Saturday, July 31, 2004

Abbott & Costello Routine

If you're too young to have heard the famous Abbott and Costello "Who's on First" routine, then you've missed a good one. This is a substitute applied to computers.
<------------------------------------->
COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT . . . .


ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?

COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking
about buying a computer.

ABBOTT: Mac?

COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.

ABBOTT: Your computer?

COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.

ABBOTT: Mac?

COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.

ABBOTT: What about Windows?

COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?

ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?

COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look in the windows?

ABBOTT: Wallpaper.

COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.

ABBOTT: Software for Windows?

COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write
proposals, track expenses and run my business. What have you got?

ABBOTT: Office.

COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?

ABBOTT: I just did.

COSTELLO: You just did what?

ABBOTT: Recommend something.

COSTELLO: You recommended something?

ABBOTT: Yes.

COSTELLO: For my office?

ABBOTT: Yes.

COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?

ABBOTT: Office.

COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!

ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.

COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, lets just say I'm
sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?

ABBOTT: Word.

COSTELLO: What word?

ABBOTT: Word in Office.

COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.

ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?

ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W".

COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with
some straight answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet?

ABBOTT: Yes, you want Real One.

COSTELLO: Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of
your business. Just tell me what I need!

ABBOTT: Real One.

COSTELLO: If it's a long movie I also want to see reel 2, 3 & 4. Can I
watch them?

ABBOTT: Of course.

COSTELLO: Great! With what?

ABBOTT: Real One.

COSTELLO: OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie. What do
I do?

ABBOTT: You click the blue "1".

COSTELLO: I click the blue one what?

ABBOTT: The blue "1".

COSTELLO: Is that different from the blue w?

ABBOTT: The blue "1" is Real One and the blue "W" is Word.

COSTELLO: What word?

ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"!

ABBOTT: No, just one. But it's the most popular Word in the world.

COSTELLO: It is?

ABBOTT: Yes, but to be fair, there aren't many other Words left. It
pretty much wiped out all the other Words out there.

COSTELLO: And that word is real one?

ABBOTT: Real One has nothing to do with Word. Real One isn't even part
of Office.

COSTELLO: STOP! Don't start that again. What about financial
bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?

ABBOTT: Money.

COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?

ABBOTT: Money.

COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?

ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.

COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?

ABBOTT: Money.

COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?

ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.

COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?

ABBOTT: One copy.

COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?

ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy money.

COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?

ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

A FEW DAYS LATER .

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?

COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?

ABBOTT: Click on "START"...

Consumer spending - which counts for roughly two-thirds of economic output - caused virtually all of the slowdown in the second quarter.

Economy Slowed in 2nd Quarter, U.S. Report Says
NY Times
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: July 31, 2004

The pace of economic growth slowed abruptly in the second quarter of the year as consumers forced to pay higher energy bills curbed their spending on just about everything else, the government reported yesterday.

The Commerce Department estimated that the nation's gross domestic product - the broadest measure of economic activity - expanded at an annual rate of 3 percent in the April-to-June quarter, sharply below the 4.5 percent growth achieved in the first quarter of the year and less than the expectations of Wall Street analysts.

Many economists, mostly blaming the surge in energy prices for the slowdown, still expect growth to pick up in the second half of the year. But the downshift heightened broader concerns about whether American consumers - no longer enjoying big windfalls from tax cuts and mortgage refinancing - can continue to push the economy forward as strongly as in the past.

"The message is that growth in the second half should do better,'' said Nigel Gault, United States economist at Global Insight, a research firm. "But the consumer can't carry the burden of supporting growth'' alone much longer.

The slowdown was a setback to efforts by President Bush to point to solid growth as a validation of his administration's economic policies, and played into the hands of his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, who has criticized the White House's economic approach.

In a speech at a campaign stop in Springfield, Mo., Mr. Bush did not mention the latest snapshot of the nation's economic performance. Instead, he urged support for his policies by stressing that the economy has grown relatively briskly for about a year, adding more than 1.5 million jobs since last August.

"We have more to do to make America's economy stronger,'' Mr. Bush said.

Treasury Secretary John Snow portrayed the gross domestic product report as evidence of "an economy growing at a steady pace."

By contrast, Jason Furman, an economic adviser in Senator Kerry's campaign, said that the slowdown in growth "makes it harder for them to make the argument that Bush's economic strategy is working.''

Mr. Furman added that the latest evidence "rebuts their argument that the economy is getting better and better."

The stock market barely reacted to the new statistics, but long-term interest rates fell and bond prices rose markedly, as slower growth indicated to investors that the Federal Reserve was less likely to push up its benchmark interest rate in an aggressive fashion.

Beyond the political positioning, the data painted a mixed scenario. Changes in consumer spending - which counts for roughly two-thirds of economic output - caused virtually all of the deceleration in the second quarter.

Personal consumption spending slowed to a 1 percent annual growth rate, the most sluggish pace since the second quarter of 2001, when the economy was in the midst of a recession, down from a rate of 4.1 percent in the first three months of the year. Sales of durable goods - things like cars, furniture and appliances - actually fell slightly.

"The consumer is overextended," said Charles Dumas, chief international economist at Lombard Street Research in London.

Other parts of the economy, however, fared much better. Residential construction continued at a sizzling pace, growing by 10 percent compared with the first quarter of the year as still-low interest rates continued to fuel the housing market.

Companies also stepped up their investment in new equipment, with business spending growing by 8.9 percent - almost double the rate of the previous quarter. They built up inventories by a small amount in anticipation of a renewal of healthier consumer spending. Exports also grew at a much faster pace, benefiting from a weaker dollar.

These sources of growth were insufficient, however, to make up for the slowing pace of consumer purchases.

Some businesses still focused on reducing bloated stocks from past periods of disappointing sales. "We haven't won the battle with inventories yet," said George Pippis, sales analysis manager at Ford Motor. Indeed, the diminished output of motor vehicles alone subtracted a full percent of growth from the quarterly expansion.

The government contribution to the economy waned, too, constrained by a budget deficit that is now predicted to reach $445 billion by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. Federal spending slowed to a 2.7 percent growth rate from 7.1 percent in the preceding three months.

The economic data did provide a mild dose of good news for President Bush. In part because an earlier revision of initial estimates found that the economy shrank slightly in the third quarter of 2000, administration officials have argued that Mr. Bush inherited the recession (officially dated from March to November 2001) from his predecessor, President Clinton.

Now, according to fresh revisions presented yesterday by the Commerce Department, the downturn of 2001 looks even spottier and lighter then previously estimated, with gross domestic product contracting by 0.2 percent in the first three quarters of 2001, instead of 0.7 percent.

Yet even as the downturn was milder than first reported, so the recovery was weaker. The average annual rate of gross domestic product growth from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2004 remained unchanged at 2.5 percent.

For the economic expansion to return to brisker growth, businesses will need to pick up the baton from consumers - investing more in capital equipment and adding more jobs so that income growth from wages and salaries can in turn refuel spending.

Job growth, however, took a dip in June, expanding by barely 112,000, less than necessary to absorb the natural growth of the labor force. Wages, adjusted for inflation, declined and the average number of hours in the work week fell.

"The negative factors are building up," Mr. Dumas said. "I don't think this is the start of the big consumer pullback yet," he said. "But the underlying force is that consumer spending growth will slow."

Vatican Says Modern Feminism Dangerous for Family

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Modern feminism's fight for power and gender equality is undermining the traditional concept of family and creating a climate where gay marriages are seen as acceptable, the Vatican said Saturday.

Note: Meanwhile, in most of the Islamic world, as in Brazil, the so-called "honor killings" of women is considered by their menfolk as a legitimate exercise of their power over "wayward women". BS !! to both of these concepts. Maybe if it became legal for women to also practice "honor killings" of their mates and related males for marital infidelity or other breaches of "wayward men" I'd go along with it. What's the chance of that happening??

Friday, July 30, 2004

Yes...He Closed the Deal !!

The question during the past week has been: 'can John Kerry close the deal with the American public', and after watching Mr. Kerry's address to the DNC on Thursday evening, one can only affirm, that yes indeed, he did close the deal with the electorate. And not only with the Democrats who were predisposed toward him in the beginning of the convention.

He has made the Republicans job of countering his appeal infinitely more difficult. Attack ads will not have the same strength as those that worked against Michael Dukakis. President Bush will have a much harder time painting Kerry as an 'out of touch New England liberal' who is soft on defense and against traditional family values. Kerry's extended family closed that attack avenue by themselves, aided by THK and Chris Heinz Kerry on Wednesday, and the Kerry girls on Thursday.

Generals Clark and Shalikashvili, and the 'Band of Brothers' made the case for Kerry being qualified to become Commander in Chief, so that avenue is also not a fruitful attack lane for the Republicans.

With the pending military tribunals to begin at Guantanamo shortly, and the well know push to apprehend high impact Al Queda subjects Pres. Bush will be on the defensive for the next couple of weeks. When the Republican convention begins in New York in three weeks, the polls might finally show a significant migration toward the Kerry-Edwards camp.

Nancy Pelosi's wishful thinking aside, and even with the apprehension of Osama in hand, by November, Pres. Bush could very easily be a double-digit underdog in the polls.

Like any good military mind, the Democrats en masse, have attempted to cut off the lines of both attack, and retreat for the Republicans. The job of projecting accomplishment in Bush's stewardship while not impossible, has none the less become a formidable challenge. There will simply not be a cakewalk to the Presidential election for Mr. Bush, nor for Mr. Kerry.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Doctors Without Borders Pulls Out of Afghanistan

MSF pulls out of Afghanistan
By IRIN News.org
Special to The Daily Star

ANKARA: The Belgium-based Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) announced on Wednesday that it was withdrawing from Afghanistan after 24 years of independent humanitarian work following the government's failure to mount an adequate investigation into the killing of five MSF workers in June.

"The framework for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan is no longer possible," Marine Buissonnière, MSF secretary-general, told IRIN from the Afghan capital Kabul, explaining that the organisation had already started pulling out of the country and would finish leaving by the end of August.

The international organisation decided to withdraw after the Afghan government "failed to conduct a credible investigation" following the killing of five MSF aid workers in an attack on 2 June in the northwestern province of Badghis.

"There has been a very unsatisfactory follow up, what we consider a failure of its responsibility and an inadequate commitment to the safety of aid workers," Buissonnière asserted, explaining that this was the main reason why MSF decided to pull out.

"Even though some local commanders have been identified [as suspects] they have not been detained," she said.

"We have an outstanding call for murder over our heads," Buissonnière said, explaining that the Taliban threat had contributed to the NGO's decision. "Aid workers can't be targeted," she stressed, noting that a Taliban spokesperson had claimed responsibility for the killing of the aid workers, arguing that organisations such as MSF were working for American interests.

According to MSF, this situation had arisen in a context in which the US-led forces had constantly used humanitarian actions for their own military and political purposes which meant that providing aid was no longer seen as impartial or neutral.

"Our security was based on the negotiations we made with the local parties to accept us. And they did because MSF has been seen as neutral, independent and impartial. But this is no longer the case," the MSF secretary-general said, noting that they had been "clearly rejected" by some of the insurgent groups.

The MSF official asserted that if they saw a clear willingness by the government to prosecute those behind the killings and if the Taliban would "somehow withdraw" the threat against the health NGO, they then would reconsider their decision. "At this stage the conditions are not there," she said.

MSF has been working in Afghanistan since 1980. The international organisation was providing health care in 13 provinces with 80 international volunteers and 1,400 local staff.

"It is very sad to leave the country because we will fail to assist the population whom we have been assisting for a very long time, even in very difficult circumstances," Koen Henckaerts, MSF director of operations for Afghanistan, told IRIN from Belgium on Wednesday. "But working in the country is impossible now," he added.

Despite the presence of the international troops and the recent NATO deployment of up to 3,500 new peacekeepers, Afghanistan still lacks security. More than 30 aid workers have been killed since the beginning of 2003.

"The south is very insecure and this insecurity is also going to the north," Henckaerts claimed, noting not only the threat of warlords, local commanders and poppy farmers, but also Taliban attempts to block the election process.

"the war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism."

US-led war brought terrorism to Iraq
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

VIENNA: The US-led invasion brought terrorism to Iraq and caused more problems than it solved, UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said in an interview published Monday by the Austrian daily Salzburger Nachrichten.

He also said he believed Iraq could become a normal country, but that the interim government faced a challenge in proving it was not "a puppet of the Americans, which is difficult to do when there are 150,000 foreign soldiers in the country."

Brahimi, visiting Austria at the invitation of Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said "the war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism."

He said attacks on US-led forces were carried out by Al-Qaeda terrorists with the support of foreign fighters as well as by people loyal to the ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. But there was "a large group of Iraqis who will attack any foreign occupation force out of patriotism," he said.

Brahimi expressed confidence in Iraq's ability to return to normal, but said "the question is, how long that will take and how much it will cost."

The Integrity of Electronic Voting Machines. Can it come up short in this election?

Fear of Fraud
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: July 27, 2004

t's election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger's campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.

When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.

This isn't a paranoid fantasy. It's a true account of a recent election in Riverside County, Calif., reported by Andrew Gumbel of the British newspaper The Independent. Mr. Gumbel's full-length report, printed in Los Angeles City Beat, makes hair-raising reading not just because it reinforces concerns about touch-screen voting, but also because it shows how easily officials can stonewall after a suspect election.

Some states, worried about the potential for abuse with voting machines that leave no paper trail, have banned their use this November. But Florida, which may well decide the presidential race, is not among those states, and last month state officials rejected a request to allow independent audits of the machines' integrity. A spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush accused those seeking audits of trying to "undermine voters' confidence," and declared, "The governor has every confidence in the Department of State and the Division of Elections."

Should the public share that confidence? Consider the felon list.

Florida law denies the vote to convicted felons. In 2000 the state hired a firm to purge supposed felons from the list of registered voters; these voters were turned away from the polls. After the election, determined by 537 votes, it became clear that thousands of people had been wrongly disenfranchised. Since those misidentified as felons were disproportionately Democratic-leaning African-Americans, these errors may have put George W. Bush in the White House.

This year, Florida again hired a private company - Accenture, which recently got a homeland security contract worth up to $10 billion - to prepare a felon list. Remembering 2000, journalists sought copies. State officials stonewalled, but a judge eventually ordered the list released.

The Miami Herald quickly discovered that 2,100 citizens who had been granted clemency, restoring their voting rights, were nonetheless on the banned-voter list. Then The Sarasota Herald-Tribune discovered that only 61 of more than 47,000 supposed felons were Hispanic. So the list would have wrongly disenfranchised many legitimate African-American voters, while wrongly enfranchising many Hispanic felons. It escaped nobody's attention that in Florida, Hispanic voters tend to support Republicans.

After first denying any systematic problem, state officials declared it an innocent mistake. They told Accenture to match a list of registered voters to a list of felons, flagging anyone whose name, date of birth and race was the same on both lists. They didn't realize, they said, that this would automatically miss felons who identified themselves as Hispanic because that category exists on voter rolls but not in state criminal records.

But employees of a company that prepared earlier felon lists say that they repeatedly warned state election officials about that very problem.

Let's not be coy. Jeb Bush says he won't allow an independent examination of voting machines because he has "every confidence" in his handpicked election officials. Yet those officials have a history of slipshod performance on other matters related to voting and somehow their errors always end up favoring Republicans. Why should anyone trust their verdict on the integrity of voting machines, when another convenient mistake could deliver a Republican victory in a high-stakes national election?

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Think about what a tainted election would do to America's sense of itself, and its role in the world. In the face of official stonewalling, doubters probably wouldn't be able to prove one way or the other whether the vote count was distorted - but if the result looked suspicious, most of the world and many Americans would believe the worst. I'll write soon about what can be done in the few weeks that remain, but here's a first step: if Governor Bush cares at all about the future of the nation, as well as his family's political fortunes, he will allow that independent audit.

Accounting and Accountability
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: July 23, 2004

Accountability is important. The nation will be ill served if officials who didn't do all they could to prevent a terrorist attack, or led the nation into an unnecessary war, manage to shift the blame to someone else.

But those weren't the only big mistakes of the last few years. Will anyone be held accountable for the mishandling of postwar Iraq?

Last month we learned that the United States, while it has spent vast sums on the war in Iraq, has so far provided almost no aid. Of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds approved by Congress, only $400 million has been disbursed.

Almost all of the money spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq until late June, came from Iraqi sources, mainly oil revenues. This revelation helps explain one puzzle: the sluggish pace of reconstruction, which has yet to restore many essential services to prewar levels.

But it creates another puzzle: given that the authority was spending Iraq's money, why wasn't it more careful in its accounting?

When a foreign power takes control of an oil-rich nation's resources, it inevitably faces suspicion about its motives. Fairly or not, the locals are all too ready to believe that the invaders came to steal their oil.

The way to deal with such suspicion is to let in as much sunlight as possible by appointing financial officials with strong reputations for independence, keeping meticulous books, and welcoming and cooperating with international audits.

What actually happened was just the opposite. Every important official with responsibility for Iraqi finances was a Bush administration loyalist. The occupying authority dragged its feet on an international audit, which didn't even begin until April 2004.

When KPMG auditors hired by an international advisory board finally got to work, they found that no effort had been made to keep an accurate record of oil sales, and that accounting for the $20 billion Development Fund for Iraq consisted of "spreadsheets and pivot tables maintained by a single accountant."

The auditors also faced a lack of cooperation. They were denied access to Iraqi ministries, which were reputed to be the locus of epic corruption on the part of Iraqis with connections to the occupiers. They were also denied access to reports concerning what they delicately describe as "sole-source contracts."

Translation: they were stonewalled when they tried to find out what Halliburton did with $1.4 billion.

By obstructing international auditors, by the way, the U.S. wasn't just fueling suspicion about the misappropriation of Iraqi oil money - it was also breaking its word. After Saddam's fall, the U.N. gave the U.S. the right to disburse Iraqi oil-for-food revenues, but only on the condition that this be accompanied by international auditing and oversight.

A digression: yes, oil-for-food is the U.N.-administered program from which Saddam undoubtedly siphoned off billions. But we expect America to be held to a higher standard.

There are also allegations that Saddam's revenue diversion was aided by corrupt U.N. officials. I think we should wait and see what Paul Volcker, the genuinely independent head of the U.N. inquiry - the sort of person the U.S. occupation should have employed - has to say. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that these accusations are entirely based on documents that are purported to be in the possession of none other than Ahmad Chalabi, who has himself been accused of corruption.

And there are a few curious side stories. On the day the U.S. raided Mr. Chalabi's offices, a British associate of Mr. Chalabi who had been promising to come out with a devastating report told London's Daily Telegraph that a remarkably effective hacker attack had destroyed all his computer files, including the backup copies.

