Flexible Reality
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Ethanol and Biodiesel Development Perspectives in the Bush Administration
Bush Administration's Record Raises Serious Questions About Its CommitmentsChooses Special Interests over Renewable Fuels Standard
There is overwhelming support in Congress for the renewable fuels standard (RFS), which would double the use of ethanol over the next ten years. Analysts estimate that the RFS would increase corn prices by as much as 50 cents per bushel, create 214,000 new jobs, and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies by reducing the amount of oil we import by at least $4 billion each year.
Unfortunately, the RFS has been blocked by the House Republican leadership who have insisted on special interest protections for ground water polluters. And, as a result, this important bipartisan ethanol legislation has been stalled in Congress for over seven months.
Fails to Support Value Added Biobased Products
Adding value to agricultural production is a key way to create jobs in rural America and to improve farm income. The 2002 Farm Bill required that the government give a preference for the purchase of biobased products. Unfortunately, the Administration has cut the value added agriculture product development grants program that helps farmer-owned businesses and cooperatives develop new products. And President Bush's budget for Fiscal Year 2005 proposes to cut $50 million from a program that provides funds for expanding production in ethanol and biodiesel plants.
Note: Hopefully the Bush Adminstration has or will support legislation that places more resources in the hands of entities that can make biodiesel and ethanol into mainstream fuels.
Biodiesel: A Fuel for the Immediate Future?
Note: Biodiesel is a fuel made from organic plants such as soybean, hemp, flax, or corn. It can be made in one's home or purchased from select distributors worldwide. It can be used, with minor limitations, as a direct replacement for standard petroleum diesel fuel, or combined with the latter in a blend, usually denoted a Bxx with the variable being the amount of biodiesel added to petroleum diesel such as the fairly standard B20 grade which is 80% petroleum and 20% biodiesel.Our current dependence on fossil fuels used in gasoline powered vehicles, could over the short term be decreased, mitigated, and migrated to a biodiesel based engine power plant in heavy vehicles, boats, electrical power plants, and personal vehicles. While hydrogen powered engines may eventually become a feasible option, there is no technology on the horizon for attaining a preponderance of these type engines in the near future, especially for personal vehicles. Biodiesel could become the fuel source for our present and immediate future vehicle usage, and the bridge to higher level fueling technologies which may become available with additional research.
Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Diesel's original diesel engine ran on a blend of vegetable oils, not significantly different than biodiesel. Petroleum based fuels became common as the preferred basis of diesel fuel used in engines based on several economic and technical factors; but given the current level of equipment sophistication the blending or complete replacement of petroleum products in diesel fuels can be achieved by processors throughout the develped world now, if there were sufficient support for the migration.
Unlike fossil fuels, biodiesel can be replenished by planting more crops, harvesting, and processing within the same year. Ethanol production in the US has been estimated at three billion gallons for 2004 while biodiesel is estimated at only thirty five million gallons. However, this is more a function of policy and politics rather than the intrinsic value of each fuel.
"Rapeseed (Brassica Napus), or canola, produces about 2,000 pounds of seed per acre, yielding about 100 gallons of vegetable oil for fuel, and 1,200 pounds of high-protein meal (seedcake) that can be used for livestock feed or as an organic fertilizer.
The seedcake could also be used to make ethanol, and so could the several tons of crop wastes.
Yields from soybeans are about 60 gallons per acre, from coconuts more than 200 gallons per acre, and from oil palms more than 500 gallons per acre."
Furthermore "biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel."
For a more complete introduction to biodiesel fuels you can start here.
"Big Daddy a'int all there is to surviving in today's world. Get competence? Swagger don't do you no good if the other guy is intent on f***ing you up !" Anon.
The Ideal Ticket for 2004
Sense and SensibilityBy DAVID BROOKS
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: October 2, 2004
In weak moments, I think the best ticket for this country would be Bush-Kerry. The two men balance each other out so well.
Kerry can't make a decision; Bush makes them too quickly. Kerry changes his mind by the month; Bush almost never changes his mind. Kerry thinks obsessively about process questions, but can't seem to come up with a core conviction; Bush is great at coming up with clear goals, but is not so great about coming up with the process to get there.
That was the striking thing about the debate on Thursday night. It wasn't so much a clash of ideologies, or a clash of cultures. It was a clash of two different sorts of minds.
