterprise, and their character, the American people are showing that the state of our Union is confident and strong.

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 - over two years without an attack on American soil - and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting - and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombassa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.

Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the PATRIOT Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens - you need to renew the PATRIOT Act.

America is on the offensive against the terrorists who started this war. Last March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of September 11th, awoke to find himself in the custody of U.S. and Pakistani authorities. Last August 11th brought the capture of the terrorist Hambali, who was a key player in the attack in Indonesia that killed over 200 people. We are tracking al-Qaida around the world - and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed. Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are on a manhunt, going after the remaining killers who hide in cities and caves - and, one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice.

As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The United States and our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger.

The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al-Qaida killers. As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror - and America is honored to be their friend.

Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein - and the people of Iraq are free. Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows.

These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids every week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right. Last January, Iraq's only law was the whim of one brutal man. Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends - but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.

Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Different threats require different strategies. Along with nations in the region, we are insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program. America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitments and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes.

When I came to this rostrum on September 20th, 2001, I brought the police shield of a fallen officer, my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies. And this pledge, given by one, has been kept by many. You in the Congress have provided the resources for our defense, and cast the difficult votes of war and peace. Our closest allies have been unwavering. America's intelligence personnel and diplomats have been skilled and tireless.

And the men and women of the American military - they have taken the hardest duty. We have seen their skill and courage in armored charges, and midnight raids, and lonely hours on faithful watch. We have seen the joy when they return, and felt the sorrow when one is lost. I have had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific, to a mess hall in Baghdad. Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my Administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime - a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got.

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts - already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims - terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq - where hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children vanished into the sands - would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian - and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.

America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.

In these last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.

You have doubled the child tax credit from 500 to a thousand dollars, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise.

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have - and you were right to return it.

America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills. Much of our job growth will be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology. So we must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy.

All skills begin with the basics of reading and math, which are supposed to be learned in the early grades of our schools. Yet for too long, for too many children, those skills were never mastered. By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We are providing more funding for our schools - a 36 percent increase since 2001. We are requiring higher standards. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing. We are making progress toward excellence for every child.

But the status quo always has defenders. Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability. Yet the results we require are really a matter of common sense: We expect third graders to read and do math at third grade level - and that is not asking too much. Testing is the only way to identify and help students who are falling behind.

This Nation will not go back to the days of simply shuffling children along from grade to grade without them learning the basics. I refuse to give up on any child - and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children.

At the same time, we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now. Many of the fastest-growing occupations require strong math and science preparation, and training beyond the high school level. So tonight I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century. This program will provide extra help to middle- and high school students who fall behind in reading and math, expand Advanced Placement programs in low-income schools, and invite math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools. I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school. I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs. By all these actions, we will help more and more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our country.

Job training is important, and so is job creation. We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda.

Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged 300 dollars more in Federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What the Congress has given, the Congress should not take away: For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless Federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits. Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run - so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. My Administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, and to create jobs for America's workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than four percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy - because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary worker program will help protect our homeland - allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security. I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

Our Nation's health care system, like our economy, is also in a time of change. Amazing medical technologies are improving and saving lives. This dramatic progress has brought its own challenge, in the rising costs of medical care and health insurance. Members of Congress, we must work together to help control those costs and extend the benefits of modern medicine throughout our country.

Meeting these goals requires bipartisan effort - and two months ago, you showed the way. By strengthening Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit, you kept a basic commitment to our seniors: You are giving them the modern medicine they deserve.

Starting this year, under the law you passed, seniors can choose to receive a drug discount card, saving them 10 to 25 percent off the retail price of most prescription drugs - and millions of low-income seniors can get an additional 600 dollars to buy medicine. Beginning next year, seniors will have new coverage for preventive screenings against diabetes and heart disease, and seniors just entering Medicare can receive wellness exams.

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about 35 dollars, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best - just as you, as Members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses, in a health savings account.

I signed this measure proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto.