After the United States's falling-out with Mr. Chalabi, the oil-for-food investigation was taken out of the hands of Mr. Chalabi's allies. But the new head of the investigation was assassinated on July 1.

Meanwhile, the war, fed by the failure of reconstruction, goes on. The transfer doesn't seem to have made any difference: more American soldiers were killed in the first three weeks of July than in all of June, even though Knight-Ridder reports that the U.S. military has stopped patrolling in much of Anbar Province, the heart of the insurgency.

And while the U.S. has yet to disburse any significant amount of aid, the Government Accountability Office says that war costs for this fiscal year alone will run $12.3 billion above Pentagon projections.

Will anyone be held accountable?

Rev Al Fires Up the Faithful

Sharpton answers Bush in speech
Thursday, July 29, 2004 Posted: 12:06 AM EDT (0406 GMT)
CNN.COM
Sharpton's impassioned speech was enthusiastically received Wednesday.
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The Rev. Al Sharpton brought down the house with a passionate speech to Democratic National Convention delegates about what's wrong with the Bush administration and how Sen. John Kerry will help fulfill America's promise. This is a transcript of his remarks:
<------------------------------------->

"Thank you.

Tonight I want to address my remarks in two parts.

One, I'm honored to address the delegates here.

Last Friday, I had the experience in Detroit of hearing President George Bush make a speech. And in the speech, he asked certain questions. I hope he's watching tonight. I would like to answer your questions, Mr. President.

To the chairman, our delegates, and all that are assembled, we're honored and glad to be here tonight.

I'm glad to be joined by supporters and friends from around the country. I'm glad to be joined by my family, Kathy, Dominique, who will be 18, and Ashley.

We are here 228 years after right here in Boston we fought to establish the freedoms of America. The first person to die in the Revolutionary War is buried not far from here, a black man from Barbados, named Crispus Attucks.

Forty years ago, in 1964, Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party stood at the Democratic convention in Atlantic City fighting to preserve voting rights for all America and all Democrats, regardless of race or gender.

Hamer's stand inspired Dr. King's march in Selma, which brought about the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Twenty years ago, Reverend Jesse Jackson stood at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, again, appealing to the preserve those freedoms.

Tonight, we stand with those freedoms at risk and our security as citizens in question.

I have come here tonight to say, that the only choice we have to preserve our freedoms at this point in history is to elect John Kerry the president of the United States.

I stood with both John Kerry and John Edwards on over 30 occasions during the primary season. I not only debated them, I watched them, I observed their deeds, I looked into their eyes. I am convinced that they are men who say what they mean and mean what they say.

I'm also convinced that at a time when a vicious spirit in the body politic of this country that attempts to undermine America's freedoms -- our civil rights, and civil liberties -- we must leave this city and go forth and organize this nation for victory for our party and John Kerry and John Edwards in November.

And let me quickly say, this is not just about winning an election. It's about preserving the principles on which this very nation was founded.

Look at the current view of our nation worldwide as a results of our unilateral foreign policy. We went from unprecedented international support and solidarity on September 12, 2001, to hostility and hatred as we stand here tonight. We can't survive in the world by ourselves.

How did we squander this opportunity to unite the world for democracy and to commit to a global fight against hunger and disease?

We did it with a go-it-alone foreign policy based on flawed intelligence. We were told that we were going to Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction. We've lost hundreds of soldiers. We've spent $200 billion dollars at a time when we had record state deficits. And when it became clear that there were no weapons, they changed the premise for the war and said: No, we went because of other reasons.

If I told you tonight, "Let's leave the FleetCenter, we're in danger," and when you get outside, you ask me, Reverend Al, "What is the danger?" and I say, "It don't matter. We just needed some fresh air," I have misled you and we were misled.

We are also faced with the prospect of in the next four years that two or more of the Supreme Court Justice seats will become available. This year we celebrated the anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education.

This court has voted five to four on critical issues of women's rights and civil rights. It is frightening to think that the gains of civil and women rights and those movements in the last century could be reversed if this administration is in the White House in these next four years.

I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school.

This is not about a party. This is about living up to the promise of America. The promise of America says we will guarantee quality education for all children and not spend more money on metal detectors than computers in our schools.

The promise of America guarantees health care for all of its citizens and doesn't force seniors to travel to Canada to buy prescription drugs they can't afford here at home.

The promise of America provides that those who work in our health care system can afford to be hospitalized in the very beds they clean up every day.

The promise of America is that government does not seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom, but to guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen.

The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen.

The promise of America that we stand for human rights, whether it's fighting against slavery in the Sudan, where right now Joe Madison and others are fasting, around what is going on in the Sudan; AIDS in Lesotho; a police misconduct in this country.

The promise of America is one immigration policy for all who seek to enter our shores, whether they come from Mexico, Haiti or Canada, there must be one set of rules for everybody.

We cannot welcome those to come and then try and act as though any culture will not be respected or treated inferior. We cannot look at the Latino community and preach "one language." No one gave them an English test before they sent them to Iraq to fight for America.

The promise of America is that every citizen vote is counted and protected, and election schemes do not decide the election.

It, to me, is a glaring contradiction that we would fight, and rightfully so, to get the right to vote for the people in the capital of Iraq in Baghdad, but still don't give the federal right to vote for the people in the capital of the United States, in Washington, D.C.

Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African- American voters. And you asked the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.

You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.

That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.

We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us.

Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats.

Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of good men (inaudible) soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.

This vote can't be bargained away.

This vote can't be given away.

Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.

And there's a whole generation of young leaders that have come forward across this country that stand on integrity and stand on their traditions, those that have emerged with John Kerry and John Edwards as partners, like Greg Meeks, like Barack Obama, like our voter registration director, Marjorie Harris, like those that are in the trenches.

And we come with strong family values. Family values is not just those with two-car garages and a retirement plan. Retirement plans are good. But family values also are those who had to make nothing stretch into something happening, who had to make ends meet.

I was raised by a single mother who made a way for me. She used to scrub floors as a domestic worker, put a cleaning rag in her pocketbook and ride the subways in Brooklyn so I would have food on the table.

But she taught me as I walked her to the subway that life is about not where you start, but where you're going. That's family values.

And I wanted somebody in my community -- I wanted to show that example. As I ran for president, I hoped that one child would come out of the ghetto like I did, could look at me walk across the stage with governors and senators and know they didn't have to be a drug dealer, they didn't have to be a hoodlum, they didn't have to be a gangster, they could stand up from a broken home, on welfare, and they could run for president of the United States.

As you know, I live in New York. I was there September 11th when that despicable act of terrorism happened.

A few days after, I left home, my family had taken in a young man who lost his family. And as they gave comfort to him, I had to do a radio show that morning. When I got there, my friend James Entome (ph) said, "Reverend, we're going to stop at a certain hour and play a song, synchronized with 990 other stations."

I said, "That's fine."

He said, "We're dedicating it to the victims of 9/11."

I said, "What song are you playing?"

He said "America the Beautiful." The particular station I was at, the played that rendition song by Ray Charles.

As you know, we lost Ray a few weeks ago, but I sat there that morning and listened to Ray sing through those speakers, "Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains' majesty across the fruited plain."

And it occurred to me as I heard Ray singing, that Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, because Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

Mr. President, we love America, not because all of us have seen the beauty all the time.

But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.

Starting in November, let's make America beautiful again.

Thank you. And God bless you.

USA Today Hires Coulter, then lives to regret it

USA Today kills ludicrous Ann Coulter story!
But why did it hire the unhinged buffoon to cover Boston in the first place?
Salon.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

July 27, 2004 |

So far there have been two major media black eyes at the Democratic convention in Boston. The first was on Monday when the Washington Post handed out 10,000 copies of a special convention issue of the daily, complete with the dated banner headline "Election 2000."

The second talked-about misfire was USA Today's decision to spike as unusable a column it had commissioned from radical right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. The decision to not run the lazy, mean-spirited rant actually made perfect sense, especially after Coulter reportedly refused to make any requested changes. But then Coulter ran to Fox News and insisted that the paper was trying to "ban" her conservative voice, which meant USA Today had a headache on its hands.

NARAL Has A Pro-Choice Video

Bush v Choice has a film clip on the Crawford Wives

Ted Turner: "How Government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me."

My Beef With Big Media
By Ted Turner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the late 1960s, when Turner Communications was a business of billboards and radio stations and I was spending much of my energy ocean racing, a UHF-TV station came up for sale in Atlanta. It was losing $50,000 a month and its programs were viewed by fewer than 5 percent of the market.
I acquired it.

When I moved to buy a second station in Charlotte--this one worse than the first--my accountant quit in protest, and the company's board vetoed the deal. So I mortgaged my house and bought it myself. The Atlanta purchase turned into the Superstation; the Charlotte purchase--when I sold it 10 years later--gave me the capital to launch CNN.

Both purchases played a role in revolutionizing television. Both required a streak of independence and a taste for risk. And neither could happen today. In the current climate of consolidation, independent broadcasters simply don't survive for long. That's why we haven't seen a new generation of people like me or even Rupert Murdoch--independent television upstarts who challenge the big boys and force the whole industry to compete and change.



It's not that there aren't entrepreneurs eager to make their names and fortunes in broadcasting if given the chance. If nothing else, the 1990s dot-com boom showed that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well in America, with plenty of investors willing to put real money into new media ventures. The difference is that Washington has changed the rules of the game. When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV. They wanted independent producers to thrive. They wanted more people to be able to own TV stations. They believed in the value of competition.

So when the FCC received a glut of applications for new television stations after World War II, the agency set aside dozens of channels on the new UHF spectrum so independents could get a foothold in television. That helped me get my start 35 years ago. Congress also passed a law in 1962 requiring that TVs be equipped to receive both UHF and VHF channels. That's how I was able to compete as a UHF station, although it was never easy. (I used to tell potential advertisers that our UHF viewers were smarter than the rest, because you had to be a genius just to figure out how to tune us in.) And in 1972, the FCC ruled that cable TV operators could import distant signals. That's how we were able to beam our Atlanta station to homes throughout the South. Five years later, with the help of an RCA satellite, we were sending our signal across the nation, and the Superstation was born.

That was then.

Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.

In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.

In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys--they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.

But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.

Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see--and what we don't see--will be shaped by the profit motives and political interests of large, publicly traded conglomerates. The economy will suffer, and so will the quality of our public life. Let me be clear: As a business proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just shouldn't have those rules. They make sense for a corporation. But for a society, it's like over-fishing the oceans. When the independent businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? We have to do more than keep media giants from growing larger; they're already too big. We need a new set of rules that will break these huge companies to pieces.

The big squeeze

In the 1970s, I became convinced that a 24-hour all-news network could make money, and perhaps even change the world. But when I invited two large media corporations to invest in the launch of CNN, they turned me down. I couldn't believe it. Together we could have launched the network for a fraction of what it would have taken me alone; they had all the infrastructure, contacts, experience, knowledge. When no one would go in with me, I risked my personal wealth to start CNN. Soon after our launch in 1980, our expenses were twice what we had expected and revenues half what we had projected. Our losses were so high that our loans were called in. I refinanced at 18 percent interest, up from 9, and stayed just a step ahead of the bankers. Eventually, we not only became profitable, but also changed the nature of news--from watching something that happened to watching it as it happened.

But even as CNN was getting its start, the climate for independent broadcasting was turning hostile. This trend began in 1984, when the FCC raised the number of stations a single entity could own from seven--where it had been capped since the 1950s--to 12. A year later, it revised its rule again, adding a national audience-reach cap of 25 percent to the 12 station limit--meaning media companies were prohibited from owning TV stations that together reached more than 25 percent of the national audience. In 1996, the FCC did away with numerical caps altogether and raised the audience-reach cap to 35 percent. This wasn't necessarily bad for Turner Broadcasting; we had already achieved scale. But seeing these rules changed was like watching someone knock down the ladder I had already climbed.

Meanwhile, the forces of consolidation focused their attention on another rule, one that restricted ownership of content. Throughout the 1980s, network lobbyists worked to overturn the so-called Financial Interest and Syndication Rules, or fin-syn, which had been put in place in 1970, after federal officials became alarmed at the networks' growing control over programming. As the FCC wrote in the fin-syn decision: "The power to determine form and content rests only in the three networks and is exercised extensively and exclusively by them, hourly and daily." In 1957, the commission pointed out, independent companies had produced a third of all network shows; by 1968, that number had dropped to 4 percent. The rules essentially forbade networks from profiting from reselling programs that they had already aired.

This had the result of forcing networks to sell off their syndication arms, as CBS did with Viacom in 1973. Once networks no longer produced their own content, new competition was launched, creating fresh opportunities for independents.

For a time, Hollywood and its production studios were politically strong enough to keep the fin-syn rules in place. But by the early 1990s, the networks began arguing that their dominance had been undercut by the rise of independent broadcasters, cable networks, and even videocassettes, which they claimed gave viewers enough choice to make fin-syn unnecessary. The FCC ultimately agreed--and suddenly the broadcast networks could tell independent production studios, "We won't air it unless we own it." The networks then bought up the weakened studios or were bought out by their own syndication arms, the way Viacom turned the tables on CBS, buying the network in 2000. This silenced the major political opponents of consolidation.

Even before the repeal of fin-syn, I could see that the trend toward consolidation spelled trouble for independents like me. In a climate of consolidation, there would be only one sure way to win: bring a broadcast network, production studios, and cable and satellite systems under one roof. If you didn't have it inside, you'd have to get it outside--and that meant, increasingly, from a large corporation that was competing with you. It's difficult to survive when your suppliers are owned by your competitors. I had tried and failed to buy a major broadcast network, but the repeal of fin-syn turned up the pressure. Since I couldn't buy a network, I bought MGM to bring more content in-house, and I kept looking for other ways to gain scale. In the end, I found the only way to stay competitive was to merge with Time Warner and relinquish control of my companies.

Today, the only way for media companies to survive is to own everything up and down the media chain--from broadcast and cable networks to the sitcoms, movies, and news broadcasts you see on those stations; to the production studios that make them; to the cable, satellite, and broadcast systems that bring the programs to your television set; to the Web sites you visit to read about those programs; to the way you log on to the Internet to view those pages. Big media today wants to own the faucet, pipeline, water, and the reservoir. The rain clouds come next.

Supersizing networks

Throughout the 1990s, media mergers were celebrated in the press and otherwise seemingly ignored by the American public. So, it was easy to assume that media consolidation was neither controversial nor problematic. But then a funny thing happened.

In the summer of 2003, the FCC raised the national audience-reach cap from 35 percent to 45 percent. The FCC also allowed corporations to own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market and permitted corporations to own three TV stations in the largest markets, up from two, and two stations in medium-sized markets, up from one. Unexpectedly, the public rebelled. Hundreds of thousands of citizens complained to the FCC. Groups from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association demanded that Congress reverse the ruling. And like-minded lawmakers, including many long-time opponents of media consolidation, took action, pushing the cap back down to 35, until--under strong White House pressure--it was revised back up to 39 percent. This June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out the rules that would have allowed corporations to own more television and radio stations in a single market, let stand the higher 39 percent cap, and also upheld the rule permitting a corporation to own a TV station and a newspaper in the same market; then, it sent the issues back to the same FCC that had pushed through the pro-consolidation rules in the first place.

In reaching its 2003 decision, the FCC did not argue that its policies would advance its core objectives of diversity, competition, and localism. Instead, it justified its decision by saying that there was already a lot of diversity, competition, and localism in the media--so it wouldn't hurt if the rules were changed to allow more consolidation. Their decision reads: "Our current rules inadequately account for the competitive presence of cable, ignore the diversity-enhancing value of the Internet, and lack any sound bases for a national audience reach cap." Let's pick that assertion apart.

First, the "competitive presence of cable" is a mirage. Broadcast networks have for years pointed to their loss of prime-time viewers to cable networks--but they are losing viewers to cable networks that they themselves own. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable TV stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. Yes, Disney's ABC network has lost viewers to cable networks. But it's losing viewers to cable networks like Disney's ESPN, Disney's ESPN2, and Disney's Disney Channel. The media giants are getting a deal from Congress and the FCC because their broadcast networks are losing share to their own cable networks. It's a scam.

Second, the decision cites the "diversity-enhancing value of the Internet." The FCC is confusing diversity with variety. The top 20 Internet news sites are owned by the same media conglomerates that control the broadcast and cable networks. Sure, a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song.

The FCC says that we have more media choices than ever before. But only a few corporations decide what we can choose. That is not choice. That's like a dictator deciding what candidates are allowed to stand for parliamentary elections, and then claiming that the people choose their leaders. Different voices do not mean different viewpoints, and these huge corporations all have the same viewpoint--they want to shape government policy in a way that helps them maximize profits, drive out competition, and keep getting bigger.

Because the new technologies have not fundamentally changed the market, it's wrong for the FCC to say that there are no "sound bases for a national audience-reach cap." The rationale for such a cap is the same as it has always been. If there is a limit to the number of TV stations a corporation can own, then the chance exists that after all the corporations have reached this limit, there may still be some stations left over to be bought and run by independents. A lower limit would encourage the entry of independents and promote competition. A higher limit does the opposite.

Triple blight

The loss of independent operators hurts both the media business and its citizen-customers. When the ownership of these firms passes to people under pressure to show quick financial results in order to justify the purchase, the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers.

Loss of Quality
The Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans exerts a negative influence on society, because it discourages people who want to climb up the list from giving more money to charity. The Nielsen ratings are dangerous in a similar way--because they scare companies away from good shows that don't produce immediate blockbuster ratings. The producer Norman Lear once asked, "You know what ruined television?" His answer: when The New York Times began publishing the Nielsen ratings. "That list every week became all anyone cared about."

When all companies are quarterly earnings-obsessed, the market starts punishing companies that aren't yielding an instant return. This not only creates a big incentive for bogus accounting, but also it inhibits the kind of investment that builds economic value. America used to know this. We used to be a nation of farmers. You can't plant something today and harvest tomorrow. Had Turner Communications been required to show earnings growth every quarter, we never would have purchased those first two TV stations.

When CNN reported to me, if we needed more money for Kosovo or Baghdad, we'd find it. If we had to bust the budget, we busted the budget. We put journalism first, and that's how we built CNN into something the world wanted to watch. I had the power to make these budget decisions because they were my companies. I was an independent entrepreneur who controlled the majority of the votes and could run my company for the long term. Top managers in these huge media conglomerates run their companies for the short term. After we sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, we came under such earnings pressure that we had to cut our promotion budget every year at CNN to make our numbers. Media mega-mergers inevitably lead to an overemphasis on short-term earnings.

You can see this overemphasis in the spread of reality television. Shows like "Fear Factor" cost little to produce--there are no actors to pay and no sets to maintain--and they get big ratings. Thus, American television has moved away from expensive sitcoms and on to cheap thrills. We've gone from "Father Knows Best" to "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?", and from "My Three Sons" to "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance."