You could say it was a hedgehog (Bush) debating a fox (Kerry), if you want to use that tired but handy formulation. But I think you'd be getting closer to the truth if you put it this way: The atmosphere of Kerry's mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. He talks like a manager or an engineer.
The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. He talks about the sort of personal and national character we need in order to triumph over our enemies. His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality.
When John Kerry was asked how he would prevent another attack like 9/11, he reeled off a list of nine concrete policy areas, ranging from intelligence reform to training Iraqi troops, but his answer had no thematic summation. If you glance down a transcript of the debate and you see one set of answers that talks about "logistical capacity" or "a plan that I've laid out in four points," or "a long list" of proposals or "a strict series of things" that need to be done, you know that's Kerry speaking.
If, on the other hand, you see an answer that says, "When we give our word, we will keep our word," you know that is Bush. When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that's Bush.
These contrasting casts of mind influence how the two men see the world - for example, how they define the enemy. On Thursday night, Bush defined the war on terror as a broad moral and ideological struggle. He said, "We have a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate."
Bush believes that Iraq is a crucial battlefield in the war because a free Iraq will be a rebuttal to radical Islam right in the heart of the Arab world.
Kerry, on the other hand, defined the enemy in narrow, concrete terms. He emphasized that it was Osama bin Laden who attacked us. He emphasized the need to defeat Al Qaeda's network. He called Iraq a diversion from defeating that network.
Each cast of mind comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. The mechanically minded Kerry is much better at talking about realities like securing the Iraqi border. On the other hand, he is unable to blend his specific proposals into guiding principles.
That's why he's been fuzzy about the big things over the entire course of his career. That's why he has changed his mind on big issues with such astonishing rapidity. That's why he gets twisted into pretzels, like vowing to continue fighting the Iraq war, which he says was a mistake to begin.
Bush, by contrast, is steadfast and resolute. But his weakness is statecraft. That is the task of relating means to ends, of orchestrating the institutions of government to achieve your desired goals.
Bush sometimes acts as if it's enough for a president to profess his faith. But a coach can't just dream up a game plan. He has to understand what his specific players can and can't do, and adapt to those realities.
Bush launched a pre-emptive war even though his intelligence community was incompetent. He occupied a country even though he didn't really believe in, or work with, the institutions of government he would need to complete the task.
Nonetheless, I suspect that the reason Bush's approval ratings hover around 50 percent, despite a year of carnage in Iraq, is because of the reason many of us in the commentariat don't like to talk about: in a faithful and moralistic nation, Bush's language has a resonance with people who know that he is not always competent, and who know that he doesn't always dominate every argument, but who can sense a shared cast of mind.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Excuse Me??
While Mr. Brooks may have an insightful observation on the differences between the "mind sets" of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, he really should question which mind set works best for our country's current situation. After almost four years as CEO of our country, Mr. Bush's actions have almost uniformly resulted in negative outcomes. Mr. Bush can point to only two questionably worthwhile legislative achievement proposed by his efforts, and both of those were only actively supported by Mr. Bush after he initially refused to consider them as viable options.
Other much more damaging outcomes came into fruition during his term, most of which cannot possibly be blamed on previous administrations. These include worldwide mistrust of American strategic plans, lack of respect and adherence to international law by his administration, the infusion of heavily moralistic and jingoistic social, legal, and religious dogma into contemporary American discourse, and the the attempted circumvention of legal rights guaranteed by our Consititution, such as the detention of "enemy combattants".
So, we disagree with Mr. Brooks about the ideal 2004 Ticket. In our opinion it is best where it will be: Kerry/Edwards. It will be up to Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards to provide the leadership team for our country and fill in the Teddy Roosevelt flavored political substance to molify the needs of that portion of the electorate that uses "My Country Right or Wrong" as their bedrock principle. For our country and the world, we need to provide a talented CEO; not a John Wayne style national Daddy figure.
The Essential Krugman: Respect
America's Lost RespectBy PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: October 1, 2004
"As a result of the American military," President Bush declared last week, "the Taliban is no longer in existence."
It's unclear whether Mr. Bush misspoke, or whether he really is that clueless. But his claim was in keeping with his re-election strategy, demonstrated once again in last night's debate: a president who has done immense damage to America's position in the world hopes to brazen it out by claiming that failure is success.