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs. To make insurance more affordable, Congress must act to address rapidly rising health care costs. Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance - I urge you to pass Association Health Plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance. By computerizing health records, we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care. To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

We are living in a time of great change - in our world, in our economy, and in science and medicine. Yet some things endure - courage and compassion, reverence and integrity, respect for differences of faith and race. The values we try to live by never change. And they are instilled in us by fundamental institutions, such as families, and schools, and religious congregations. These institutions - the unseen pillars of civilization - must remain strong in America, and we will defend them.

We must stand with our families to help them raise healthy, responsible children. And when it comes to helping children make right choices, there is work for all of us to do.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem, with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the past two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001. In my budget, I have proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I propose an additional 23 million dollars for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we don't want to lose you.

To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message - that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.

To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face - even when they are difficult to talk about. Each year, about three million teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Decisions children make now can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us - parents, schools, government - must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important - and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

It is also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country - mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or Star of David or crescent on the wall. By Executive Order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

In the past, we have worked together to bring mentors to the children of prisoners, and provide treatment for the addicted, and help for the homeless. Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help. This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, 300 million dollar Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. America is the land of the second chance - and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.

For all Americans, the last three years have brought tests we did not ask for, and achievements shared by all. By our actions, we have shown what kind of Nation we are. In grief, we found the grace to go on. In challenge, we rediscovered the courage and daring of a free people. In victory, we have shown the noble aims and good heart of America. And having come this far, we sense that we live in a time set apart.

I have been a witness to the character of the American people, who have shown calm in times of danger, compassion for one another, and toughness for the long haul. All of us have been partners in a great enterprise. And even some of the youngest understand that we are living in historic times. Last month a girl in Lincoln, Rhode Island, sent me a letter. It began, "Dear George W. Bush." "If there is anything you know, I Ashley Pearson age 10 can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country." She added this P.S.: "If you can send a letter to the troops ... please put, 'Ashley Pearson believes in you.'"

Tonight, Ashley, your message to our troops has just been conveyed. And yes, you have some duties yourself. Study hard in school, listen to your mom and dad, help someone in need, and when you and your friends see a man or woman in uniform, say "thank you." And while you do your part, all of us here in this great chamber will do our best to keep you and the rest of America safe and free.

My fellow citizens, we now move forward, with confidence and faith. Our Nation is strong and steadfast. The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable - and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power Who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

May God bless the United States of America. Thank you.

Iowa overturns conventional wisdom about politics
By Chuck Raasch, GNS Political Writer
DES MOINES — Iowa destroyed conventional wisdom.

In a frigid night of caucuses, Democratic activists revived the once-moribund campaign of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, exposed serious vulnerabilities in the still-formidable crusade of ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and served notice that Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is a newcomer worth deeper consideration in the eight states with primaries and caucuses over the next two weeks. And in the end, Iowans ended the long presidential dreams of Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

Unsure who Karl Rowe is, and how important he is to the Bush Administration? Check out Ron Suskind's Interview here.

And then the "apology" by John Dilulio

DiIulio Saga Highlights Primacy Placed on Secrecy
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 10, 2002; Page A27

"My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. I sincerely apologize and I am deeply remorseful."
-- Former Bush White House official John DiIulio last week after calling Bush political aides "Mayberry Machiavellis."

"I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my remarks may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat such a slander at any time in the future."
-- John Cleese, while being dangled from a window by Kevin Kline in the 1988 film "A Fish Called Wanda."

The apology issued last week by John DiIulio, which echoed White House press secretary Ari Fleischer's denunciation of his remarks as "baseless and groundless," is destined for the Pantheon of Famous Recantations. It sent the grassy-knoll crowd into a frenzy: Did Bush aides threaten DiIulio's employer, the University of Pennsylvania, with loss of federal funds? Did the Huntsman family, Bush friends and big Penn donors, threaten to cut off the school?