The story of Grant Tinker and Mary Tyler Moore's production studio, MTM, helps illustrate the point. When the company was founded in 1969, Tinker and Moore hired the best writers they could find and then left them alone--and were rewarded with some of the best shows of the 1970s. But eventually, MTM was bought by a company that imposed budget ceilings and laid off employees. That company was later purchased by Rev. Pat Robertson; then, he was bought out by Fox. Exit "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Enter "The Littlest Groom."

Loss of localism
Consolidation has also meant a decline in the local focus of both news and programming. After analyzing 23,000 stories on 172 news programs over five years, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that big media news organizations relied more on syndicated feeds and were more likely to air national stories with no local connection.

That's not surprising. Local coverage is expensive, and thus will tend be a casualty in the quest for short-term earnings. In 2002, Fox Television bought Chicago's Channel 50 and eliminated all of the station's locally produced shows. One of the cancelled programs (which targeted pre-teens) had scored a perfect rating for educational content in a 1999 University of Pennsylvania study, according to The Chicago Tribune. That accolade wasn't enough to save the program. Once the station's ownership changed, so did its mission and programming.

Loss of localism also undercuts the public-service mission of the media, and this can have dangerous consequences. In early 2002, when a freight train derailed near Minot, N.D., releasing a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the town, police tried to call local radio stations, six of which are owned by radio mammoth Clear Channel Communications. According to news reports, it took them over an hour to reach anyone--no one was answering the Clear Channel phone. By the next day, 300 people had been hospitalized, many partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock died. And Clear Channel continued beaming its signal from headquarters in San Antonio, Texas--some 1,600 miles away.

Loss of democratic debate
When media companies dominate their markets, it undercuts our democracy. Justice Hugo Black, in a landmark media-ownership case in 1945, wrote: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."

These big companies are not antagonistic; they do billions of dollars in business with each other. They don't compete; they cooperate to inhibit competition. You and I have both felt the impact. I felt it in 1981, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all came together to try to keep CNN from covering the White House. You've felt the impact over the past two years, as you saw little news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, or CNN on the FCC's actions. In early 2003, the Pew Research Center found that 72 percent of Americans had heard "nothing at all" about the proposed FCC rule changes. Why? One never knows for sure, but it must have been clear to news directors that the more they covered this issue, the harder it would be for their corporate bosses to get the policy result they wanted.

A few media conglomerates now exercise a near-monopoly over television news. There is always a risk that news organizations can emphasize or ignore stories to serve their corporate purpose. But the risk is far greater when there are no independent competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore. More consolidation has often meant more news-sharing. But closing bureaus and downsizing staff have more than economic consequences. A smaller press is less capable of holding our leaders accountable. When Viacom merged two news stations it owned in Los Angeles, reports The American Journalism Review, "field reporters began carrying microphones labeled KCBS on one side and KCAL on the other." This was no accident. As the Viacom executive in charge told The Los Angeles Business Journal: "In this duopoly, we should be able to control the news in the marketplace."

This ability to control the news is especially worrisome when a large media organization is itself the subject of a news story. Disney's boss, after buying ABC in 1995, was quoted in LA Weekly as saying, "I would prefer ABC not cover Disney." A few days later, ABC killed a "20/20" story critical of the parent company.

But networks have also been compromised when it comes to non-news programs which involve their corporate parent's business interests. General Electric subsidiary NBC Sports raised eyebrows by apologizing to the Chinese government for Bob Costas's reference to China's "problems with human rights" during a telecast of the Atlanta Olympic Games. China, of course, is a huge market for GE products.

Consolidation has given big media companies new power over what is said not just on the air, but off it as well. Cumulus Media banned the Dixie Chicks on its 42 country music stations for 30 days after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine Cumulus would have been so bold if its listeners had more of a choice in country music stations. And Disney recently provoked an uproar when it prevented its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. As a senior Disney executive told The New York Times: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Follow the logic, and you can see what lies ahead: If the only media companies are major corporations, controversial and dissenting views may not be aired at all.

Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. But it's not their intentions that matter; it's their capabilities. Consolidation gives them more power to tilt the news and cut important ideas out of the public debate. And it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent.

Independents' day

This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals.

What will programming be like when it's produced for no other purpose than profit? What will news be like when there are no independent news organizations to go after stories the big corporations avoid? Who really wants to find out? Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of a large publicly traded media company. Its job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a way that encourages the entry into the market of entrepreneurs--men and women with big dreams, new ideas, and a willingness to take long-term risks--the economy will be stronger, and the country will be better off.

I freely admit: When I was in the media business, especially after the federal government changed the rules to favor large companies, I tried to sweep the board, and I came within one move of owning every link up and down the media chain. Yet I felt then, as I do now, that the government was not doing its job. The role of the government ought to be like the role of a referee in boxing, keeping the big guys from killing the little guys. If the little guy gets knocked down, the referee should send the big guy to his corner, count the little guy out, and then help him back up. But today the government has cast down its duty, and media competition is less like boxing and more like professional wrestling: The wrestler and the referee are both kicking the guy on the canvas.

At this late stage, media companies have grown so large and powerful, and their dominance has become so detrimental to the survival of small, emerging companies, that there remains only one alternative: bust up the big conglomerates. We've done this before: to the railroad trusts in the first part of the 20th century, to Ma Bell more recently. Indeed, big media itself was cut down to size in the 1970s, and a period of staggering innovation and growth followed. Breaking up the reconstituted media conglomerates may seem like an impossible task when their grip on the policy-making process in Washington seems so sure. But the public's broad and bipartisan rebellion against the FCC's pro-consolidation decisions suggests something different. Politically, big media may again be on the wrong side of history--and up against a country unwilling to lose its independents.


Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Funny Money: The projected $420 billion deficit for FY 2004 which should be released in July was $100 billion less than projected in February. What will it be in September?

Bush Seen Projecting Record Deficit
Tue Jul 27, 2004 04:42 PM ET
By Anna Willard and Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The White House is expected to project soon a record federal budget deficit of about $420 billion for 2004, which could give ammunition to both sides of the election-year debate over tax and spending policies. Congressional sources said on Tuesday the White House review of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, was likely to project a deficit about $50 billion greater than 2003. But the new figure would be nearly $100 billion less than forecast five months ago.

A congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity said the $420 billion figure is "what people are talking about" on Capitol Hill. Others gave a similar figure, which would be a record in dollar terms. White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton declined to discuss specific projections but said the office had not yet briefed anyone at the Capitol on details of the review.

Republicans have said privately that they would view a better-than-expected projection as a sign of progress toward President Bush's goal of cutting the deficit in half in five years.

But the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry ridiculed the prospect of portraying a $420 billion deficit projection as good news.

"It takes a lot of chutzpah," said Gene Sperling, a former economic aide to former Democratic President Bill Clinton and now an adviser to Kerry. "There was supposed to be a $400 billion surplus this year," Sperling said, referring to Clinton-era projections. "That is an $800 billion deterioration and they are trying to brag about it."

The president has been accused of recklessness by Democrats who blame his huge tax cuts for the red ink. Bush has cited a recession and the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The White House is expected to issue the new budget projection as early as this week. It was originally due on July 15, but the White House Office of Management and Budget sought extra time to update its figures in light of improving economic conditions that have fueled higher tax revenues.

The Iraq war, however, has cost more than anticipated.

The president's budget request in February for fiscal 2005 forecast a $521 billion shortfall for 2004. The deficit of $374 billion in 2003 was a record.

The administration is wary of unveiling the budget projection during this week's Democratic convention, at which Kerry, of Massachusetts, is to accept the party's nomination to challenge Bush for the presidency.

Bush has been keeping a low profile during the convention, which ends on Thursday. If the report were to come out this week, Friday would be the most likely day for it. But it could also be delayed until at least next week. Kolton said the timing depends on when the figures are finalized.

The budget update comes as the Bush campaign is working to devise new initiatives for a second-term agenda that the president will roll out when he hits the campaign trail in earnest next month in the run-up to the Republican convention.

Conservative Republicans are pressing Bush to make an overhaul of Social Security a key campaign theme. But some Republicans said the anticipated large cost may weigh against giving it heavy emphasis in the campaign.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said last week he expected the budget shortfall to come in at less than $450 billion.

We are going to be hearing from this man again !

Obama: Time to reclaim America's promise
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Posted: 11:10 PM EDT (0310 GMT)

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Barack Obama, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, gave the keynote speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention. This is a transcript of his remarks.
<------------------------------------->

"On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely.

My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas.

Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty, joined Patton's army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west, all the way to Hawaii, in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.

They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential.

They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.

And I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters.

I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on Earth, is my story even possible.

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- or at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.

And fellow Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.

Now don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to.

Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.

Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach our kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.

John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home.

John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.

John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.

John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.

And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.

You know, a while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6-2 or 6-3, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.

And as I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us?

I thought of the 900 men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists.

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.

John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.

John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the South Side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America -- there is the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here-the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it.

That's not what I'm talking [about]. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope

In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs, and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices and meet the challenges that face us.

America, tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do, if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president. And John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president. And this country will reclaim its promise. And out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you.

"America just works better when more people have a chance to live their dreams."

Clinton: Time again to choose a more perfect union
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Posted: 12:45 AM EDT (0445 GMT)
Former President Bill Clinton addresses Democratic convention:
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton addressed the Democratic National Convention Monday night. This is a transcript of his speech.
<------------------------------------->

"Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to be here with you.

I am honored to share this podium with my senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I want to thank the people of New York for giving the best public servant in my family a chance to continue serving the public. Thank you.

I am also -- I'm going to say that again, in case you didn't hear it.

I'm honored to be here tonight. And I want to thank the people of New York for giving Hillary the chance to continue to serve in public life.

I am very proud of her. And we are both very grateful to all of you, especially my good friends from Arkansas, for giving me the chance to serve in the White House for eight years.

I am honored to share this night with President Carter, for whom I worked in 1976 and who has inspired the world with his work for peace, democracy and human rights.

I am honored to share it with Al Gore, my friend and my partner for eight years, who played such a large role in building the prosperity and peace that we left America in 2000.

And Al Gore, as he showed again tonight, demonstrated incredible patriotism and grace under pressure. He is the living embodiment of the principle that every vote counts.

And this year, we're going to make sure they're all counted in every state in America.

My friends, after three conventions as a candidate or a president, tonight I come to you as a citizen, returning to the role that I have played for most of my life, as a foot soldier in our fight for the future, as we nominate in Boston a true New England patriot for president.

Now this state, who gave us in other times of challenge John Adams and John Kennedy, has given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. And we are all here to do what we can to make him the next president of the United States.

My friends, we are constantly being told that America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom and faith and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world.

We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment.

We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful and prosperous future.

Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring to the American people this year a positive campaign, arguing not who is a good or a bad person, but what is the best way to build a safe and prosperous world our children deserve.

The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges and serious problems, from AIDS to global warming to the continuing turmoil in the Middle East.

But it is also full of amazing opportunities to create millions of new jobs and clean energy and biotechnology, to restore our manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy, through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards for people all across the world and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious, our racial, our ethnic, our tribal differences because our common humanity matters most of all.

To build that kind of world, we must make the right choices. And we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and deeply felt ideas about what choices we should make. They're rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home, and how we should play our role in the world.

We Democrats want to build a world and an America of shared responsibilities and shared benefits. We want a world with more global cooperation where we act alone only when we absolutely have to.

We think the role of government should be to give people the tools to create the conditions to make the most of their own lives. And we think everybody should have that chance.

On the other hand, the Republicans in Washington believe that American should be run by the right people -- their people -- in a world in which America acts unilaterally when we can and cooperates when we have to.

They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security.

Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.

But we don't.

Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September the 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election.

All we wanted to do was to be one country, strong in the fight against terror, helping to heal those who were wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones, reaching out to the rest of the world so we could meet these new challenges and go on with our democratic way of life.

The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.

Now, now at a time when we're trying to get other people to give up nuclear and biological and chemical weapons, they are trying to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first.

At home, the president and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices, which they also deeply believe in.

For the first time when America was in a war footing in our whole history, they gave two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent of us.

Now, I'm in that group for the first time in my life.

And you might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me.

But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress.

I almost sent them a thank you note for my tax cuts, until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it. And then I thought better of it.

Now look at the choices they made, choices they believed in. They chose to protect my tax cut at all costs while withholding promised funding to the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving 2.1 million children behind.

They chose to protect my tax cut, while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their after-school programs, when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school, learning, going to college and having a good life.

They chose -- they chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising the out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests.

Now, in this time, everyone in America had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans. And most of us, almost all of us, from Republicans to independents and Democrats, we wanted to be asked to do our part, too. But all they asked us to do was to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts.

Now, if you like these choices and you agree with them, you should vote to return them to the White House and the Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.

We've got a different economic policy.

In this year's budget, the White House this year wants to cut off all the federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police officers under the COPS program we've had for 10 years. Among those 88,000 police are more than 700 members of the New York Police Department who put their lives on the line on 9/11.

With gang violence rising, and with all of us looking for terrorists in our midst and hoping they're not too well armed or too dangerous, the president and the Congress are about to allow the 10-year-old ban on deadly assault weapons to lapse.

Now, they believe it's the right thing to do. But our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street. And it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence.

Their policy is the reverse. They're taking police off the streets while they put assault weapons back on the street.

Now, if you agree with that choice, by all means, vote to keep them in office. But if you don't, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter and stronger again.

On homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It cost $1 billion. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all 200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300 million Americans safer.

The measure failed. Why? Because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our ports and airports.

If you agree with that, by all means, re-elect them. If not, John Kerry and John Edwards are your team for the future.

These policies have turned a projected $5.8 trillion surplus that we left, enough to pay for the baby boomer retirement, into a projected debt of almost $5 trillion, with over $400 billion in deficit this year and for years to come.

Now, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough.

So then they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and the Japanese government.

Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on.

So if you think -- if you believe it is good policy -- if you believe it is good policy to pay for my tax cuts with the Social Security checks of working men and women and borrowed money from China and Japan, you should vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

We Americans must choose for president ... we've got to choose for president between two strong men who both love their countries, but who have very different world views: our nominee, John Kerry, who favors shared responsibility, shared opportunity and more global cooperation; and their president and their party in Congress who favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action.

I think we're right for two reasons.

First of all, America just works better when more people have a chance to live their dreams.

And, secondly, we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.

Now, we tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it our way for eight years. Then we tried it their way for four more. But the only test that matters is whether people were better off when we finished than when we started. Our way works better.

It produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes for the middle class, over 100 times as many people moved from poverty into the middle class, more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record home ownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror and a respected America in the world.

More importantly, more importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards, two good men, with wonderful wives: Teresa, a generous and wise woman, who understands the world we're trying to shape; and Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother, who understands the lives we're trying to live.

Now, let me tell you know what I know about John Kerry. I've been seeing all of the Republican ads about him. Let me tell you what I know about him.

During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current president, the vice president and me, could have gone to Vietnam and didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have avoided going too, but instead, he said: Send me.

When they sent those swift boats up the river in Vietnam, and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me.

And then, on my watch, when it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there, John Kerry said: Send me.

Then when we needed someone to push the cause of inner city children struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that created new jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said: Send me.

So tonight, my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his ideas. Let every person in this hall and like-minded people all across our land say to him what he has always said to America: Send me.

The bravery that men who fought by his side in battle, that bravery they saw in battle, I have seen in politics. When I was president, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget, at a time when those priorities were not exactly the way to win a popularity contest in our party.

John Kerry took tough positions on tough problems. He knows who he is and where he's going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas, the values to be a great president.

And in a time of change, he has two other very important qualities: an insatiable curiosity to understand the world around him, and a willingness to hear other views, even those who disagree with him.

Therefore, John Kerry will make choices that reflect both conviction and common sense. He proved that when he picked John Edwards to be his partner.

Now, everybody talks about John Edwards' energy and intellect and charisma. You know, I kind of resent him.

But the important thing is not what talents he has, but how he has used them. He chose -- he chose to use his talents to improve the lives of people like him who had to work for everything they've got and to help people too often left out and left behind. And that's what he'll do as our vice president.

Now their opponents will tell you ... their opponents will tell you we should be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists. Don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.

They go hand in hand. They go hand in hand, and John Kerry has both. His first priority will be to keep America safe.

Remember the scripture: "Be not afraid."

John Kerry and John Edwards are good people with good ideas, ideas to make the economy work again for middle-class Americans, to restore fiscal responsibility, to save Social Security, to make health care more affordable, college more available, to free us from dependence on foreign oil, and create new jobs with clean energy and a cleaner environment, to rally the world to our side in the war against terror, and to make a world with more friends and less terror.

My friends, at every turning point in our history, we, the people, have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders' call to America's eternal mission to form a more perfect union, to widen the circle of opportunity deep in the reach of freedom and strengthen the bonds of our community.

It happened every time, because we made the right choices.

In the early days of the republic, America was divided and at a crossroads, much as it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy and a national legal system. We chose to build a more perfect union.

In the Civil War, America was at another crossroads, deeply divided over whether to save the union and end slavery. We chose a more perfect union.

In the 1960s, when I was a young man, we were divided again over civil rights and women's rights. And again we chose to form a more perfect union.

As I said in 1992, I say again tonight, we are all in this together. We have an obligation, both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, an obligation both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror.

Now, again, it is time to choose. Since we're all in the same boat, we should choose a captain of our ship who is a brave good man, who knows how to steer a vessel through troubled waters, to the calm seas and the clear sides of our more perfect union. That is our mission.

So let us go in tonight and say to America in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.

God bless you.

"In repudiating extremism, we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences."

Carter: 'At stake is nothing less than our nation's soul'
Monday, July 26, 2004 Posted: 11:09 PM EDT (0309 GMT)

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter addressed the Democratic National Convention Monday night. This is a transcript of his speech.
<------------------------------------->

My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm not running for president.

But here's what I will be doing: everything I can to put John Kerry in the White House with John Edwards right there beside him.

Twenty-eight years ago, I was running for president. And I said then, "I want a government as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people."

I say this again tonight, and that's exactly what we will have next January with John Kerry as president of the United States of America.

As many of you may know, my first chosen career was in the United States Navy, where I served as a submarine officer. At that time, my shipmates and I were ready for combat and prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles. At the same time, we always prayed that our readiness would preserve the peace.

I served under two presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, men who represented different political parties, both of whom had faced their active military responsibilities with honor.

They knew the horrors of war. And later as commanders in chief, they exercised restraint and judgment, and they had a clear sense of mission.

We had a confidence that our leaders, both military and civilian, would not put our soldiers and sailors in harm's way by initiating wars of choice unless America's vital interests were in danger.

We also were sure that these presidents would not mislead us when issues involved our national security.