Three years ago, the United States was both feared and respected: feared because of its military supremacy, respected because of its traditional commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
Since then, Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American military power, and has tied up much of that power in a grinding guerrilla war. This has emboldened regimes that pose a real threat. Three years ago, would North Korea have felt so free to trumpet its conversion of fuel rods into bombs?
But even more important is the loss of respect. After the official rationales for the Iraq war proved false, and after America failed to make good on its promise to foster democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq - and, not least, after Abu Ghraib - the world no longer believes that we are the good guys.
Let's talk for a minute about Afghanistan, which administration officials tout as a success story. They rely on the public's ignorance: voters, they believe, don't know that even though the United States promised to provide Afghanistan with both security and aid during its transition to democracy, it broke those promises. It has allowed the country to slide back into warlordism - and allowed the Taliban to make a comeback.
These days, Mr. Bush and other administration officials often talk about the 10.5 million Afghans who have registered to vote in this month's election, citing the figure as proof that democracy is making strides after all. They count on the public not to know, and on reporters not to mention, that the number of people registered considerably exceeds all estimates of the eligible population. What they call evidence of democracy on the march is actually evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
It's the same story in Iraq: the January election has become the rationale for everything we're doing, yet it's hard to find anyone not beholden to the administration who believes that the election, if it happens at all, will be anything more than a sham.
Yet Mr. Bush and his Congressional allies seem to have learned nothing from their failures. If Mr. Bush is returned to office, there's every reason to think that they will continue along the same disastrous path.
We can already see one example of this when we look at the question of torture. Abu Ghraib has largely vanished from U.S. political discussion, largely because the administration and its Congressional allies have been so effective at covering up high-level involvement. But both the revelations and the cover-up did terrible damage to America's moral authority. To much of the world, America looks like a place where top officials condone and possibly order the torture of innocent people, and suffer no consequences.
What we need is an effort to regain our good name. What we're getting instead is a provision, inserted by Congressional Republicans in the intelligence reform bill, to legalize "extraordinary rendition" - a euphemism for sending terrorism suspects to countries that use torture for interrogation. This would institutionalize a Kafkaesque system under which suspects can be sent, at the government's whim, to Egypt or Syria or Jordan - and to fight such a move, it's up to the suspect to prove that he'll be tortured on arrival. Just what we need to convince other countries of our commitment to the rule of law.
Most Americans aren't aware of all this. The sheer scale of Mr. Bush's foreign policy failures insulates him from its political consequences: voters aren't ready to believe how badly the war in Iraq is going, let alone how badly America's moral position in the world has deteriorated.
But the rest of the world has already lost faith in us. In fact, let me make a prediction: if Mr. Bush gets a second term, we will soon have no democracies left among our allies - no, not even Tony Blair's Britain. Mr. Bush will be left with the support of regimes that don't worry about the legalities - regimes like Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Friday, October 01, 2004
DNC Releases New 'Faces of Frustration' Post Debate Video
Video Highlights Bush's Debate Frustration, Anger, Annoyance
Oct. 1st, 2004
WASHINGTON, DC – The Democratic National Committee released a new "Faces of Frustration" post-debate video today featuring a compilation of George W. Bush's angry, frustrated, annoyed, and peeved reactions to John Kerry's strong debate performance.
"Don't Give an Inch". "Never stop thinking the progress of the last couple of hundred years can't be undone". "What you think or believe is nowhere near as important as what you do". "Giving younger folks the medical and scientific facts about condoms does not automatically lead to their inappropriate use".
Abstinence Only Is Not The Best Method
EDUCATION
Abstinence-Only Puts Ideology Over Science
American Progress Report
Oct 1, 2004
The White House has consistently advocated and lavishly funded "abstinence only" sex education, gutting funding for programs which included information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. To support this position, the administration has distorted the scientific evidence about what works in sex education. Two new studies by Advocates for Youth (AFY) on the long-term impact of federally funded abstinence-only programs on teen sexual behavior confirm recent literature on the subject: the programs have no long-term effect on teens' intentions to have sex, but sour them on contraception, making it less likely they will take responsible measures to protect themselves if they do engage in intercourse.