Writing in the Philadelphia Daily News yesterday, DiIulio offered a less sinister explanation. Acknowledging that his recantation was a "verbatim" replica of Fleischer's charge, DiIulio said his father taught him to apologize "on your knees, or not at all. In other words, whether completely culpable or not, and whether there are complicated mitigating if not exonerating motivations and circumstances or not, you do not express honest, heartfelt remorse for wrong by quibbling over how the wronged person or persons characterize it."

The irony of DiIulio's recantation is he wound up rewarding an information control system he decried in his now-infamous e-mail to an Esquire magazine writer. "Bush staff, not just senior political adviser Karl Rove, came from Texas tightly knit and hyper-determined to protect the president and prevent the types of internal policy debates that beget bad press," he wrote in the e-mail. "They staffed and organized themselves accordingly, thereby limiting leaks -- but also eliminating efforts to devise social welfare initiatives in accordance with the president's compassion vision."

These are heady times for Rove and the political aides who have been quite successful at limiting scrutiny of White House operations. Yesterday, the administration scored a huge victory when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the congressional General Accounting Office to see which outside groups met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force. And public access to White House information was hobbled Friday when a federal appeals court blocked a public release of energy task force documents ordered by a lower court.

The administration has been making other decisions that limit the release of information. Late last month, the American Educational Research Association and a dozen other groups complained that the Bush Education Department called for removal from its Web site of information that "does not reflect the priorities, philosophies, or goals of the present administration."

The complaint was similar to one from Democratic lawmakers who wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson in October complaining that government Web sites removed fact sheets about the effectiveness of condoms and sex education programs.

The latest flap came last week, after the Justice Department warned that new grants to "first responders" to terrorist attacks would be delayed. The day that newspaper reports appeared, the letter announcing the delays disappeared from the agency's Web site. The link to the letter was restored after Democrats protested. Justice said it was a technological glitch.

President Bush's dismissal of top economic adviser Larry Lindsey came after the president complained privately about the full-figured aide's insufficient exercise. Newsweek this week reported that Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice share a "mutual fondness for working out." The administration has also seen the untimely departure of two other men of girth, DiIulio and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt. Is this a trend?

An administration official mused yesterday that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham may start limiting his visits to Wendy's.

Bush has yet to issue a presidential pardon, a White House spokeswoman confirmed yesterday. That puts him in the company of James Garfield and William Henry Harrison at the bottom of the University of Pittsburgh's tally of presidential clemency. Franklin Roosevelt tops the list at 3,687, while Bill Clinton pardoned 456; George H.W. Bush, 77; and Ronald Reagan, 406. But the current president is not without mercy: He has already pardoned two Thanksgiving turkeys.

Church-state proposal snubs history
Atlanta Journal Constitution
by Jay Bookman
Jan. 20, 2004

In a debate last week, state Sen. Tommie Williams suggested that separation of church and state was little more than a Communist plot. The only constitution in the history of the world that even mentions a separation of church and state was that of the Soviet Union, Williams claimed.

That's very, very wrong.

In fact, proof of Williams' error lay almost literally beneath his nose. At the time, he was speaking in favor of gutting Article 1, Section II, Paragraph VII of the Georgia Constitution. That paragraph reads, in its entirety:

"Separation of church and state: No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution." That language was adopted by the people of Georgia in 1877, more than 40 years before the founding of the Soviet Union.

The effort to gut that restriction is part of a larger movement by Republicans to strip such guarantees from state constitutions all across the country. The eventual goal is to let conservative Christian groups tap into taxpayer money, giving them enormous resources to help spread their faith. In many cases, that crusade has followed an approved script, in which state guarantees of religious liberty are attacked as so-called "Blaine amendments."

Blaine amendments do indeed have a vile history -- they were added to many state constitutions in the 19th century as part of a vicious anti-Catholic movement and were intended to prevent the flow of tax money to Catholic parochial schools. Here in Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue is now citing that history of bigotry to insist that Georgia's religious-liberty language be rendered invalid.

But Georgia's provision is not a Blaine amendment. The language in our constitution actually has an honorable heritage and ought to be protected, not tossed aside.