Today, our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.

He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January, he will restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.

I am proud to call Lieutenant John Kerry my shipmate, and I am ready to follow him to victory in November.

As you all know, our country faces many challenges at home involving energy, taxation, the environment, education and health. To meet these challenges, we need new leaders in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super-rich and their armies of lobbyists in Washington.

But the biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.

Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America, based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world.

Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world.

Without truth, without trust, America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between a president and the people.

When that trust is violated, the bonds that hold our republic together begin to weaken.

After 9/11, America stood proud -- wounded, but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.

Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.

Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support.

We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights.

But recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice.

What a difference these few months of extremism have made.

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of preemptive war.

With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.

In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt. For the first time since Israel became a nation, all former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians.

The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril.

Instead, violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions. This must change.

Elsewhere, North Korea's nuclear menace, a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein, has been allowed to advance unheeded, with potentially ominous consequences for peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

These are some of the prices of our government has paid for this radical departure from the basic American principles and values that are espoused by John Kerry.

In repudiating extremism, we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences.

First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs.

Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic.

Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country.

Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others.

And finally, in the world at large, we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.

You can't be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next, depending on the latest political polls.

When our national security requires military action, John Kerry has already proven in Vietnam that he will not hesitate to act. And as a proven defender of our national security, John Kerry will strengthen the global alliance against terrorism while avoiding unnecessary wars.

Ultimately, the basic issue is whether America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and the integrity of the American people, or whether extremist doctrines, the manipulation of the truth, will define America's role in the world.

At stake is nothing less than our nation's soul.

In a few months, I will, God willing, enter my 81st year of my life.

And in many ways, the last few months have been some of the most disturbing of all. But I am not discouraged. I really am not. I do not despair for our country. I never do. I believe tonight, as I always have, that the essential decency and compassion and common sense of the American people will prevail.

And so I say to you and to others around the world, whether they wish us well or ill: Do not underestimate us Americans.

We lack neither strength nor wisdom. There is a road that leads to a bright and hopeful future. What America needs is leadership. Our job, my fellow Americans, is to ensure that the leaders of this great country will be John Kerry and John Edwards.

Thank you, and God bless America

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Investors are hard to satisfy !!

EBay Profit Up, Shares Fall on Outlook
Wed Jul 21, 2004 08:43 PM ET

By Michael Kahn

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Online marketplace eBay Inc. on Wednesday posted a quarterly profit that more than doubled on growth in international operations, but offered a full-year forecast below bullish Wall Street expectations, sending its shares down 5 percent in after-hours trade.

Results for the June quarter slightly topped average analysts' estimates, but investors reacted instead to the cautious forecast and eBay's view that sales of merchandise on its Web site were settling into a seasonal pattern typical of mature retailers.

Lofty growth expectations have driven eBay's shares to a multiple of 65 times forecast 2004 earnings -- almost four times the average for the S&P 500 index -- leaving stock in the Internet bellwether vulnerable to a sell-off on any disappointment , analysts said.

"We thought the shares would trade down on an in-line quarter," said Mark Mahaney, an analyst with American Technology Research, who owns no eBay shares. "The aftermarket action doesn't surprise us.

Analysts also took note when eBay Chief Executive Meg Whitman underscored a seasonal factor in its quarterly results. "There is no question that seasonal trends are becoming more pronounced as eBay becomes more mainstream," Whitman told an investor conference call. "In light of this ... seasonal shift, our results were strong and consistent with our business."

For the quarter, the San Jose, California-based company posted net income of $190.4 million, or 28 cents per share, compared with $91.9 million, or 14 cents per share a year earlier.

Excluding items, eBay's profit rose to $197.7 million, or 29 cents per share. On that basis, Wall Street analysts had expected the company to post net income of 27 cents per share, on average, on revenue of $769.4 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

U.S. transaction revenues fell about 2 percent to $319.1 million from the first quarter even though they were up on a year-over-year basis.

VALUATION IN QUESTION

David Garrity, an analyst at Caris & Company, said investors may have been spooked by eBay's reference to seasonal factors. "If that is the language the company is using to describe itself, the subtext to that message is maybe the valuation should be lower, more in line with everyday companies," said Garrity, who owns no eBay shares.

EBay forecast full-year 2004 earnings, excluding certain items, as high as $1.17 per share, 4 cents higher than its most recent forecast, but just below the average per-share analyst forecast of $1.18. The company -- which tends to be conservative in its estimates -- also raised its 2004 revenue outlook by $35 million to $3.19 billion, shy of the average estimate of $3.21 billion.

Ebay is an online bazaar where sellers ranging from hobbyists to large retailers like Sears, Roebuck and Co. (S.N: Quote, Profile, Research) offer their wares via auctions or newer fixed-price sales. For the second quarter, eBay said total revenue rose to $773.4 million from $509.3 million while international transaction revenue increased 76 percent to $273.4 million. The total value of sold goods rose to $8 billion, eBay said.

Shares in eBay have fallen steadily since late June but are still up about 50 percent from the low of just under $51 in November last year. EBay shares dropped 5 percent to $72.80 in after-hours trading on INET from a close of $76.60

Note: Recapping: Goods Sold in Quarter = $8 Billion, Total Revenue in Quarter = $770 Million, Profit = $197 Million, or for every dollar sold on eBay their profit is 2.5%, but they took in revenue equal to 9.6% of every dollar sold. As a Seller on eBay, that echos my experience: ie, for every dollar I sell on eBay their direct fees to my account amount to roughly 10% of my sales. My question is: What did they do with the other almost $600 Million during the quarter? Legal representation? Acquisitions? Infrastructure?

For comparison, in a recent quarter Wal-Mart Stores had sales of $71 Billion, Revenue of $2.5 Billion, and Profit of $757 Million. Where eBay makes 2.5% profit on what they "sell", Wal-Mart makes 1.1% However, these are both chump-change to Microsoft's $2 Billion in Operating Income from $10 Billion in Revenue for the Quarter. Excluding litigation, fines, and expensed stock options, and applying the general format to eBay and Wal-Mart results, your friends at Microsoft make a profit of close to 30% on sales.

How much did each company pay in Federal Corporate Tax last year?

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

The Continuing Absurdity !!

Remove Wall, Israel Is Told by the U.N.
By WARREN HOGE
NY Times
Published: July 21, 2004

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 - The General Assembly approved a resolution overwhelmingly on Tuesday evening demanding that Israel obey a World Court ruling that it abandon and dismantle its separation barrier on the West Bank and pay compensation to Palestinians affected by its construction.

The vote was 150 in favor and 6 against - including the United States, with 10 abstentions
Voting against the resolution with the United States and Israel were Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Abstaining were Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay and Vanuatu.

Last-minute amendments accepted by the measure's Arab sponsors during a hastily called two-hour recess succeeded in gaining the support of all 25 members of the European Union and more than 30 other nations that had abstained the last time the matter came before the assembly. In that vote - on Dec. 8, 2003, on a resolution that asked the international court to rule on the barrier's legality - there were 74 abstentions, with 90 votes in favor and 8 against.

"Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall," Israel's ambassador, Dan Gillerman, told the delegates after Tuesday night's vote was posted on the electronic board next to the dais.

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian observer to the United Nations, hailed the outcome as "magnificent," saying: "The debate is completed. It is now time for implementation and compliance, and at a later stage for additional measures."

Resolutions from the 191-member General Assembly are nonbinding and largely symbolic, unlike those passed by the 15-member Security Council. Israel said in advance that the vote would not alter its resolve to continue building the barrier.

James B. Cunningham, the deputy American ambassador, said the United States voted against the measure because it was "unbalanced" and erred in assigning a problem to the courts that rightly should be solved through political negotiations.

"The resolution diverts attention from where it should be - on the practical efforts to move the parties towards realization of the ultimate goal of two states living side by side in peace and security," he said.

Mr. al-Kidwa said before the vote that he would now push for a binding Security Council resolution, even though such a move would draw an American veto. The United States vetoed a Security Council resolution last October condemning the barrier.

"The threat of veto will not thwart us, and all others who respect and uphold international law," Mr. al-Kidwa during the debate.

The vote had been postponed twice in an effort to give Arab and European Union diplomats time to reach agreement on language that would persuade European countries to change their stance of abstaining on such measures.

After the two-hour break this evening, two paragraphs were added to the resolution that satisfied European demands.

The first called on the Palestinian Authority "to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks" and on the Israelis "to take no action undermining trust, including deputations and attacks on civilians and extra judicial killings."

The second reaffirmed "that all states have the right and duty to take action in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law to counter deadly acts of violence against the civilian population in order to protect the lives of their citizens."

Mr. Gillerman disparaged these phrases as "grudging references to terrorism" and "carefully crafted, often constructively ambiguous phrases." He said adopting the resolution was "pandering to an agenda that seeks to focus on the response to terrorism but to marginalize the gravity of terrorism itself."

Under the resolution, the assembly demanded that Israel act on the decision on July 9 by the International Court of Justice in the Hague that the barrier built on West Bank land to shield Israeli settlements was illegal and should be torn down. It also requested the secretary general to compile a register of damages to be used in calculating reparations.

The barrier includes electronic fencing, concrete and wire walls and trenches and guard towers, all of which Israel asserts is needed to ward off Palestinian attackers and suicide bombers. It is, Israel says, a necessary defensive response to the Palestinian leadership's failure to hold back the attackers.

In the debate on Friday, Mr. Gillerman called the barrier "the Arafat fence," saying it was made necessary by the intifada launched four years ago against Israel by the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat. In a news conference, Mr. Gillerman showed charts portraying a 90 percent decline in successful terror attacks, a 70 percent reduction in people killed and an 85 percent decline in people wounded in areas where the barrier has been completed.

In an earlier blow to the barrier, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the army to change the route of the barrier in a 20-mile stretch near Jerusalem, saying it was causing too much hardship on the local Palestinian population.

The American ambassador, John C. Danforth, said the United States opposed both the resolution and the court's decision because they "point away from a political solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Saying that a solution must be balanced, Mr. Danforth said the resolution was "wholly one-sided."

"It does not mention the threat terrorists pose to Israel," he said. "It follows a long line of one-sided resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, none of which has made any contribution to peace in the Middle East."

Note: Mr. Danforth is being disingenious using that phrasing, since the representatives of over 90% of the world's population voted for the resolution demanding the dismantling of the separation wall. These same representatives have stated many times over the past years that one of the major reasons no progress has been made in the Israel - Palestinian conflict is due to America's dogmatic support for Israel, in spite of international law, up to an including wanton exercise of it's veto power in the Security Council every time meaningful action is proposed by the international community.

Some of the same actors who vilified previous American Administrations for their support of right-wing dictators, left-wing socialists, religious fundamentalists, and the actions of non-conformists seem to have no problem with unregulated support for Israel. They argue that Israel is a democracy which shares religious traditions with America and thus demands our support. But what do these same apologists say to the European Community, to India, and the NATO Alliance Countries, most of which are also democracies? Ah yes...they don't have that coveted religious connection do they.

In less than a hundred years, when the Middle East consists of several hundred million people of Non Judeo-Christian heritage whose leaders do not have oil money, or anything else of international value to barter with, may decide they might as well do a Regional "Jonestown" and take the 15 million Israelis with them. My bet is it will not take that long for some variation of this to occur due in part to the land needs of 2 billion Muslims, 3 billion Indians, or 3 billion Chinese who have no affinity with what they consider to be Judeo-Christian fictions.

Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land based on eminent domain, especially sans reimbursement, must be vigorously challenged. And make no mistake in this regard, the primary underpinnings of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is about land. Would New Yorkers acquiese without a fight to the reclamation of all the land in their State by the Mohican, Senecan, Oneidan, or Tuscarora Indians with or without a modern day Lord Balfour?


In the words of the poet: "...and what rough beast it's hour come round at last slouches toward Bethlehem to be born."

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

From Charles Pierce on Altercation

"There really is only one issue in this election. Since the Extended Florida Unpleasantness, this has been an Adminstration utterly unconcerned with any restraints, constitutional or otherwise, on its power. It has been contemptuous of the idea of self-government, and particularly of the notion that an informed populace is necessary to that idea.

It recognizes neither parliamentary rules nor constitutional barriers. (Just for fun, imagine that the Senate had not authorized force in Iraq. Do you think for one moment that C-Plus Augustus wouldn't have launched the war anyway, and on some pretext that we'd only now be discovering was counterfeit?) It does not accept the concept of principled opposition, either inside the administration or outside of it. It refuses to be bound by anything more than its political appetites.

It wants what it wants, and it does what it wants. It is, at its heart, and in the strictest definition of the word, lawless. It has the perfect front men: a president unable to admit a mistake because he's spent his entire life being insulated from even the most minor of consequences, and a vice-president who is viscerally furious at the notion that he is accountable to anyone at all. They are abetted by a congressional majority in which all of these un-American traits are amplified to an overwhelming din."

Spin Zones, Flag Waving and Shouting to Catch a Fox
By A. O. SCOTT
NY Times
Published: July 20, 2004

In the soggy early evening hours on Sunday about 60 people gathered in Zebulon, a modest bar on a not yet completely chic block in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, to watch "Outfoxed," Robert Greenwald's new documentary about the Fox News Channel. The event was one of many "house parties" — dozens in New York City and around 3,500 nationwide — organized by MoveOn.Org, which helped produce the film, along with the Center for American Progress. (The film, which does not have a theatrical distributor, is also being sold on line as a DVD.) Zebulon, a recently opened establishment aiming for a lived-in, neighborhood feel, serves a smattering of reds and whites by the glass, as well as snacks including Camembert on toasted slices of baguette.

So you might say (or perhaps Fox News might say) that the crowd on Sunday — young, hip, and partisan — represented a bohemian, early-21st-century incarnation of a political archetype that flourished (at least in conservative imaginations) in the 1970's and 80's: the wine-and-cheese liberal. An unscientific glance around the room suggested that a plurality of those in attendance preferred beer to wine. The audience's frequent cheers and hisses suggested that they enjoyed the movie: which is to say that they were, as the filmmakers intended, outraged by it.

The partisan nature of "Outfoxed," a series of expository and analytical talking-head segments interspersed with the high-octane flag-draped shouting-head segments that have become Fox's trademark, is obvious. It is also, therefore, a little beside the point. In the American media, like it or not, the job of exposing bias is often taken up by people and organizations with a definite point of view. Fox News itself came into being with the intention of "balancing" the supposed leftward tilt of the print and broadcast mainstream, what Fox opinionators call the elite or secular media. The channel's "fair and balanced" slogan was, from its inception in 1996, meant as a provocation, a way of smearing the traditional networks with some of the mud Fox was happy to wallow in, and of implying a symmetry between Fox's outspoken (periodically denied) conservatism and the supposedly covert liberalism of CNN or CBS or The New York Times.

One of Fox's great successes, apart from an impressive ability to attract viewers and infuriate liberals, has been the promotion of the idea that what it does cancels out the unacknowledged propaganda coming from the other side. Mr. Greenwald's film challenges this notion and methodically works to disarm the ready-made accusation that it is outfoxing Fox by stooping to its methods.

These methods are analyzed by an array of media critics and activists, and also exposed by former employees of Fox News Channel and its parent, the News Corporation, some of them speaking anonymously, with their voices disguised. The story they tell is of the systematic and deliberate dismantling of journalistic norms, and of an outfit that has become not merely a voice of conservatism but a cheerleader for the Republican Party. Sean Hannity, co-host of a popular public-affairs yelling match, uses part of each broadcast to count off the days until "the re-election of George Bush," and daily memos from headquarters set an agenda of slanted priorities.

Some clever editing shows how the newscasters use repetition to hammer home their positions: joining the name of Senator John Kerry to variations on the word "flip-flop" as if it were his very own Homeric epithet; floating the disconcerting idea that the likely Democratic nominee is, somehow, "French"; and implying that he is the favored candidate of North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il. There is also an amusing, appalling dissection of the way Fox uses the phrase "some say," as in "some say Senator Kerry has a tendency to flip-flop," not to cloak a source but to camouflage a statement of opinion.

Mr. Greenwald addresses all of this and a good deal more — or rather, his subjects do, since the director himself is unseen and all but unheard — with methodical sobriety. "Outfoxed" will inevitably be discussed in the same breath (or with the same hyperventilating rage) as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," but it lacks both the showmanship and the scope of that incendiary film. Toward the end "Outfoxed" briefly veers away from being an exposé of Fox News toward a more wide-ranging critique of the corporate media and the consolidation of ownership, but this attempt at a more general frame of reference risks weakening the specific force of the movie's argument, which has to do with the behavior of a particular corporation.

Some will say that the argument is unfair and unbalanced. Fox's critics — the most famous are Walter Cronkite and the inevitable Al Franken — appear relaxed, reasonable and good-humored, sitting in front of shelves of books and making their points in measured tones of voice. The on-air Fox personalities, on the other hand, appear to be a prize collection of blowhards and hyenas, with little regard for either journalistic niceties or basic good manners.

But whose fault is it, really, if they come off badly? They are, after all, on television. What we see must be what they — and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch — want us to see. It must also be what we — or at least the millions who watch Fox News Channel, including some who shut out virtually every other source of news — want to see. Which is, according to "Outfoxed," cause for alarm, and for action.

Watching Bill O'Reilly's belligerent, boorish "interview" with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the attack on the World Trade Center and who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11, is enough to make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O'Reilly's sense of decency. But those days — when Welch undid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy on live television, and when that medium was new enough to bring a promise of transparency and truth-telling into the public consciousness — are long past.

Mr. O'Reilly's fans are about as likely to watch "Outfoxed" as the patrons of that bar in Williamsburg are to tune in to "Fox & Friends." For the foreseeable future, there will be more shouting, finger-pointing and tuning out, as each side accuses the other of bias, distortion and dishonesty.

Somehow, though, in these confusing circumstances you can catch a glimpse of the truth, even in a bar in Brooklyn on a muggy Sunday evening in July.

OUTFOXED

Produced and directed by Robert Greenwald; directors of photography, James Curry, Will Miller, Glen Pearcy, Richard Pérez, Luke Riffle, Bob Sullivan and Eugene Thompson; edited by Jane Abramowitz, Douglas Cheek and Chris Gordon; music by Nicholas O'Toole; released by the Members of MoveOn.Org and the Center for American Progress. Running time: 77 minutes. This film is not rated.

Chances Are You'll Likely Have It Too...

Toenail Infections: Not Pretty, Sometimes Painful
By MARY DUENWALD
NY Times
Published: July 20, 2004

Like ring around the collar or iron-poor blood, toenail fungus is one of those problems that hardly anyone noticed until Madison Avenue brought it to public attention.

But television commercials for Lamisil, a toenail cure, now feature yellow fungus monsters yucking it up under the nail of a big toe, and larger-than-life pictures of rotting toenails appear in magazine advertisements for Penlac, another treatment. For the most part, toenail fungus is repugnant but not medically alarming; doctors say most people who seek treatment for the problem do so out of disgust. Yet for some, especially the elderly or those with diabetes, it may lead to other infections. And even in healthy people, the condition can be painful.

Yet treating the infection takes many weeks and is not always successful. A complete cure, when it is achieved, takes a year, the amount of time required for the infected nail to grow out completely. And the process is expensive. Fungus medications can cost up to several hundred dollars for a single course of treatment, and many health insurers do not cover them.

The medical term for toenail fungus is onychomycosis (on-ee-ko-me-KO-sis). The infection is caused by the same types of fungi that cause athlete's foot, and the two often occur together.

"It starts in the sole of the feet when you're a child and grows from the sole to the nail bed," said Dr. Nardo Zaias, director of dermatology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach. "In teenagers, it goes into the groin and causes jock itch and sometimes to the body, causing ringworm.

"But the toenail is a savings bank," Dr. Zaias said. "The fungus goes into the toenail and stays there for life."

About 20 percent of people have toenail fungus, researchers have found, and the likelihood of getting it increases with age, rising to about 40 percent by age 70. The fungi themselves are everywhere - not only in locker rooms, hotel rooms and other public places but also in most people's homes.

Toe fungus tends to run in families, because people inherit a vulnerability to it, Dr. Zaias has found. Onychomycosis can occur under the fingernails, but it is far more common in toes, doctors say, because the feet are more often subject to the dark, warm, moist conditions that fungi favor.

Smoking raises the risk of toenail infection, by restricting circulation to the feet. So does diabetes, which also impairs circulation. Using polish on the nails does not invite or intensify the infection, experts say.

The symptoms of toenail fungus are easy to see - thickened or brittle nails, often a dull color with spots of white or yellow or, in advanced cases, brown or black. But psoriasis can cause similar symptoms. To be certain, some doctors scrape debris from beneath the nail and examine it under a microscope or culture it to see if fungus grows.

Over-the-counter antifungal creams are safe and help some people with mild infections, said Dr. Lloyd S. Smith, a podiatrist in Newton, Mass. Some treatments contain tea tree oil, an antifungal substance derived from an Australian plant. But in most cases, nonprescription treatments are not powerful enough.

One prescription medication, ciclopirox, a topical treatment marketed by Aventis as Penlac, is painted on like nail polish. Patients are instructed to apply it to infected nails each evening before bed. Once a week, they are to take off the accumulated layers with rubbing alcohol.

But treatment with Penlac takes 48 weeks, and a month's supply costs more than $100. In addition, studies suggest that ciclopirox is effective in combating the infection in less than half of all cases, and results in a total cure in fewer than 10 percent.

Terbinafine, marketed by Novartis as Lamisil, may be the best-known prescription treatment for toenail fungus, thanks to the company's monster-filled commercials. Patients take one 250-milligram tablet a day for 12 weeks. After that, the medicine continues to work for a few months.

Terbinafine helps about 2 out of 3 people who take it, doctors say, but it cures the infection in only 38 percent of cases, according to the package insert. Lamisil costs more than $8 per pill, and a complete course of treatment can cost about $700.

In rare cases, the drug has been linked to liver failure and death, and so the Food and Drug Administration has advised doctors to monitor liver function in patients taking it.

People with liver problems should not take Lamisil. Studies have not been done to determine whether the drug is safe for children and pregnant women. Nursing mothers are also advised to avoid it.

Dr. Zaias has experimented with having patients use terbinafine for only one week out of every three months. This approach allows patients to use less of the drug, and it works in more than 90 percent of cases, according to a small study Dr. Zaias conducted and reported last month in the journal Archives of Dermatology.

Another treatment in pill form is itraconazole, marketed by Janssen as Sporanox. It is typically taken twice a day for one week out of four. This cycle is repeated three or four times. A one-week supply costs about $100. Itraconazole is somewhat less effective than terbinafine. It, too, has been linked in rare cases with liver failure, as well as with congestive heart failure.

In the most difficult and painful cases, doctors remove the toenail to help kill the infection. But given the cost, the risks and the time involved in treatment, experts say it is better to try to avoid infection in the first place - by treating athlete's foot infections as soon as they arise, for example, and by keeping the toes ventilated and clean.

"I recommend sandals," said Dr. Lynn A. Drake, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. "But

Monday, July 19, 2004

Lose Weight, Stay Active, Prevent Alzheimer's-Studies
Mon Jul 19, 2004 03:42 PM ET

By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Losing weight, eating more fruits and vegetables and exercising your brain and body sounds like a formula to prevent heart disease, but it is also a way to prevent Alzheimer's, researchers said on Monday.

Midlife obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure appear to affect the brain as well as the heart, they said.

"There are a variety of lifestyle factors that people can engage in that will reduce their risk of cognitive decline," said Dr. Marilyn Albert, chair of the Alzheimer's Association's medical and scientific council. "The brain is much more plastic than we thought," Albert added in an interview.

"It has more capacity to renew and regenerate. ... We have to tell people that they need to think about their cognitive health in a way that they typically thought about their physical health." Early is better, she added. "The pathology of Alzheimer's disease develops over 10 years, possibly longer. People should start as early in life as possible."

Several studies presented to a meeting sponsored by the Alzheimer's Association in Philadelphia this week support the contention.

A study in Finland of 1,500 elderly people found that those who were obese in middle age were twice as likely to develop dementia when they got old as those who were of normal weight. For those who also had high cholesterol and high blood pressure in middle age, the risk of dementia was six times higher than those who were not affected.

Another study, of 13,000 women, found that those who ate vegetables such as iceberg lettuce, spinach, broccoli and Brussels sprouts in middle age preserved more of their cognitive abilities as they entered their 70s than women who ate few vegetables.

"Women with the highest average intake of those vegetables appear to experience less cognitive decline," Dr. Jae Hee Kang of Harvard Medical School, told a news conference.

Another study suggested that leisure activities that combine social, mental and physical activity are the most likely to prevent dementia. Each activity is less important than all of them together, said Laura Fratiglioni of Sweden's Karolinska Institute.

Mental activities such as reading books, doing crossword puzzles or playing bingo can help to prevent mental decline, Albert said. "It should be anything that will push people to encounter something that isn't routine."

An estimated 4.5 million Americans currently have Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to balloon as high as 16 million by 2050 as the baby boom generation ages.

UN Vote on Israeli Barrier Put Off One More Day
Mon Jul 19, 2004 04:40 PM ET

By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Arab diplomats on Monday delayed for a second time a U.N. vote on a resolution demanding that Israel tear down its West Bank barrier, in hopes of winning support from the 25-nation European Union.

While the measure already has enough votes to win passage in the 191-nation General Assembly, the EU is seen by many at the United Nations as a moral compass, able to bring along with it as many as 25 other nations, U.N. diplomats said.

Under the resolution drafted by Palestinian U.N. observer Nasser al-Kidwa, the assembly would pressure Israel to comply with a recent World Court ruling that the barrier was illegal and should be dismantled.

A vote initially had been set for last Friday and would have capped a day-long emergency session of the General Assembly convened at the request of Arab and nonaligned nations.

But voting was postponed until Monday, and then to Tuesday, to give Arab and European Union diplomats more time to try to reach a deal on changes sought by the EU to win its support.

Diplomats said support from the EU and other nations that often vote with the Europeans would bolster a case for sanctions against Israel should it fulfill a vow to ignore the court ruling.

"We had conversations with Mr. al-Kidwa and other Arab diplomats over the weekend. For the EU, we thought it would be very welcome to have another day," said one EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Negotiations were taking place on two levels: between EU and Arab diplomats and also among EU states themselves, as the European bloc had yet to agree on a common stand among its own members, European diplomats acknowledged.

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth has said repeatedly that Washington opposes the resolution because it was "unbalanced" and would further undermine the already moribund Middle East peace process.

The assembly agreed to take up the measure after the World Court ruled July 9 that the barrier was illegal because it cuts deep into West Bank land dotted with Israeli settlements since the 1967 Middle East War.

The court, formally known as the International Court of Justice and based in The Hague, is the top U.N. legal body.
Palestinians see the 370-mile project, which sweeps deep into West Bank land to shield Israeli settlements, as a land grab that would thwart their dream of statehood.

Israel argues the combination of razor-tipped fencing and concrete is needed to keep out suicide bombers and insists it is only temporary.

The Palestinian draft would affirm "the illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force" and would demand that Israel dismantle the barrier and pay reparations for any damages caused by its construction.

But while the Palestinian draft would "accept" the World Court ruling, some European states including Britain insist it only "take note" of the opinion while others want it to "welcome" the judgment.

European states are also divided over whether the text should express concern about a section of the court ruling suggesting that under the U.N. Charter, a state had the right to defend itself only against an attack from another state, and not, for example, from a suicide bomber.

Diplomats said most EU states, however, were united in wanting the text to recognize Israeli security concerns and refer to the obligations of both sides under the road map to peace set out by the quartet of Middle East mediators -- the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia.

CBS Head Says Would Fight Fines Over Janet Jackson
Sun Jul 18, 2004 07:23 PM ET

By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Viacom Inc. co-president and CBS chairman Leslie Moonves vowed on Sunday to fight any fines levied against CBS-owned TV stations for airing Janet Jackson's breast-baring Super Bowl performance in February.

In defiant remarks to television critics at their annual summer meeting, Moonves said the government's crackdown on indecency on the airwaves since Jackson's notorious flash of nudity on his network is "coming dangerously close to infringing" on free speech.

He said the notion of fining stations for airing the live Super Bowl halftime telecast on Feb. 1 is "patently ridiculous, and we're not going to stand for it." "We're going to take it up to the courts if that happens," Moonves said, when asked about media reports that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission staff has proposed fines totaling $550,000 against 20 CBS-owned stations over the Super Bowl telecast.

Sources said the 227 affiliate stations that aired the show but are not owned by Viacom would be spared fines under the FCC recommendations. The National Football League championship, one of the year's most watched TV broadcasts, drew nearly 90 million viewers.

Jackson's costume was ripped away by duet partner Justin Timberlake, briefly exposing her breast, at the end of a provocative halftime dance number that concluded with the lyric: "I gotta have you naked by the end of this song."

The incident ignited a public outcry that led to an FCC probe, congressional action to stiffen fines for broadcast indecency and industry-wide moves to curtail sexually explicit material on TV and radio.

CBS and its sister cable music network MTV, which produced the halftime show, have insisted they did not know in advance about what Timberlake later called the "wardrobe malfunction." CBS has since instituted a five-second delay on most of its live events. A coalition of U.S. broadcasters, artist groups and media organizations filed a joint FCC petition in April warning federal regulators that harsher policies on indecency were having a chilling effect on free speech in the industry.

Medical Class Warfare
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: July 16, 2004

If past patterns are any guide, about one in three Americans will go without health insurance for some part of the next two years. They won't, for the most part, be the persistently poor, who are usually covered by Medicaid. They will be members of working families with breadwinners who have jobs without medical benefits or who have been laid off.

Many Americans fear the loss of health insurance. Last week I described John Kerry's health plan. What's the Bush administration's plan?

First, it offers a tax credit for low- and middle-income families who don't have health coverage through employers. That credit helps them purchase health insurance. The credit would be $3,000 for a family of four with an income of $25,000; for an income of $40,000, it would fall to $1,714. Last year the average premium for families of four covered by employers was more than $9,000.

A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the tax credit would reduce the number of uninsured, 44 million people in 2002, by 1.8 million. So it wouldn't help a great majority of families unable to afford insurance. For comparison, an independent assessment of the Kerry plan by Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University says that it would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.7 million.

The other main component of the Bush plan involves "health savings accounts." The prescription drug bill the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year had a number of provisions unrelated to Medicare. One of them allowed people who purchase insurance policies with high deductibles, generally at least $2,000 per family, to shelter income from taxes by setting up special accounts for medical expenses. This year, the administration proposed making the premiums linked to these accounts fully tax-deductible.

Although the 2005 budget presents that new deduction under the heading "Helping the uninsured," health savings accounts don't seem to have much to do with the needs of the families likely to find themselves without health insurance. For one thing, such families need more protection than a plan with a $2,000 deductible provides. Furthermore, the tax advantages of health savings accounts would be small for those families most at risk of losing health insurance, who are overwhelmingly in low tax brackets.

But for people whose income puts them in high tax brackets, these accounts are a very good deal; making the premiums deductible turns them into a great deal. In other words, health savings accounts will offer the already affluent, who don't have problems getting health insurance, yet another tax shelter. Meanwhile, health savings accounts, in the view of many experts, will actually increase the number of uninsured.

This perverse effect shouldn't be too surprising: unless they are carefully designed, medical policies often have side consequences that worsen the problems they supposedly address. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that one-third of the retirees who now have drug coverage through their former employers will lose that coverage as a result of the Bush prescription drug bill and will be forced to accept inferior coverage from Medicare.

In the case of health savings accounts, the key side consequence is a reduced incentive for companies to insure their workers. When companies provide group health insurance, healthier employees implicitly subsidize their sicker colleagues. They're willing to do this largely because the employer's contributions to health insurance are a tax-free form of compensation, but only if the same plan is offered to all employees.

Tax-free health savings accounts and premiums would provide healthier and wealthier employees an incentive to opt out, accepting higher paychecks instead, and would lead to higher insurance premiums for those who remain in traditional plans. This would cause some companies to stop providing health insurance, or raise employee contributions to a level some workers can't afford.

The difference couldn't be starker. Mr. Kerry offers a health care plan that would extend coverage to most of those now uninsured, paid for by rolling back tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000. President Bush offers a tax credit that would extend coverage to fewer than 5 percent of the uninsured, plus a new tax break for the affluent that would actually increase the number of uninsured. As I said last week, I don't see how Mr. Bush can win this debate.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

All Together Now
By BARBARA EHRENREICH
NY Times Guest Columnist
Published: July 15, 2004

Their faces long with disapproval, the anchors announced that the reason for the war had finally been uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it was "groupthink," not to mention "collective groupthink." It sounds so kinky and un-American, like something that might go on in a North Korean stadium or in one of those sex clubs that Jack Ryan, the former Illinois Senate candidate, is accused of dragging his wife to. But supposedly intelligent, morally upstanding people had been indulging in it right in Langley, Va.

This is a surprise? Groupthink has become as American as apple pie and prisoner abuse; in fact, it's hard to find any thinking these days that doesn't qualify for the prefix "group." Our standardized-test-driven schools reward the right answer, not the unsettling question. Our corporate culture prides itself on individualism, but it's the "team player" with the fixed smile who gets to be employee of the month. In our political culture, the most crushing rebuke is to call someone "out of step with the American people." Zip your lips, is the universal message, and get with the program.

This summer's remake of the "Stepford Wives" doesn't have anything coherent to say about gender politics: Men are the oppressors? Women are the oppressors? Or maybe just Glenn Close? But it does play to the fantasy, more widespread than I'd realized, that if you were to rip off the face of the person sitting in the next cubicle, you'd find nothing but circuit boards underneath.

I trace the current outbreak of droidlike conformity to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when groupthink became the official substitute for patriotism, and we began to run out of surfaces for affixing American flags. Bill Maher lost his job for pointing out that, whatever else they were, the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards, prompting Ari Fleischer to warn (though he has since backed down) that Americans "need to watch what they say." Never mind that Sun Tzu says, somewhere in his oeuvre, that while it's soothing to underestimate the enemy, it's often fatal, too.

And what was that group thinking in Abu Ghraib? Yes, the accused guards seem to have been encouraged to soften up their charges for interrogation, just as the operatives at Langley were pelted with White House demands for some plausible casus belli. But the alarming thing is how few soldiers demurred, and how many got caught up in the fun of it.

Societies throughout history have recognized the hazards of groupthink and made arrangements to guard against it. The shaman, the wise woman and similar figures all represent institutionalized outlets for alternative points of view. In the European carnival tradition, a "king of fools" was permitted to mock the authorities, at least for a day or two. In some cultures, people resorted to vision quests or hallucinogens — anything to get out of the box. Because, while the capacity for groupthink is an endearing part of our legacy as social animals, it's also a common precondition for self-destruction. One thousand coalition soldiers have died because the C.I.A. was so eager to go along with the emperor's delusion that he was actually wearing clothes.

Instead of honoring groupthink resisters, we subject them to insult and abuse. Sgt. Samuel Provance III has been shunned by fellow soldiers since speaking out against the torture at Abu Ghraib, in addition to losing his security clearance and being faced with a possible court-martial. A fellow Abu Ghraib whistle-blower, Specialist Joseph Darby, was praised by the brass, but has had to move to an undisclosed location to avoid grass-roots retaliation.

The list goes on. Sibel Edmonds lost her job at the F.B.I. for complaining about mistranslations of terror-related documents from the Arabic. Jesselyn Radack was driven out of her post at the Justice Department for objecting to the treatment of John Walker Lindh, then harassed by John Ashcroft's enforcers at her next job. As Fred Alford, a political scientist who studies the fate of whistle-blowers, puts it: "We need to understand in this `land of the free and home of the brave' that most people are scared to death. About 50 percent of all whistle-blowers lose their jobs, about half of those lose their homes, and half of those people lose their families."

This nation was not founded by habitual groupthinkers. But it stands a fair chance of being destroyed by them.

Friday, July 16, 2004

Hillary Clinton Gets Convention Speaking Slot
Thu Jul 15, 2004 07:39 PM ET

CHARLESTON, West Va. (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was given a speaking slot at this month's Democratic National Convention in Boston, after party leaders initially denied the former first lady a place in the spotlight, officials said on Thursday.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who will be officially named party nominee at the July 26-29 gathering, delivered the speaking invitation personally after phoning Clinton on Thursday, a source familiar with the situation said.

"He called her. He reached out to her. He asked her to speak and introduce her husband on Monday night, and she accepted," the source said.

Clinton, a powerful New York Democrat seen by many as a possible future presidential candidate, will introduce her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on the convention's opening night on July 26, officials said.

Kerry is waging a close election-year battle against Republican President Bush.

When her name did not appear among individual speakers on the convention program, some Democrats openly expressed disappointment.

"I myself think that Sen. Clinton would be a magnificent addition to any agenda, talking about American values and the Democratic point of view," House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said earlier on Thursday.

Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson, traveling with the presumptive Democratic nominee in West Virginia, acknowledged that Clinton had been put on the convention schedule but could not confirm the phone call from Kerry. "We're thrilled to have her," Dobson said.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Don't Like the Data in a Government Publication?

GOVERNMENT – DATA QUALITY REPORT, HEAL THYSELF:
Center for American Progress Report: July 14th, 2004

According to a new study by OMB Watch, a recent report by the Office of Management and Budget about challenges to the quality of data in government reports was riddled with errors.