Again, the evidence is strong. Paragraph VII was not added to our constitution as an amendment; it was simply part of a completely new state constitution. Unlike true Blaine amendments, Georgia's provision makes no mention of public schools and in fact reads nothing like actual Blaine amendments. Most importantly, language creating a wall between church and state can be found in Georgia constitutions that date all the way back to 1777, long before the Blaine movement. In the state's very first constitution, in Article LVI, our founding fathers thought it important to bar the use of tax money to support ministers, which until then had been common practice. Baptists in particular had insisted on that provision, because they believed that faith ought to be a matter between a person and God, with no role for government.

In fact, in state constitutions adopted after 1777, Georgia Baptists used their political power to strengthen the wall between church and state. The constitution of 1798 stated that no Georgia residents shall "ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry."

Even the phrase "separation of church and state" has a Baptist heritage. A group of Baptists from Danbury, Conn., had complained to President Thomas Jefferson that Connecticut was giving their tax money to government-favored churches. Jefferson responded in 1802 with a letter describing the wall between church and state that the First Amendment had tried to erect.

Amazingly, Perdue, Williams and others now trying to tear down the wall separating church from state are Baptists, the spiritual descendants of those who insisted that the wall be erected in the first place. Afraid of the power of government when it was held in the hands of others, they now find the resources of government so seductive that they cannot resist seizing them for their own.

Well, if they want to repudiate their religious birthright, that's their business. But there's no reason the rest of us have to go along with it.

Israeli land grab undercuts U.S. policy in Arab world
Thomas Friedman - Contributor
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Sunday, January 18, 2004

Let's not mince words. American policy today toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is insane.

Can anyone look at what is happening --- Palestinians, gripped by collective madness, committing suicide, and Israelis, under a leadership completely adrift, building more settlements so fanatical Jews can live in the heart of Palestinian-populated areas --- and not conclude that these two nations are locked in an utterly self-destructive vicious cycle that threatens Israel's long-term viability, poisons America's image in the Middle East, undermines any hope for a Palestinian state and weakens pro-American Arab moderates. No, you can't draw any other conclusion.

Yet the Bush team, backed by certain conservative Jewish and Christian activist groups, believes the correct policy is to do nothing. Well, that is my definition of insane.

Israel must get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as soon as possible and evacuate most of the settlements. I have long advocated this, but it is now an urgent necessity. Otherwise, the Jewish state is in peril. Ideally, this withdrawal should be negotiated along the Clinton plan. But if necessary, it should be done unilaterally. This can't happen too soon, and the United States should be forcing it.

Why? First, because the Arab-Muslim world, which for so long has been on vacation from globalization, modernization and liberalization, is realizing that vacation is over. There is not enough oil wealth anymore to cushion or employ the huge population growth in the region. Every Arab country will have to make a wrenching adjustment. Israel needs to get out of the way and reduce its nodes of friction with the Muslim world as it goes through this unstable and at times humiliating catch-up.

Second, three dangerous trends are converging around Israel. One is a massive population explosion across the Arab world. The second is the worst interpersonal violence ever between Israelis and Palestinians.

And the third is an explosion of Arab multimedia --- from al-Jazeera to the Internet. What's happening is that this Arab media explosion is feeding the images of this Israeli-Palestinian violence to this Arab population explosion --- radicalizing it and melding in the heads of young Arabs and Muslims the notion that the biggest threat to their future is JIA --- ''Jews, Israel and America.''

Israel's withdrawal is not a cure-all for this. Israel will still be despised. But if it withdraws to an internationally recognized border, it will have the moral high ground, the strategic high ground and the demographic high ground to protect itself. After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the Hezbollah militia, on the other side, went on hating Israel and harassing the border --- but it never tried to launch an invasion. Why? Hezbollah knew it would have no legitimacy --- in the world or in Lebanon --- for breaching that U.N.-approved border. And if it tried, Israel would be able to use its full military weight to retaliate. Demographically speaking, if Israel does not relinquish the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians will soon outnumber the Jews and Israel will become either an apartheid state or a non-Jewish state.