Some mistakes were factual: For example, while OMB claims that agencies only had 35 information quality challenges last year, the actual number is 98 – "nearly triple the number in the report." And although the OMB report claims "most" information quality challenges "that were denied were appealed," in reality, only 28 percent of denied challenges were appealed -- clearly not "most."

Some mistakes were misleading: critics feared information quality challenges would be dominated by interested industries. OMB accurately points out that a wide range of stakeholders have filed information quality challenges. What they failed to disclose, however, was that "72 percent of the challenges - nearly three-quarters - were from industry."


Note: The Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies by the Office of Management and Budget are progressive, and meaningful. One of the key elements is objectivity of data, which the OMB defined thusly:

"Objectivity" involves two distinct elements, presentation and substance.

"Objectivity" includes whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. This involves whether the information is presented within a proper context. Sometimes, in disseminating certain types of information to the public, other information must also be disseminated in order to ensure an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased presentation. Also, the agency needs to identify the sources of the disseminated information (to the extent possible, consistent with confidentiality protections) and, in a scientific or statistical context, the supporting data and models, so that the public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to question the objectivity of the sources. Where appropriate, supporting data should have full, accurate, transparent documentation, and error sources affecting data quality should be identified and disclosed to users.

In addition, "objectivity" involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. In a scientific or statistical context, the original or supporting data shall be generated, and the analytical results shall be developed, using sound statistical and research methods.

If the results have been subject to formal, independent, external peer review, the information can generally be considered of acceptable objectivity.

In those situations involving influential scientific or statistical information, the results must be capable of being substantially reproduced, if the original or supporting data are independently analyzed using the same models. Reproducibility does not mean that the original or supporting data have to be capable of being replicated through new experiments, samples or tests.

Making the data and models publicly available will assist in determining whether analytical results are capable of being substantially reproduced. However, these guidelines do not alter the otherwise applicable standards and procedures for determining when and how information is disclosed. Thus, the objectivity standard does not override other compelling interests, such as privacy, trade secret, and other confidentiality protections.And here is where the slippery slope toward biased data finds it's justification


...now all that we need is for journalists, pundits, and authors en masse to incorporate the principle and practice of this concept in their works! Failing this inclusion we can easily end up with subjective data points that have no independent validity in fact or reality as discernable by a neutral party, and objective truth degrades into opinions which have much less value in guiding decisions and actions.

Applying a label such as Liberal or Conservative to opinions, decisions, and rulings by an Administration Agency is no where near as potentially destructive to reasoned enquiry as would Government agencies failure to adhere to the principle and practice of providing objective data in their reports.

Revisionist-In-Chief
Center for American Progress: July 14th, 2004

In an attempt to re-write his own administration's history, President Bush yesterday insisted the war in Iraq was justified, even as evidence emerges that his two central justifications – WMD and an Iraq-al Qaeda link – were false. Bush insisted on a Saddam-al Qaeda link in his speech only 24 hours after the New York Times reported the 9/11 Commission is likely to produce a unanimous report that "largely dismisses White House theories both about a close working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." It also comes as well-documented evidence shows the White House was warned its WMD case for war was weak, yet ignored intelligence to pursue a pre-determined ideological agenda.

THE CHANGING RATIONALE: Bush claimed the war was justified because Iraq had the "capability of producing weapons of mass murder." This echoed his 2004 State of the Union claim that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Both statements are clear departures from the far more stark ("mushroom cloud") and definitive ("no doubt Saddam Hussein now has WMD") language the President used to scare Americans before the war.

ARE WE SAFER? Even while acknowledging the failure to find the WMD the administration said made Iraq an imminent threat, Bush claimed the war in Iraq made America safer. His statement stood in stark contrast to a report from the U.S. Army War College calling the Iraq war "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda. Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke was more blunt: he said the focus on Iraq "delivered to al Qaeda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable." A report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies similarly concluded that "In counter-terrorism terms, the intervention has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers."

THE WHITE HOUSE'S REVISIONIST HISTORIAN: President Bush has chastised "revisionist historians" on Iraq, yet even now he continues to perpetuate myths. He claims he has a record of "working with friends and allies and international institutions." But only last year, he disparaged the United Nations and was unable to build a real international coalition to confront Iraq in an effective way. He also alienated allies by terminating negotiations on the Kyoto and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaties, brushing off key international AIDS conferences and working on behalf of the tobacco industry to undermine international efforts to reduce smoking. And unilateralism has its costs: the war will have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $150 billion by this fall.

REFUSING TO CONFRONT TERRORISTS: Bush touted his record "confront[ing] terrorists," yet offered no explanation why, in 2002, he transferred troops hunting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and moved them to Iraq. With only 14,000 troops in Afghanistan (as opposed to almost 140,000 in Iraq), the administration last week acknowledged that bin Laden and his chief lieutenants continue to operate along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and "are directing al Qaeda effort to launch an attack in the United States sometime this year." Similarly, while Bush was bragging about his terrorism record, he offered no explanation as to why "the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out" top terrorist target Abu Musab Zarqawi, "but never pulled the trigger." After repeatedly refusing to hit Zarqawi, the White House "set its course for war with Iraq." As former Bush counterterrorism adviser Roger Cressey said, "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists." In all, at least 20 of the FBI's 22 most wanted terrorists are still at large.

CHENEY'S CONVENIENT CASE OF AMNESIA: Cheney accused Capitol Hill critics of the war with having "a convenient case of campaign amnesia." But as this American Progress backgrounder shows, it was top administration officials who displayed amnesia in assessing the threat of Iraq. Cheney also claimed those that voted for the war but now oppose it were "looking at the same information [the White House] did and coming to the same conclusion." But as the New Republic pointed out, both Congress and the public were deliberately misled by the White House about that information. In 2002, Congress was given an analysis of the Iraq threat "that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes" – a departure from previous, more objective CIA reports. Similarly, Knight-Ridder reports that the White House-approved public version of the "intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions."

Outfoxed at Fox Network

Fox Attacks
Center for American Progress Report: July 14th, 2004

With the much-anticipated premiere of the movie "Outfoxed" set for tonight in New York City, Fox News went on the attack, trying to intimidate other media outlets into not covering the story. Instead of responding to the well-documented charges made in "Outfoxed," Fox claimed the whistleblowers featured in the film were only "low-level" employees, even though at least one was a former West Coast anchorman for the network. As Outfoxed director Robert Greenwald said, "They're doing their standard technique, which is name-calling and bullying. Whether the [job] title was booker or staff booker in no way affects the fact that Fox is a partisan network. And what I've done in the film is objectively proven the case."

NEW STUDY - BRIT HUME IS A RIGHT-WING MOUTHPIECE: A new report by the nonpartisan Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) found a serious conservative bias in Brit Hume's "Special Report" program on Fox. In a 25-week study, FAIR found "57 percent of Special Report's one-on-one guests were ideological conservatives, 12 percent were centrists and 11 percent were progressives." Additionally, Special Report "rarely features women or non-white guests in these prominent newsmaker interview spots." For more, see Hume pushing the Bush administration's WMD myths, and spinning for the Bush campaign.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER ADMITS FOX'S BIAS: Facing overwhelming evidence of Fox News's conservative bias, at least one conservative operation was forced to admit the obvious. Rich Noyes, of the right-wing Media Research Center, acknowledged Fox's "commentary tends to move toward the right."

FOX SAYS CASUALTIES 'NOT RELEVANT' TO WAR CONSIDERATIONS: According to the conservative Washington Times, in downplaying Fox News memos instructing reporters not to dwell on Iraq casualties, Fox's top news executive John Moody claimed "casualties are part of war" in Iraq and "should not be described as relevant to 'the political question...should we be there?" With more than 900 American soldiers killed in Iraq, polls show increasing casualties are causing more Americans to question Bush administration policy – a question apparently not allowed on Fox News.

MORE PROOF FOX FLACKS BUSH MYTHS: Fox News has been a major media force in parroting various unsubstantiated claims to buttress the Bush White House. On tax cuts, for instance, Fox News anchor Brian Wilson claimed on 3/5/04 that Americans were "seeing the benefits of [the Bush] tax cuts that's in the system," even though Fox News's own poll from a few months earlier showed 61 percent of Americans believed the tax cuts had not helped them.

On energy policy, despite the White House meeting with Enron CEO Ken Lay during the energy crisis, Fox anchor Brit Hume said on 1/16/02 that Enron "is not a scandal about the Bush energy policy." Even though as a presidential candidate Bush said he was planning to propose private school vouchers (and has since reiterated that position), Fox correspondent Jim Angle claimed on 1/15/01 that calling it a pro-voucher plan "is a mischaracterization, obviously, of his education plan." At a time when Fox's own polls showed 69 percent of Americans thought the economy under Bush was either "fair" or "poor" and an NBC poll showed 62 percent of Americans believed the Bush tax cuts did nothing or hurt the economy, Fox correspondent Carl Cameron said on 1/18/02 that "polls show that the public prefers the Republican economic approach over that of Democrats."

And despite burgeoning violence in Iraq, Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow claimed Bush's Iraq policy "has created peaceful conditions in more than 90 percent of Iraq" – a fact he offered no documentation to support. See a backgrounder for more Fox distortions.

Marriage
From Eschaton Blog
Posted by Athenae

From The Note, we get some quality love from Teresa Heinz ...

Teresa Heinz Kerry explained of her husband's vice presidential pick, "John Edwards is beautiful and my husband is very smart." Heinz Kerry also effusively praised Elizabeth Edwards, saying, "She is the supreme, wise, motherly woman and wife."

Turning her attention to the opposing political team, the potential first lady exclaimed, "Bullies attack and leaders inspire." Heinz Kerry continued, "We need, above all, a president who is not fazed by complexity. A president who likes to read. A president who loves history. A president who is rightly proud of the sacrifice of our ancestors."

A relaxed and seemingly at ease candidate riffed, "I don't know what to think. The other night in New York, Teresa saw Paul Newman and turned to me and said, "I don't care what anybody says, he's the sexiest man alive." And, tonight, she's calling John Edwards beautiful. I'm in trouble."

I know I've said this before, but if we truly are electing people based on who you want to have a beer with, the last guy I want to have a beer with is the jerk who treats his wife like dirt, condescends to her in public, or complains about her in front of me. The married people I have beer with on a regular basis have (from what I can tell) healthy, adult marriages based on like and mutual respect, and nothing warms me up to somebody faster than that person praising their spouse.
<------------------------------------->

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Remember Dialup BBS Systems? Making a Comeback of Sorts???

Dial-Up BBS Guide
Quick Listing

The following is a quick one-page listing of all the Dial-Up BBS systems listed here at The US & Canada Dial-Up BBS Guide. If you are a Dial-Up BBS Sysop and wish to have your BBS added, please click here.

If you are a Telnet BBS sysop or a Telnet/Dial-up hybrid Sysop and wish to have your BBS added, please click here. NOTE - we are still in BETA test mode. We will add more dial-up BBS systems to this list as we find them, and will have a searchable list similar to that at the Telnet BBS Guide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BBS Corner's
US & Canada Dial-Up BBS Guide
July-September 2004
------------------------------------------------
Copyright by The BBS Corner & Diamond Mine Online
Fredericksburg, VA USA

Web: http://www.dmine.com/dialbbs
E-mail: dialbbs1@dmine.com

THIS IS A FREE LIST
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LIST EVERYWHERE YOU SEE FIT!


Note - This is a BETA TEST. The full system will be online
in August 2004.

===========================================================================
WHERE TO FIND THE BBS CORNER DIAL-UP BBS GUIDE:
WEB:
http://www.dmine.com/dialbbs
EMAIL:
E-mail inquiries or submissions: dialbbs1@dmine.com
NOTE:

All Dial-Up BBS system listed are checked and verified
no later than every 3 months. If a BBS is down for more than 30 days,
it will be removed from the list.

If you find a BBS no longer in operation, please send an E-mail
to the address listed above.

============================================================================

# = BBS is also available via Telnet. Please see the Telnet BBS Guide.

============================================================================
Modem BBS Name City ST Software Telnet
206-244-2661 Top Hat Seattle WA Maximus #
206-386-4199 Seattle Community Seattle WA Unix #
206-783-7979 Waka Waka Seattle WA Searchlight
207-784-2130 Kobayashi Alternative Auburn ME CNET Pro #
212-647-8660 NY Webb, Inc. New York NY Worldgroup #
212-956-8076 Double Helix New York NY PCBoard
214-333-5385 Discovery Dallas TX Telegard
216-382-7040 WaZaBoo! Cleveland OH Other
219-873-1949 Mike's Host Mode BBS Michigan City IN Other
253-841-7734 My Desk Puyallup WA EleBBS #
281-980-9671 COMM Port OS/2 Sugar Land TX Maximus #
301-797-3792 Harvester Baltimore Hagerstown MD Maximus
301-949-5764 Idea Link Kensington MD PCBoard
302-478-1572 Loonie Bin Wilmington DE Worldgroup #
302-762-2003 Delaware Online! Wilmington DE TSX #
303-665-6091 King's Market BBS Louisville CO TBBS
309-828-4147 Desktop Micros Bloomington IL Wildcat #
310-370-4113 Long Island RB Los Angeles CA Spitfire
310-523-3345 Inner Circle Los Angeles CA Worldgroup #
314-588-0780 Fire Escape's BBS St. Louis MO Wildcat #
314-845-7937 Party Line St. Louis MO TBBS
317-415-0602 Haven BBS Indianapolis IN Citadel #
317-974-3013 Cosmic Concourse Indianapolis IN Worldgroup #
337-232-4155 Positronium Lafayette LA Wildcat
352-245-3670 Sherwood Forest Summerfield FL Maximus
360-493-0798 Le Maison de Metal Lacey WA Spitfire
401-463-8886 Ministry of Knowledge Crankston RI Unix #
402-551-7979 Buzz's Bar & Grill Omaha NE WWIV
403-288-8208 Mike's Madhouse Calgary AB Mystic #
410-256-3631 Modem Doctor BBS Baltimore MD RBBS
414-355-8163 Inner Circle Milwaukee WI EleBBS #
416-650-5411 Ability Online Support Toronto ON PCBoard #
416-698-6573 Bayman BBS Toronto ON Wildcat #
434-392-7670 Moonstar BBS Farmville VA Worldgroup
480-827-2706 Twilight Zone Tempe AZ Other
502-875-8938 Capitol City Online Frankfort KY GT-2000
503-325-2905 Village Astoria OR Other
503-325-2905 Vacuum Tube Astoria OR Other
503-695-3250 RAIN Corbett OR Wildcat
504-486-7249 New Orleans PC Club New Orleans LA Maximus
504-897-6006 Sursum Corda! BBS New Orleans LA Maximus #
504-897-6614 Digital Cottage New Orleans LA Maximus
514-327-3881 Car Enterprise Montreal QC CarBBS #
514-364-2937 Juxtaposition BBS Lasalle QC Maximus #
515-225-8496 Buffalo Creek's BBS W.Des Moines IA Spitfire
516-393-7500 Point Blank BBS Melville NY Worldgroup #
518-877-6289 518 BBS Albany NY Synchronet #
530-534-5329 TDEC West BBS Oroville CA TriBBS
559-582-4747 Midnight Hour Hanford CA Falken #
561-753-6456 Lil Red's Forest BBS W. Palm Beach FL Wildcat
563-359-1971 Safe BBS Bettendorf IA Wildcat
570-992-8745 Prophecy BBS Effort PA Virtual BBS#
602-272-8403 Sweet Shoppe BBS Phoenix AZ RemoteAccess
603-668-2983 Everybaudy's Online Manchester NH Worldgroup #
603-838-6455 TAO BBS Lisbon NH PCBoard
604-266-5271 BandMaster Vancouver BC Maximus
604-532-4367 Milky Way Langley BC Ezycom #
604-538-7084 Basic'ly Computers White Rock BC Maximus
608-267-7551 WI-Lakes BBS Madison WI PCBoard
608-755-1147 Castle Rock BBS Janesville WI Worldgroup #
613-392-8896 Lion's Den Trenton ON Synchronet #
613-475-4668 Wolf's Den Brighton ON MAXsBBS
613-549-5599 Pause-Cafe Kingston ON Maximus #
614-840-0714 TCL BBS Columbus OH Wildcat #
614-841-0688 Empire's Lair Powell OH Wildcat
615-320-1820 S&H TSX-BBS Nashville TN Other
615-889-3611 Blue Moon BBS Hermitage TN Other
616-392-8175 West Michigan Online Holland MI Worldgroup #
616-588-3336 Cyberspace BBS Grand Rapids MI Worldgroup #
619-448-6470 Shakey Jake's Santee CA Wildcat #
620-231-4190 Family Entertainment Pittsburg KS TWGS #
626-296-1169 EOLOnline Pasadena CA Worldgroup #
626-355-5347 Mysteria Tujunga CA BBS #
636-282-4505 Nightowl.net St. Louis MO Wildcat
661-296-8234 Computer Simplistics Santa Clarita CA Worldgroup #
703-242-4482 OS/2 Shareware BBS Fairfax VA Maximus #
703-818-8904 Colossus Centreville VA WWIV #
704-434-8904 Northern Alliance BBS Shelby NC Wildcat
704-588-2669 WinBBS Pine Harbor NC Maximus
705-327-7629 Encode Online Orillia ON PCBoard
708-863-1766 Snuggler's Cove BBS Cicero IL Worldgroup #
714-562-7290 Magic Fun House BBS La Mirada CA Worldgroup #
714-903-9920 Abyss Westminster CA WWIV #
715-735-0201 WebCentral Marinette WI Worldgroup
716-483-2851 Modem Madness Jamestown NY Worldgroup #
717-838-8539 TANSTAAFL BBS Palmyra PA Maximus
718-692-2498 MoonDog Brooklyn NY PCBoard #
719-522-1488 Goblin's Reach Colo Springs CO Wildcat
732-316-9584 Compunet South Amboy NJ Wildcat #
734-761-3000 GREX Ann Arbor MI Unix #
760-254-3012 Mars Station BBS Barstow CA Wildcat
770-214-8300 Spilman Resources Carrollton GA Wildcat #
770-788-6492 Bozax Covington GA Wildcat #
773-631-3467 Emergency BBS Chicago IL Worldgroup
775-355-0897 Black Door Sparks NV Wildcat
780-439-8364 Xanadu Edmonton AB Roboboard F#
781-843-1013 UWUA Local 369 Weymouth MA Wildcat #
785-478-4101 The Night Sky Topeka KS PCBoard
785-478-4101 Night Sky Topeka KS PCBoard
802-885-6386 Vested Tyme Dataline Springfield VT Virtual Adv#
812-232-4089 Hometown.Net Terre Haute IN Worldgroup #
812-951-2866 Wayne's World New Albany IN Wildcat
815-633-2880 R World BBS Rockford IL Worldgroup #
815-727-6072 Shareware Library Joliet IL Telegard
816-461-6969 Home BBS/ISP Independence MO Worldgroup #
818-368-3337 Earthquake City BBS Granada Hill CA Wildcat
847-836-8087 Fox River Net Cartersville IL Wildcat #
856-933-7096 Christian Fellowship Mt. Ephriam NJ PCBoard #
860-738-7176 Planet Maca's Opus Winsted CT Synchronet #
860-741-5129 Legal Publications Enfield CT Wildcat
901-327-2500 Crystal Clear Ideas Memphis TN Wildcat #
901-458-9001 Linden Room BBS Memphis TN Wildcat #
905-432-7667 Twilight Zone Oshawa ON Renegade
905-840-0592 HomeWard Bound Brampton ON Spitfire #
908-253-6300 Mind Pulse Online Somerville NJ Worldgroup #
916-366-3216 Coconut Telegraph Sacramento CA Wildcat #
918-827-2638 Mike's Morbid Humor Mounds OK Mystic
937-235-5843 J&J's BBS Huber Height OH Wildcat
937-279-0136 My Crazy World BBS Dayton OH Wildcat
940-565-9165 Mezzanine Denton TX Hermes II #
954-484-5020 Puget Systems Sunrise FL Spitfire
972-276-6721 Mars Den BBS Garland TX Wildcat
972-329-0781 Prison Board Mesquite TX Wildcat #
972-496-0650 FamilyNet HQ BBS Sachse TX BBBS #
972-562-8064 Collin County Station McKinney TX Synchronet #
973-917-5544 Jungle Online Rockaway NJ Worldgroup #
Total systems listed: 126
<------------------------------------->

"In short, at a time when the use of rival "experts" has become a primary political strategy on scientific issues, reporters rarely seem to bother investigating who these experts actually are or to question their authority. There are many reasons for our current epidemic of politicized science, but one is that the media doesn't seem to care."
-Chris Mooney-

Machine at Work
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times OpEd
Published: July 13, 2004

From a business point of view, Enron is a smoking ruin. But there's important evidence in the rubble.

If Enron hadn't collapsed, we might still have only circumstantial evidence that energy companies artificially drove up prices during California's electricity crisis. Because of that collapse, we have direct evidence in the form of the now-infamous Enron tapes — although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Justice Department tried to prevent their release.

Now, e-mail and other Enron documents are revealing why Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, is one of the most powerful men in America.

A little background: at the Republican convention, most featured speakers will be social moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A moderate facade is necessary to win elections in a generally tolerant nation. But real power in the party rests with hard-line social conservatives like Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over gun control after the Columbine shootings, insisted that juvenile violence is the result of day care, birth control and the teaching of evolution.

Here's the puzzle: if Mr. DeLay's brand of conservatism is so unpopular that it must be kept in the closet during the convention, how can people like him really run the party?

In Mr. DeLay's case, a large part of the answer is his control over corporate cash. As far back as 1996, one analyst described Mr. DeLay as the "chief enforcer of company contributions to Republicans." Some of that cash has flowed through Americans for a Republican Majority, called Armpac, a political action committee Mr. DeLay founded in 1994. By dispensing that money to other legislators, he gains their allegiance; this, in turn, allows him to deliver favors to his corporate contributors. Four of the five Republicans on the House ethics committee, where a complaint has been filed against Mr. DeLay, are past recipients of Armpac money.

The complaint, filed by Representative Chris Bell of Texas, contends, among other things, that Mr. DeLay laundered illegal corporate contributions for use in Texas elections. And that's where Enron enters the picture.

In May 2001, according to yesterday's Washington Post, Enron lobbyists in Washington informed Ken Lay via e-mail that Mr. DeLay was seeking $100,000 in additional donations to his political action committee, with the understanding that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort in Texas." The Post says it has "at least a dozen" documents showing that Mr. DeLay and his associates directed money from corporate donors and lobbyists to an effort to win control of the Texas Legislature so the Republican Party could redraw the state's political districts.

Enron, which helped launch Armpac, was happy to oblige, especially because Mr. DeLay was helping the firm's effort to secure energy deregulation legislation, even as its traders boasted to one another about how they were rigging California's deregulated market and stealing millions each day from "Grandma Millie."

The Texas redistricting, like many of Mr. DeLay's actions, broke all the usual rules of political fair play. But when you believe, as Mr. DeLay does, that God is using you to promote a "biblical worldview" in politics, the usual rules don't apply. And the redistricting worked — it is a major reason why anything short of a Democratic tidal wave in November is likely to leave the House in Republican hands.

There is, however, one problem: a 100-year-old Texas law bars corporate financing of State Legislature campaigns. An inquiry is under way, and Mr. DeLay has hired two criminal defense lawyers. Stay tuned.

But you shouldn't conclude that the system is working. Mr. DeLay's current predicament is an accident. The party machine that he has done so much to create has eliminated most of the checks and balances in our government. Again and again, Republicans in Congress have closed ranks to block or emasculate politically inconvenient investigations. If Enron hadn't collapsed, and if Texas didn't still have a campaign finance law that is a relic of its populist past, Mr. DeLay would be in no danger at all.

The larger picture is this: Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power.

Monday, July 12, 2004

Something else to worry about...

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Sun Jul 11, 2004 02:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election. Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

"Going to church no more makes you a christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car." -- Garrison Keiler

Is Broadband Out of a Wall Socket the Next Big Thing?
By JAMES FALLOWS
NY Times
Published: July 11, 2004

I want to finish this column before a familiar mood has passed. That is the sense of wonder at seeing that a new form of technology actually works. Based on previous episodes, the mood will soon give way to jadedness. (The first time I used a digital camera, I was amazed that I could see the pictures immediately after I shot them. Within a few days, I had a list of ways the camera should be improved.) So, in this fleeting upbeat moment, here is a word of appreciation for an advance that already has me wondering how I lived without it.

It is known variously as B.P.L, for broadband over power lines, or as HomePlug. As a concept, it has been around for a long time. What is new in the last two years is a series of technical breakthroughs, mainly in chips designed by Intellon, a tiny company in Ocala, Fla. These chips have made power-line transmission fast enough, cheap enough and reliable enough to merit serious attention. A standards-setting group called the HomePlug alliance has also played an important role.

The idea behind this approach is that plain old electric wires can do double duty in carrying high-speed digital data, much the same way that cable, fiber-optic and D.S.L. networks do. The advantage is that the needed electric wires are already there, bringing power to nearly every house in the nation and almost every room in each house. So for a tiny fraction of the cost of building new connections, this approach could help solve the familiar "last mile" problem: how to bring Internet service from trunk lines to each school and household. It can immediately deal with the increasingly vexing "last hundred feet" problem: how to bring broadband service to every nook and cranny of a building.

Here's how it can work inside your house: First, you need a high-speed connection. For me, that's a Starpower cable modem. Then you need a router so your computers can share the connection. Routers have become cheap and very easy to set up. I have a model from Linksys that creates a WiFi zone for my house and costs $60; similar models go for less than $50 on eBay.

If I have a wireless network, why do I want anything else? Because my house has walls, and the walls (and floors) get in the way of the wireless signal, which is coming from the attic, where the cable happens to enter the house. So in half the rooms of the house - to say nothing of the back porch - I suffer the indignity of a weak or unusable WiFi signal. Until recently, my options were to endure this hardship stoically, to pay the cable company to drill new holes and move the cable modem to a central location, or to drape unsightly Ethernet cable down the staircase and through the house to hook up more computers. I toyed with the Ethernet cable option, but one glance from my wife at the garish neon-yellow coils convinced me that stoicism was the wiser course.

Now there is another option: a HomePlug network. I needed a "power-line bridge" to make the network available over the electrical lines in my house - mine was the Netgear XE102 and cost about $50; similar models come from Siemens, Asoka Belkin and other companies that meet the HomePlug standard. I connected it to the router and plugged it into an ordinary wall socket. Instantly, every other socket in the house, and on the porch, became a high-speed-connection site. If I plug another bridge into any other socket, I have the equivalent of an Ethernet port. If I plug in a device called a wireless access point, like a $60 model I got from Siemens, I have a new WiFi hot spot wherever I want it - until I decide to move it someplace else.
<------------------------------------->

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Mozilla says its Web browsers also are accessible to hackers
By David Sheets
Of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
07/09/2004

A Web browser promoted recently as a safe alternative to Microsoft Corp.'s troubled Internet Explorer appears to have problems of its own.

The Mozilla Organization has confirmed that its Mozilla and Firefox browsers have a security flaw that allows hackers access to users' computers. If exploited, the flaw opens a path for attackers to run computer applications remotely, particularly if the applications haven't been updated to repair their own security risks.

The "shell" problem, as Mozilla calls it in the company's announcement, also could cause computers to freeze. Shells are layers of programs that understand and execute commands entered by users.

Only computers running Microsoft's Windows operating systems are affected. Mozilla's confirmation Thursday followed initial reports of the flaw online at Full Disclosure, a public-security mailing list. Mozilla has posted updates and repair information on its Web site at www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html.

The confirmation comes a day after the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team - the group chiefly responsible for defending against online threats - urged computer users to find alternatives to Internet Explorer because of its significant vulnerabilities. About 95 percent of all Internet browsing worldwide uses Internet Explorer.

Microsoft acknowledges that its browser has at least one flaw the company has yet to fix. Without a fix, Internet Explorer users are vulnerable to hackers looking specifically for personal information residing on personal computers.

A release date for that repair has yet to be announced.

Reporter David Sheets
E-mail: dsheets@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8389

Once and For All: THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ-QAEDA !! Got That ??

Senate Report Sees No Formal Iraq-Qaeda Ties
Fri Jul 9, 2004 04:40 PM ET
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in the 1990s never led to a formal relationship and there is no evidence Iraq helped conduct an al Qaeda attack, a report by a bipartisan Senate committee said on Friday.

The findings by the Senate Intelligence Committee came less than a month after the government-established commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's Islamic militant network.

Assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and could provide chemical or biological agents to al Qaeda for attacks on the United States were a main justification for President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

No such weapons have been found, and the Senate panel said most of the U.S. intelligence community's judgments about Iraqi WMD were overstated or unsupported by underlying intelligence.

Bush and his top aides have stood firm on assertions of links between Iraq and al Qaeda, with Vice President Dick Cheney forcefully maintaining that evidence may yet emerge depicting an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks carried out by al Qaeda.

"The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship," the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said.

"The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al Qaeda attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise," said the committee's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq."

Following the Sept. 11 commission's report last month, Cheney suggested in a television interview he might have more information than the panel. The commission issued a terse statement on Tuesday saying the vice president had no more information than commission investigators.

As part of the White House response to the Sept. 11 commission's report, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also said she believed what the panel was actually saying was that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not control al Qaeda. The commission's chairmen flatly rejected her interpretation.

The Senate report, which focused primarily on the intelligence community's reporting on suspected Iraqi WMD, said Saddam might have used al Qaeda to conduct attacks in the event of war if he were sufficiently desperate.

But it said, "No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks."
<------------------------------------->

He Sees the Forest and The Trees...

Letters To the Editor:
NY Times: July 9th, 2004

Re "Bin Laden Is Said to Be Organizing for a U.S. Attack" (front page, July 9):

After the heavy news coverage of the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket, the government has released yet another terror warning. This warning is so vague that it encompasses a six-month time frame and numerous possible targets. It's so benign that it doesn't even warrant a raising of the terror alert level.

The coincidental timing and utter uselessness of this alert should cause Americans to raise their eyebrows and to ask whether the Bush administration is playing politics with fear.
JONATHAN CAREY
<------------------------------------->

Thinking about Selling On eBay?

Note: My experience selling on eBay is a mixed bag, especially lately. In general, Sellers expect to receive 60% more than the item usually sells for, and Buyers expect to buy items for 40% less than they actually spend. Combining all the fees associated with selling on eBay, the actual direct selling fees amount to 8.7%, plus an additional 2.6% to PayPal, meaning Sellers can expect to clear 89% of what they sell. Then add in the indirect selling costs, like Online access costs, packaging, etc and a Seller ends up with more like 75-80% of the selling price.

When selling the same item in a retail store, a Seller can easily get 15-20% more for their item than what it brings on eBay. Thus instead of eBay being a great sales avenue, it turns out to be roughly equivalent to running a retail store. Actually it probably will be slightly better; but not by more than about 10-15% of Sales.

The only real way of making worthwhile money on eBay is by either selling stuff where your cost of sales, (what you paid for the item) is less than half what you sell it for on eBay. If it exceeds 50% of the sale price, you're doing a lot of work for almost nothing.

The most unpleasant aspect of the whole online auction landscape is that in years gone by there were websites, (primarily I'm referring to Haggle Online), that did not charge Buyers or Sellers anything for doing almost exactly what eBay does. Haggle Online actually had more transactions at one time than eBay.

Worse yet, the depreciation of assets has snowballed online thanks to eBay's transactions. In the past, new equipment could be sold on eBay for 70-75% of it's street price, on average; but that has now slipped to 60% or less except for select "hot items".

Then a Seller gets to deal with the PITA 1%'ers. Most Sellers "feedback" from transactions is highly favorable with most Sellers achieving 96%+ positive ratings. Yet as in other realms of life, there will be about 1-3% of a Sellers transactions that cause problems, either from Buyer remorse, shipping damages, improperly described items, fraud by Buyers or Sellers, conceit, or just bad luck. It is not uncommon for a "bad transaction" to gobble up hours of time attempting to address the fallout from these dealings. In a retail environment these bad transactions usually end up favoring the Seller; but online with eBay they usually favor the Buyer.

So if you have a bunch of stuff that you paid almost nothing for, and can easily triple your cost of sales as a selling price, you will probably end up being satisfied with eBay. Otherwise, there may be a better alternative such as listings in "Bargain Publications", Flea Markets, or a Co-Op Retail store.

Am I staying with eBay? In brief: yes, for the time being. Am I evangelical about eBay? No. It's just another in a long line of Big Businesses that control a market segment at a point in time. Any company that earns income from transactions with twenty million people or more acts like a utility company; ie: "we have what you need, and we are the only place you can go to get it, so either go with the program, or try to get what you need somewhere else"; "your individual business means almost nothing to us."

Friday, July 09, 2004

I'm Aftraid It's Going to Get Uglier

House GOP Defends Patriot Act Powers
Partisan Rancor High as Plan to Soften Anti-Terror Law Is Defeated
By Dan Morgan and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 9, 2004; Page A01

House Republicans, under strong pressure from the White House, narrowly defeated an effort yesterday to water down the Bush administration's signature law to combat domestic terrorism.

By a 210 to 210 tie vote that GOP leaders prolonged for 23 tumultuous minutes while they corralled dissident members, the House rejected a proposed change to the USA Patriot Act that would have barred the Justice Department from searching bookstore and library records. White House officials, citing the nearly three-year-old law's importance as an anti-terrorism tool, warned that an attempt to weaken it would be vetoed.

But the victory came only after GOP tactics infuriated Democrats and a number of Republicans. The vote, scheduled to last 15 minutes, dragged on for 38 minutes despite outraged shouts and a unified chant of "shame, shame, shame" from Democrats across the aisle.

The showdown was the latest in a series of bipartisan challenges this week on the House floor to administration positions on trade sanctions against Cuba, budget cuts in a major loan program of the Small Business Administration, and funding for programs promoting democracy abroad. Last month, the House approved a natural resources bill that slashed many of the Bush administration's initiatives in land conservation and the environment.

Last week, Senate negotiators, defying the White House, insisted on pushing for a six-year transportation bill costing $318 billion -- $62 billion above the administration ceiling.

With President Bush's approval rating slipping as a result of setbacks in the Iraq war, lawmakers in both parties appear emboldened to defy the White House and the House GOP leadership.

"The Republican leadership is out of control," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.). "Today's vote on the Freedom to Read Protection Act is just the latest example of a growing trend towards abusive, closed-fist partisanship on the part of Republican House leadership."

Rep. C.L. Butch Otter (R-Idaho), a conservative and an advocate of the defeated provision, told reporters after the vote: "You win some, and some get stolen."

At one point the electronic tally board above the visitors' gallery showed the proposal passing, 219 to 201. But as the Republican whip organization went to work to get defectors to switch, the number of those voting for passage dropped steadily.

The final count recorded 18 Republicans joining 191 Democrats and Rep. Bernard Sanders (Vt.), the House's lone Independent and the chief author of the amendment to limit some powers of the Patriot Act. Sanders called the proceedings "an outrage" and "an insult to democracy."

The House has voted in the past to block portions of the Patriot Act, but Congress has never managed to alter any part of it. The law was quickly passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It gave the government strong powers and leeway to conduct investigations and detain suspects.

Supporters of the Sanders proposal argued that fighting terrorism did not justify encroachments on basic liberties that are implicit in the broad authority the act gives to law enforcement agencies charged with hunting terrorists.

Addressing the House before the vote, Sanders said: "All of us want to support the law enforcement officials going after terrorists, but we can defeat terrorism without allowing the government to get a secret order from a secret court without any showing of any evidence that the person whose reading records are sought is engaged in any kind of illegal conduct."

His amendment had the support of groups that include the American Booksellers Association, the American Library Association and the PEN American Center, representing writers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act say authorities need to track potential al Qaeda members who communicate using Internet facilities in public libraries.

Under the current law, authorities need a special court order to require libraries and other venues to provide records on the sale or borrowing of books and on Internet sites used.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who chairs the subcommittee that drafted the underlying spending legislation before the House yesterday, said, "I believe the Patriot Act has helped" safeguard the safety of Americans.

Other Republicans said there were few examples of the act being used to invade the privacy of library users.

Yesterday's battle was over an amendment to a $39.8 billion bill financing the departments of Commerce, Justice and State for next year, which passed 397 to 18. The Senate has not taken up its version of the spending measure.

The floor fight was reminiscent of November's vote on a Medicare prescription drug program, when GOP House leaders kept the vote going for nearly three hours while they persuaded reluctant members to support passage of the bill.
<------------------------------------->

CIVIL LIBERTIES
Trampling Democracy To Protect It?

In a dramatic scene on the floor of the U.S. House yesterday, the White House and Republican leadership rigged a key vote on a bill that would have reformed the Patriot Act by requiring "law enforcement to go to a regular court instead of a secret court to get permission to demand library and Internet access records of people it is investigating."

The reform, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and broadly supported by 332 local governments, at one point was winning 219-201, and when the official voting time ran out "appeared to have been approved by a 213-206 vote." But even as House members screamed "Shame!," Republican leaders abused their power by indefinitely extending voting time, using the extra time to force nine of their colleagues to switch their votes and defeat the bill on a tie vote 210-210. Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID), a top sponsor of the bill who voted for it, said "You win some, and some get stolen."