Moreover, an Israeli withdrawal will strip the worst Arab leaders of an excuse not to reform, it will create more space for the best Arab leaders to move forward, and it will give Palestinians something to protect.

In sum, Israel should withdraw from the territories, not because it is weak, but because it must remain strong; not because Israel is wrong, but because Zionism is a just cause that the occupation is undermining; not because the Arabs would warmly embrace a smaller Israel, but because a smaller Israel, in internationally recognized boundaries, will be much more defensible; not because it will eliminate Islamic or European anti-Semitism, but because it will reduce it by reducing the daily friction; not because it would mean giving into an American whim, but because nothing would strengthen America's influence in the Muslim world, help win the war of ideas and therefore better protect Israel than this.

The Bush team rightly speaks of bringing justice to Iraq. It rightly denounces Palestinian suicide madness. But it says nothing about the injustice of Israel's land grab in the West Bank. The Bush team destroyed the Iraqi regime in three weeks and has not persuaded Israel to give up one settlement in three years. To think America can practice that sort of hypocrisy and win the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world is a truly dangerous fantasy.

Thomas Friedman is a New York Times columnist. His column appears Sundays and Thursdays.

Going for Broke
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 20, 2004

According to advance reports, George Bush will use tonight's State of the Union speech to portray himself as a visionary leader who stands above the political fray. But that act is losing its effectiveness. Mr. Bush's relentless partisanship has depleted much of the immense good will he enjoyed after 9/11. He is still adored by his base, but he is deeply distrusted by much of the nation.

Mr. Bush may not understand this; indeed, he still seems to think that he's another Lincoln or F.D.R. "No president has done more for human rights than I have," he told Ken Auletta.

But his political handlers seem to have decided on a go-for-broke strategy: confuse the middle one last time, energize the base and grab enough power that the consequences don't matter.

What do I mean by confusing the middle? The striking thing about the "visionary" proposals floated in advance of the State of the Union is their transparent cynicism and lack of realism. Mr. Bush has, of course, literally promised us the Moon — and Mars, too. And the ever-deferential media have managed to keep a straight face.

But that's just the most dramatic example of an array of policy proposals that don't withstand even minimal scrutiny. Mr. Bush has already pushed through an expensive new Medicare benefit — without any visible source of financing. Reports say that tonight he'll propose additional, and even more expensive, new initiatives, like partial Social Security privatization — which all by itself would require at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the next decade. Where is all this money going to come from?

Judging from the latest CBS/New York Times Poll, these promises of something for nothing aren't likely to convince many people. It's not just that the bounce from Saddam's capture has already gone away. Unfavorable views of Mr. Bush as a person have reached record levels for his presidency. It seems fair to say that many Americans, like most of the rest of the world, simply don't trust him anymore.

But some Americans will respond to upbeat messages, no matter how unrealistic. And that may be enough for Mr. Bush, because while he poses as someone above the fray, he is continuing to solidify his base.

The most sinister example was the recess appointment of Charles Pickering Sr., with his segregationist past and questionable record on voting rights, to the federal appeals court — the day after Martin Luther King's actual birthday. Was this careless timing? Don't be silly: it was a deliberate, if subtle, gesture of sympathy with a part of the Republican coalition that never gets mentioned in public.

A less objectionable but equally calculated gesture will be Mr. Bush's demand that his tax cuts be made permanent. Realistically, this can't make any difference to the economy now, and it makes no sense, given the array of new spending plans he will simultaneously unveil. But it's a signal to the base that any seeming moderation needn't be taken seriously, and that the administration's hard-right turn will continue.

Meanwhile, the lying has already begun, with the Republican National Committee's willful misrepresentation of Wesley Clark's prewar statements. (Why are news organizations letting them get away with this?)

The question we should ask is, Where is all this leading?

Some cynical pundits think that Mr. Bush's advisers plan to leave the hard work of dealing with the mess he's made to future presidents. But I don't think that's right. I can't see how the budget can continue along its current path through a second Bush term — financial markets won't stand for it.