See the video of Rep. Sanders' admonishing House leaders after they rigged the process and subverted democracy. And see how lawmakers who supported yesterday's legislation are today attempting to shut down the House in protest.

IGNORING THE PROTEST OF DICK CHENEY: In rigging the vote, House leaders ignored the timeless protest of Vice President Dick Cheney. In 1987, then-Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY) criticized the practice of holding open votes to overturn bills, calling the maneuver "the most heavy-handed, arrogant abuse of power in the 10 years I've been here.''

VOTING DOWN A BILL THEY CO-SPONSORED: Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), both co-sponsors of Sanders's underlying legislation, refused in the waning moments to support the bill. Lofgren, who voted "present," argued the Sanders bill was too broad. What she refused to acknowledge, however, is that House rules precluded him from offering more limited legislation, and that his measure would have likely been modified in House-Senate negotiations to ultimately become the very bill she co-sponsored in the first place. But because she and Wamp cast the deciding votes against the measure, there will be no Patriot Act reform at all.

SPREADING A MYTH TO DEFEAT A BILL: The Bush administration, which threatened to veto the measure if passed, resorted to outright misinformation to confuse wavering Members of Congress. Just before the vote, the Justice Department sent a letter to House members saying that at least twice in recent months "a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided by a public library."

What they failed to say was that the Sanders legislation would not have precluded law enforcement from obtaining those library records – it would have merely forced them to obtain a warrant from a judge (which, if the threat was as critical as they said, should not have been difficult). Rep. Wamp, the co-sponsor who voted against his own legislation, cited the Justice Department letter as the reason he switched his vote.

CLAIMING PATRIOT ACT OPPONENTS DON'T CARE ABOUT 9/11 DEATHS: During the floor debate on the bill, Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) had the nerve to argue that those supporting the bipartisan legislation were disregarding those killed on September 11. Referring to those in his district who died, Shays said, "I have 70 constituents who lost their rights on September 11; and to hear this debate, I am not sure [you] seem to care about that." Incredibly, Shays made his comments just moments after an impassioned speech in support of the bill by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who represents the Manhattan district encompassing Ground Zero. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who also represents New York City and supported the bill, immediately stood up after Shays and said "to have a New Yorker hear that we somehow do not care for the victims of September 11 is really the cheapest kind of blow... I knew people that died there. I was friends with people who died there...[But] in the process of caring for the victims of September 11, no one said we were supposed to throw away the Constitution."

A PATTERN OF INTIMIDATION: Republicans have abused their power and extended votes before in order to get their way. As the NYT reports, when the controversial Medicare bill appeared headed for defeat last year, Republican leaders "held the vote open for three hours to get colleagues to switch their votes." Currently, the House ethics committee is looking into accusations that one lawmaker, Mr. Smith (who also switched his vote on the Patriot Act measure yesterday), was offered a bribe on the House floor for his vote.

Rep. Sanders' noted just how obscene yesterday's behavior was saying, "I find it ironic that, on an amendment designed to protect American democracy and our constitutional rights, the Republican leadership in the House had to rig the vote and subvert the democratic process in order to prevail." Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the tactics "have turned [Congress] into a laughingstock," while other lawmakers "suggested wryly that the United Nations needs to send in election observers to monitor the House."

Note: I probably need to stop reading about NeoCon Republican's or I'm going to be forced into more direct action against them. A majority of my extended family are solid Republican's, and I only have problems with two close relatives who have not a single problem with anything the NeoCon's have done or proposed.

Whatever has brought us to such a vicious religious and political divide is obscene, and should be resisted. Brute force, character assasinations, innuendo, dishonesty, lying, corruption, graft, inhumane treatment, deprivation of basic legal rights under international law, and outright hatred of others by citizens of any country are injurious to the human condition. It just hurts that much more when those engaged in such activities can call themselvers Americans. Absolute, blind faith combined with contempt for the other in either politics or religion is the ultimate social disease!

Curiouser and Curiouser

Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
NY Times
Published: July 9, 2004

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25. The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con, by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr. Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged, including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed. Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that further information could be provided only through another Freedom of Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver, said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool 2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6, 1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore, author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records, Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr. Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

What Part of Political Manipulation of Scientific Enquiry by the Bush Administration Do You Not Understand?

Administration Tries to Rein In Scientists
Health and Human Services Department orders vetting of experts on panels convened by the U.N.'s health agency.

LA Times Headlines
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has ordered that government scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization, the leading international health and science agency.

A top official from the Health and Human Services Department in April asked the WHO to begin routing requests for participation in its meetings to the department's secretary for review, rather than directly invite individual scientists, as has long been the case.

FOR THE RECORD: Scientists —The headline on Saturday's Section A article about Bush administration efforts to control the participation of government scientists in World Health Organization meetings said "White House Tries to Rein In Scientists." The article correctly reported that the Department of Health and Human Services took that action.

Officials at the WHO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, have refused to implement the request thusfar, saying it could compromise the independence of international scientific deliberations. Denis G. Aitken, WHO assistant director-general, said Friday that he had been negotiating with Washington in an effort to reach a compromise.

The request is the latest instance in which the Bush administration has been accused of allowing politics to intrude into once-sacrosanct areas of scientific deliberation. It has been criticized for replacing highly regarded scientists with industry and political allies on advisory panels. A biologist who was at odds with the administration's position on stem-cell research was dismissed from a presidential advisory commission. This year, 60 prominent scientists accused the administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes."

The president's science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, has called the accusations "wrong and misleading, inaccurate."

The newest action has drawn fresh criticism, however, as the request has circulated among scientists.

"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

Henderson worked for the WHO for 11 years directing its smallpox eradication program. He said he could not recall having to go through government bureaucrats to invite scientists to participate in expert panels, except in the case of small Eastern European countries. In 2002, Henderson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was praised by Bush as "a great general in mankind's war against disease."

A few scientists have been worried about the department's vetting demand since April, but concerns heightened this week when Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) complained in a letter to Thompson. "The new policy … politicizes the process of providing the expert advice of U.S. scientists to the international community," Waxman wrote.

Thompson's spokesman, Tony Jewell, called Waxman's criticism "seriously misguided."

"No one knows better than HHS who the experts are and who can provide the most up-to-date and expert advice," Jewell said. "The World Health Organization does not know the best people to talk to, but HHS knows. If anyone thinks politics will interfere with Secretary Thompson's commitment to improve health in every corner of the world, they are sadly mistaken."

The WHO, founded in 1947, is the United Nations agency dedicated to health. It is governed by 192 member states and conducts forums, recommends international health and safety standards and draws leading scientists from around the world to expert panels that review the latest literature on chemical, biological, industrial and environmental threats.

The organization traditionally insists on picking experts to sit on official scientific review panels.

"It's an important issue for us," Aitken said. "We do need independent science. If we want government positions, we have government meetings. We have many, many of these government assemblies, but they address a separate set of concerns" than the scientific gatherings.

Scientists who attend the meetings are reminded that they are invited to offer their scientific views, not to represent their government or financial interests.

The letter to Aitken declaring the new vetting policy was signed by William R. Steiger, special assistant to Thompson. He came to Washington with Thompson from Wisconsin, and is the son of a congressman and the godson of former President George H.W. Bush.

"Except under very limited circumstances, U.S. government experts do not and cannot participate in WHO consultations in their individual capacity," Steiger wrote. Civil service and other regulations "require HHS experts to serve as representatives of the U.S. government at all times and advocate U.S. government policies."

The letter asserts that "the current practice in which the WHO invites specific HHS officials by name to serve in these capacities has not always resulted in the most appropriate selections."

The letter provided no specifics. But WHO panels sometimes have disagreed with positions taken by the administration. A WHO panel met in Lyons, France, this month and declared formaldehyde a known carcinogen — relying on studies that Bush administration political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency had rejected as inconclusive.

Voting members of the panel included scientists from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who had been authors of the studies.

Several leading scientists said the new policy would undermine scientific deliberations.

"This is really tampering with a process that has worked very well," said Linda Rosenstock, the dean of the UCLA School of Public Health who directed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under President Clinton. "To have this micromanaged at the HHS departmental level raises the specter that political considerations rather than scientific considerations will determine who is allowed to go" to the world's most important scientific meetings.

Rosenstock said that some WHO divisions — including the one reviewing cancer threats — have become targets of industry groups. "There is real concern that science could be trumped by politics and vested interests."

For Waxman, a frequent critic of the administration, the department's letter to the WHO is part of a pattern of mixing politics with science — and one he contends diminishes U.S. stature internationally.

This Man Needs a Job in the New Adminstration. Maybe Not Attorney General; but Secretary of State Would Be Fitting...

Transcript of an address to the American Constitution Society For Law and Policy at Georgetown University, June 24th, 2004 by Former VP Al Gore.

The F9/11 Script

Go here for the three part transcript of the movie.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Alternatives to Internet Explorer
By Robert Vamosi (July 6, 2004) Cnet Reviews

This isn't Microsoft's best moment. Because of the many security risks present in Internet Explorer--not the least of them the current attacks using the Browser Helper Object (BHO)--the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends that Windows users move away from Microsoft's Internet browser. Mac and Linux users aren't affected by the latest security flaws, but where can Windows users turn? Here's a quick overview of IE alternatives available today.

Although it's still in beta, Mozilla's new Firefox browser has so far lived up to the buzz surrounding it. Created by the programmers who originally programmed Netscape, Firefox returns to a very simple yet powerful design that made Netscape an early leader in the browser space.

If you want a browser that's been thoroughly vetted, Mozilla itself is an option. Designed primarily for Web designers, Mozilla has a friendly enough interface for even the occasional Internet surfer.

Netscape isn't dead yet, either. Once the market leader in Internet browsing, the latest version isn't the must-have it once was, but it's stable and secure, which is more than we can say about Internet Explorer.

Finally, from Norway, comes Opera, a robust alternative to Internet Explorer. Despite its somewhat cluttered interface and the occasional requirement for a security patch, Opera has held its own for several years and has its own following. There are free and paid versions of Opera available.

Whichever browser you choose, you'll probably need to reset some cookies and save your favorites all over again to get back to the surfing speed you're used to from IE. Nonetheless, it'll be worth the time sacrifice to keep your personal data safe.

Two other alternative browsers, NetCaptor 7.5.2 and MyIE2 0.9.26, offer features and usability enhancements you can't get with Internet Explorer. However, since these browsers use Microsoft's Internet Explorer engine, they may be vulnerable to some of the attacks that also work on IE.

No Safety at the Top For Corporate Leaders
By Carrie Johnson and Ben White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 9, 2004

Yesterday's triple score by federal prosecutors -- the unsealed indictment of former Enron Corp. chief executive Kenneth L. Lay, the conviction of Adelphia Communications Corp. chief executive John J. Rigas for corporate looting, and the denial of a new trial for Martha Stewart -- marks the opening years of the 21st century as a period of unprecedented peril for once-highflying corporate leaders.

Compared with previous cycles of boom and bust, more high-profile chief executives have been indicted and convicted of more serious charges than ever before. Prosecutors are going after executives at the highest levels, seeking redress for the millions of middle-income families, many of whom were new to the stock market, whose mutual funds and retirement savings accounts were hurt when prices collapsed amid charges of wrongdoing and puffery.

"This was the greatest period of malfeasance since the 1930s, and the only reason we didn't have indictments in the '30s was we didn't have the laws yet," said Charles Geisst, a business historian at Manhattan College. "This is obviously the greatest round, there was more money lost than ever before," Geisst added. "And prosecutors can't get away with going only for the mid-level guys, they have to go to the top."

Consider the prosecutorial scorecard in the 949 days since Enron filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2001.

Convicted: chief executives at Adelphia, ImClone Systems Inc., Martha Stewart Living Inc. and Rite Aid Corp.

Indicted: chief executives at Enron, WorldCom Inc., HealthSouth Corp., Tyco International Ltd. and Westar Energy Inc.

Forced from office: Dick Grasso at the New York Stock Exchange, Jean-Marie Messier at Vivendi Universal SA, Joseph P. Nacchio at Qwest Communications International Inc., Gary Winnick at Global Crossing Ltd. and Charles Conaway at Kmart Corp.

The image of Lay being led away in handcuffs yesterday followed similarly humiliating "perp walks" by Tyco's L. Dennis Kozlowski, Adelphia's Rigas, ImClone's Samuel Waksal and others. The message, legal experts say, has gotten through: No chief executive is safe.

World Court to Rule Against Israel's Barrier
Thu Jul 8, 2004 08:10 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The World Court will rule on Friday that Israel's West Bank barrier contravenes international law and must be dismantled, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported. The paper, quoting documents it had obtained, said the barrier infringed Palestinian rights.

"The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of its various obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments," Haaretz quoted the documents as saying.

The paper said on its Web site that 14 out of the 15 judges voted in favor of the ruling, with only American Thomas Buerghenthal dissenting. Shi Jiuyong of China, the court's head judge, will start reading the ruling at 1300 GMT.

Israel has said it will not accept what is expected to be among the most watched rulings in the 58 years of the World Court, based in The Hague. The Jewish state says the network of fences, ditches and walls has already improved security, but Palestinians call it a land grab.

The Upside Down Economy

Lagging Investment: The Cost of the Upside-Down Economy
by Christian E. Weller
July 1, 2004

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

A Real Interview by a Serious Journalist

A transcript of the March 4th, 2003 interview of Donald Rumsfeld in Washington by David Dimbleby of the BBC.

Note: Now if we could just get US press reporters to be closer to Mr. Dimbleby's orientation and further from the People Magazine approach when they conduct interviews with administrative personnel we might not have so easily allowed the Bush Administration to get away with lying to us for over three years about the specifics of almost everything they have been involved in.

Few Detainees in Iraq are Foreign

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fewer than 2 percent of the captives held in Iraq as security threats are suspected foreign fighters, undercutting Bush Administration assertions of the big role of non-Iraqis in the insurgency, USA Today said on Tuesday.

Kerry Selects Edwards as Running Mate

PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry on Tuesday chose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a man with "guts and determination and political skills," as his vice presidential running mate.

By Lisa Myers
NBC News
Updated: 9:57 a.m. ET July 01, 2004

The Pentagon has already awarded Halliburton Co., the controversial military contractor, deals worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. But now former Halliburton insiders have come forward with new allegations of massive waste of taxpayer money.


Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who worked for Halliburton, was so upset by attacks on the company she e-mailed the CEO in December with a strategy on how to fight the "political slurs." But today, after five months inside Halliburton's operation in Kuwait, deYoung has radically changed her opinion. "It’s just a gravy train," she said.

DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."

DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.

"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.

DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."

Both deYoung and West have since left the company. Pentagon documents obtained by NBC News support the whistleblowers' charges. In December auditors complained of Halliburton's "serious deficiencies," including "lack of cost control and cost consciousness." Some examples:

  • Purchase of hundreds of high-end SUVs and pickups, loaded with options like CD players, which "most KBR employees do not need."
  • "Duplication ... and gold-plating" in purchases of computers and high-tech equipment.
  • Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels.


  • The company declined an interview but suggests in an e-mail to NBC News that critics are politically motivated: "When Halliburton succeeds, Iraq progresses. Sadly, a few people don't want either of those results." Halliburton also said the soda problem has been "corrected," and the laundry charges are being investigated, but insists it's "absolutely not true" the company is cavalier about taxpayer money.

    Whistleblower deYoung thinks the problem is obvious. "They're using the war as an excuse, but it's not the war," she said. "It was very bad management." Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.

    Center for American Progress: July 6th
    The Economy: We're 'Stuck'

    Despite a "disappointing" new report showing "far less than expected" new jobs created in June, President Bush claimed the report proved the economy was "vital and growing." As the Baltimore Sun reported, America's "employment engine sputtered last month, producing half as many new jobs (112,000) as expected." The unemployment rate remained stuck at 5.6 percent - with a "high number of people hav[ing] stopped looking for work" because the job market has become so bleak over the last two years. The report "raised new misgivings about the strength and endurance of the rebounding jobs market."

    Although the White House boasts that 1.5 million jobs were added in the last 10 months, columnist Paul Krugman notes, "that figure is barely enough to keep up with a growing working-age population." The New York Times notes that it is "surprising that President Bush would want to play the game" of sugarcoating the economic numbers: "the economy has still lost 1.1 million more jobs than it has gained on his watch, leaving Mr. Bush at risk of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs." As Economy.com's chief economist Mark Zandi said, the new jobs report means "President Bush can write off hopes of restoring the 1.8 million private-sector jobs lost during his term."

    OTHER TROUBLING NUMBERS: Along with the disappointing June numbers, the Labor Department revised the April and May jobs figures to show 35,000 fewer jobs were created than originally reported. Additionally, in a separate report "that implied a leveling off in the pace of the economy," the Commerce Department said new orders at U.S. factories slipped 0.3 percent in May on top of a 1.1 percent decline in April. Economy.com's Zandi also pointed out that statistics prove "if you're unemployed, you're stuck: The duration of unemployment is about as long as it has ever been. In June [the average] was 19.9 weeks -- it doesn't get much longer than that."

    THE MYTH THAT GROWTH IS HELPING WORKERS: The president claimed the report showed "steady, consistent growth" which means that "citizens will be able to find a job." But as Bloomberg News reports, record-high corporate profits are not "trickling down to U.S. workers in the form of pay increases." The new Labor Department report showed nominal weekly earnings actually declined by 0.5 percent. Over the last year, wages have only risen by 2.2 percent - a rate "more than offset" by inflation. CATO's William Niskanen, who served as chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, said, "I don't see any substantial increase in average real wages for some time."

    Stephen Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley & Co., said stagnating wages are "far short of the nearly 10% gains that occurred in the first 29 months of the preceding six cyclical recoveries. This translates into a shortfall of $280 billion in 'missing' real personal income." As the NYT notes, "take-home pay, as a share of the economy, is at its lowest level since the government started keeping track in 1929."

    THE HEALTH CARE SQUEEZE CONTINUES: The president of Aetna, one of the nation's biggest health insurers, recently told investors, "It's fair to say that a lot of the jobs being created may not be the jobs that come with benefits." In other words, workers are feeling squeezed not only by stagnant wages, but also by skyrocketing health care costs.

    In its two-part series on the health care challenges facing America, the Toledo Blade noted for the average American family with the median household income of $42,409, the Bush administration's refusal to deal with health care "has meant steep increases in what [families] and their employers have paid for health insurance. Last year, the average premium for a family of four was $9,086, up from $6,348 in 2000." Even when companies do offer health insurance, new studies show that many employees can't accept it because premiums are too high. Meanwhile, more than 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all.

    Monday, July 05, 2004

    The Essential Krugman: July 4th, 2004

    Moore's Public Service
    NY Times Op-Ed
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.

    There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

    And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

    For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

    Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

    Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

    But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.

    Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

    In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canapés and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.

    The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.

    Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.

    But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.