And what about the growing military crisis? The mess in Iraq has placed our volunteer military, a magnificent but fragile institution, under immense strain. National Guard and Reserve members find themselves effectively drafted as full-time soldiers. More than 40,000 soldiers whose enlistment terms have expired have been kept from leaving under "stop loss" orders. This can't go on for four more years.

Karl Rove and other insiders must know all this. So they must figure that once they have won the election, they will have such a complete lock on power that they can break many of their promises with impunity.

What will they do with that lock on power? Their election strategy — confuse the middle, but feed the base — suggests the answer.

Don't Buy Me Wal-Mart for the Holidays

Note: An online petition to address Wal-Mart's business practices. Now if we could just get the authors of the petition to clean up their grammar.
"I pledge not to shop at Wal-Mart. And I promise to tell all my friends, "Don't buy me Wal-Mart for the holidays!""

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Strategic Studies Institute/U.S. Army War College
Dr. Jeffrey Record
December 2003

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.

The Awful Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: January 13, 2004

People are saying terrible things about George Bush. They say that his officials weren't sincere about pledges to balance the budget. They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11, that there was never any good evidence that Iraq was a threat and that the war actually undermined the fight against terrorism.

But these irrational Bush haters are body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks who should go back where they came from: the executive offices of Alcoa, and the halls of the Army War College.

I was one of the few commentators who didn't celebrate Paul O'Neill's appointment as Treasury secretary. And I couldn't understand why, if Mr. O'Neill was the principled man his friends described, he didn't resign early from an administration that was clearly anything but honest.

But now he's showing the courage I missed back then, by giving us an invaluable, scathing insider's picture of the Bush administration.

Ron Suskind's new book "The Price of Loyalty" is based largely on interviews with and materials supplied by Mr. O'Neill. It portrays an administration in which political considerations — satisfying "the base" — trump policy analysis on every issue, from tax cuts to international trade policy and global warming. The money quote may be Dick Cheney's blithe declaration that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." But there are many other revelations.

One is that Mr. O'Neill and Alan Greenspan knew that it was a mistake to lock in huge tax cuts based on questionable projections of future surpluses. In May 2001 Mr. Greenspan gloomily told Mr. O'Neill that because the first Bush tax cut didn't include triggers — it went forward regardless of how the budget turned out — it was "irresponsible fiscal policy." This was a time when critics of the tax cut were ridiculed for saying exactly the same thing.

Another is that Mr. Bush, who declared in the 2000 campaign that "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum," knew that this wasn't true. He worried that eliminating taxes on dividends would benefit only "top-rate people," asking his advisers, "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?"

Most startling of all, Donald Rumsfeld pushed the idea of regime change in Iraq as a way to transform the Middle East at a National Security Council meeting in February 2001.

There's much more in Mr. Suskind's book. All of it will dismay those who still want to believe that our leaders are wise and good. The question is whether this book will open the eyes of those who think that anyone who criticizes the tax cuts is a wild-eyed leftist, and that anyone who says the administration hyped the threat from Iraq is a conspiracy theorist.

The point is that the credentials of the critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?

So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts. They have, however, already opened an investigation into how a picture of a possibly classified document appeared during Mr. O'Neill's TV interview. This alacrity stands in sharp contrast with their evident lack of concern when a senior administration official, still unknown, blew the cover of a C.I.A. operative because her husband had revealed some politically inconvenient facts.

Some will say that none of this matters because Saddam is in custody, and the economy is growing. Even in the short run, however, these successes may not be all they're cracked up to be. More Americans were killed and wounded in the four weeks after Saddam's capture than in the four weeks before. The drop in the unemployment rate since its peak last summer doesn't reflect a greater availability of jobs, but rather a decline in the share of the population that is even looking for work.

More important, having a few months of good news doesn't excuse a consistent pattern of dishonest, irresponsible leadership. And that pattern keeps getting harder to deny.

Draft may be needed to rein in all-powerful military
Separate society squelches debate on national policy
By Diane H. Mazur
Chicago Tribune: Dec. 28th, 2003

Diane H. Mazur is a professor of law at the University of Florida and a former aircraft and munitions maintenance officer in the Air Force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we lost the draft a generation ago, we lost a lot. We lost the ability to have a meaningful discussion about anything that involves the military. The Pentagon has begun significant call-ups for the next major rotation of troops in Iraq, but it has no realistic plan for covering our military and domestic security commitments without exhausting our reserve forces.

Yet we give no serious attention to a bill introduced almost a year ago by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to reactivate the draft. Any suggestion to reconsider the military status quo is met with a charge of not "supporting the troops." The military has become the new third rail of politics, scaring off anyone who dares to have an original thought about our armed forces.

Even Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a former Army general, tiptoed around the military when he proposed a new national reserve corps. His volunteers, he assured us, would be civilians, second-class defenders, even those assigned overseas.

How did this happen?

The Supreme Court is largely to blame for the decline in our civil-military relations. In 1974, a year after the draft was ended, the court discarded a legal tradition going back to the Civil War by which the military was expected to share the same constitutional values as the rest of us.

Of course, the Supreme Court didn't end the draft--Congress did. But the court took advantage of the draft's end to play games with civil-military relations, making changes it couldn't have gotten away with had the draft remained in place.

In a series of cases from 1974 to 1986, Parker vs. Levy, Rostker vs. Goldberg and Goldman vs. Weinberger, now-Chief Justice William Rehnquist designed a new legal doctrine requiring courts to defer to executive or congressional choices on military matters.

Military decisions no longer needed to be justified, or even explained, Rehnquist ruled, because the military was "a society apart" from America. The military was better than America, so it was exempt from the constitutional strictures that limit abuses of power in every other part of government.

Constitutional immunity is a dangerous intoxicant, particularly in a time of heated, partisan disagreement over how the Constitution should be interpreted. That intoxicant is particularly powerful when it gives the government an opening to disregard constitutional values of equality.

Rostker vs. Goldberg, for example, upheld Congress' power to bar women from even registering for a future draft, although all young men are required to register. In any other context, the court would have demanded that Congress justify why the registration of women would have hurt military effectiveness.

Under the new doctrine of deference on military issues, however, Congress got a free pass. It was allowed to exclude women just because it believed that the military was not the proper place for them.

Goldman vs. Weinberger was much the same. In that case, an Air Force psychologist who also was an Orthodox Jew was punished for wearing a yarmulke indoors while in uniform. Just as Congress did not have to give equal respect and dignity to women in military matters, the military did not have to give equal respect and dignity to members of minority religions.

The 1st Amendment normally would require the government to give a good reason why Capt. S. Simcha Goldman's yarmulke interfered with military effectiveness. Instead, the deference doctrine allowed the military to ignore the Constitution and assert, without evidence, that it was a big problem if Air Force personnel did not all look the same. (This from a military that permits more different kinds of "uniform" headgear than one can count.)

There is absolutely no basis in the Constitution for the idea that the military is a constitutionally separate society. But the Supreme Court drove the military in that direction and caused lasting damage. Together with the demise of the draft, which ended the natural exchange of experience between the military and civilian worlds, the court's rulings increased the distance between civilians and military people. The military increasingly viewed itself as separate, distant, morally superior and exempt from constitutional expectations of equality.

That separatist mind-set changed the mix of those who joined the military. Without the leavening effect of the draft, we lost an ideologically and politically diverse military. It was no coincidence that the all-volunteer era saw the military discard its traditional professional ethic of political neutrality, openly aligning with the Republican Party.

Conveniently, policy positions taken by the GOP dovetailed neatly with a military that was allowed to operate outside the Constitution. Congress openly relied on the military's constitutional immunity in 1993 when it enacted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which allowed the armed forces to continue keeping openly gay citizens from serving in our defense.

Just after the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court wrote in Greer vs. Spock that civilian control of the military could not be strong unless the military avoided "both the reality and the appearance of acting as a handmaiden for partisan political causes." (No one seemed to remember that admonition during the 2000 presidential campaign and its absentee-ballot aftermath.)

The court once understood that civil-military relations suffer when the military ties its fortunes to political and ideological partisanship. It no longer understands that.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about how much our military has changed? Or about how weak our civil-military relations have become, preventing honest discussion of matters important to the military and to national security? It is because, with the help of the Supreme Court, we have come to view military concerns as being, for most of us, none of our business.

When military service no longer is seen as a shared obligation, civilian America is reluctant, and maybe a little embarrassed, to offer a voice on matters of military concern. We need to talk about how we choose who serves in our military and who carries the obligation for our shared defense.

When we lost the draft, we lost the strong sense of civilian control of the military that came from citizens who had the knowledge and the willingness to engage in serious debate on military issues. We admire the military more than any other public institution, but our admiration is an empty patriotism.

A true constitutional patriotism is found in a civilian society that has a connection with military service strong enough to enable its citizens to contribute to the constitutional responsibility of civilian control.

We need to return to a time in which all parts of society--liberal and conservative, privileged and unprivileged--feel they have a voice in how our military is built and how it is used. Civilian control of the military is weak when political partisanship interferes with that discussion.

We will never achieve the patriotism conceived by our Constitution with an all-volunteer force alienated from civilian society, especially when the military is the only part of America asked to sacrifice in its defense.

This op-ed appeared in The Chicago Tribune Dec. 28. A shorter version also appeared in New York Newsday Jan. 2. The piece also ran in The Detroit News on Jan. 6 and The Stars & Stripes on Jan. 7.

From Greenleap Online
Jan. 12, 2004

Scientists Find Water Produces Raw Electricity...

This week researchers at the University of Alberta, Canada reported the discovery of a clean way to generate electricity. The new process works on the fact that energy is created when a flowing liquid meets a solid surface. Scientists involved were able to power a small light bulb by squeezing a syringe of tap water through a glass tube fitted with microscopic-sized holes. As the water passed through the tiny holes of the glass tube, it became both positively and negatively charged. By harnessing those distinct charges, the scientists were then able to refine the energy into electricity. If tested further and proven practical, the new method of "clean" electrical generation could eventually be used in place of batteries that power such devices as mobile phones, cars and just about anything else.

From: Resource Recycling Magazine
Jan. 2004

E-scrap metal prices at high levels
"Rising demand, low supplies and a weak dollar have combined to push up the prices of the base and precious metals found in obsolete electronics. Ferrous scrap prices are at record levels, gold prices have moved to a 14-year high, silver prices are at a five-year best and copper prices have risen to a six-and-one-half-year record."

Note: Yet as a recycler of E-scrap ourselves, our processing costs are almost doubling every year. Currently our fixed cost to recycle/reprocess a standard Monitor is: $5.15, a CPU/box is $1.47, Rack Mount Servers are $0.39, and a Printer is $2.11 And while Gold is at a 14 year high, the amount of gold in a standard PC is less than 1/10th what it was fifteen years ago, and much harder to extract.

How Efficiently Does Your Favorite Charity Spend The Money it Receives from Donors? The triannual Charity Rating Guide included in the Charity Watchdog Report, informs donors about how approximately 500 national charities spend your money and keeps donors up to date on current issues related to charitable giving.

More informed giving brings the satisfaction of increasing the dollars nonprofits spend on bona-fide charitable programs and services.

A sample copy of the Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report is available to those who have not already received one. Please send a check for $3.00 (to cover postage and handling), payable to the American Institute of Philanthropy, to:

American Institute of Philanthropy
3450 North Lake Shore Drive
Suite 2802E
P.O. Box 578460
Chicago, IL 60657

Chief Justice Attacks a Law as Infringing on Judges
NY Times
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: January 1, 2004

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist criticized Congress in unusually pointed terms on Wednesday for a recent law that places federal judges under special scrutiny for sentences that fall short of those called for by the federal sentencing guidelines.