ABSTINENCE-ONLY DOESN'T INCREASE ABSTINENCE: AFY's evaluation of eleven state abstinence-only programs, ten of which were funded federally, found there were "few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact." Overall, programs were moderately successful at improving participants' short-term attitudes towards abstinence but highly unlikely to positively affect participants' sexual behaviors. Five programs measured long-term impact on sexual behavior: "No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens' sexual behavior at follow-up, three to 17 months after the program ended."
ABSTINENCE-ONLY DISCOURAGES SAFE SEX: In at least two states, AFY Evaluators noted that abstinence-only programs' emphasis on the failure rates of contraception, including condoms, "left youth ambivalent, at best, about using them." The results are consistent with a Columbia University study by sociology chair Peter Bearman. Bearman's study, which tracked the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents between 12 and 18 years old over a five-year period, "found unsafe sex much greater among youth who'd signed pledges to abstain from sex" until marriage. The "virginity pledge" is a key component of many abstinence-only education programs.
ABSTINENCE-ONLY TEACHES BAD SCIENCE, MISINFORMS TEENS: In place of effective, disease-preventing safe-sex education, the administration wants to fund programs that denounce condom use, and mislead teens about the risks and effects of sexual intercourse. Much of the money proposed for the abstinence programs, Salon reports, "would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to…school programs that teach kids that premarital sex leads to psychological maladies and that sex with condoms is a kind of viral Russian roulette." In Texas, where Bush pushed for an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum as governor, one textbook under review "advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence."
ABSTINENCE-ONLY HAS HAD NO IMPACT ON NATIONAL BEHAVIOR: There is no national data to suggest abstinence-only has had any positive effect on sexual attitudes or behaviors. From 1991 to 1997, sexual experience (the proportion of 9th through 12th graders reporting that they have ever had sexual intercourse) decreased significantly by 11 percent. But from 1999 to 2003, the period coinciding with the triumph of the abstinence-only agenda, changes in sexual experience leveled off.
BUSH PUTS ABSTINENCE-ONLY AHEAD OF DOMESTIC NEEDS: Despite its ineffectiveness, when it comes to abstinence education, "money seems to be no object. The administration's 2005 budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex," double the amount spent last year. Even as it guts proven HIV-prevention programs, the administration continues funneling money into abstinence-only programs proven to be, at best, grossly ineffective. Read this new American Progress column to see how HIV-prevention funding cuts have affected Washington, D.C.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Republicans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Post Debate Comments from HaloScan.com via Atrios
<------------------------------------->
Bush is losing the debate.. I can't take it anymore..Why wont he fight back!!!
The spin seems to be "No knock out blow.."
I had no idea it was gonna be so entertaining
Kerry definitely Presidential, Bushie definitely poodle.
George Bush was in no way, shape or form prepared for this debate tonight.
He played the cowboy well, but the petulant little president is very unappealing
You know it's clean sweep for Kerry when Joe Scarborough calls it for him.
Kerry 84% bush 12% on cnn poll.
Prior to tonight I had doubts that Kerry would win. I feel 99% certain he will win now.
Just watched NBCs last piece with 6 undecided Ohio voters. All 6 said Kerry was better
Kerry: packed way more substance; ear for detail and able to ad lib a point.
Kerry really *did* come off as very dignified, gracious, statesmanlike.
Cleaned His Clock !!!!
My high school debate club was more polished. This guy is an embarassment.
Even resolute Republicans are changing their minds after this debate.
The single-term Bush family tradition will continue.
I fearfully tremble at the prospect of his next Olympian effort at the townhall debates.
Kerry looked Presidential, Bush looked like he was running out the clock.
"The right-wing blogs went nuts with disappointment" after the debates.
It's amazing what being able to talk like a grown-up can do, isn't it?
I thought he'd be good but I never imagined ...
How could a supposedly sober G.W. look so incredibly drunk?
From those early polls Kerry moved voters! yeeessss!
there was this one dude named John that was beating the crap out of this other dude
Bush did a brilliant job of lowering expectations for the next two debates.
I thought that Kerry was poised, confident, knowledgeable, and clear.
Here's the problem - this was way too much of a Kerry victory. I smell a rat.
come back from "help is on the way" was childish.
Jon Stewart gently eviscerated Giuliani. He really is the only real journalist on TV.
It looks like the big quote among the wire services is "colossal error in judgment".
They got nothing. NOTHING.
Bush angry and confused. Kerry clear and unflustered.
What a pathetic performance by Bush. Simply repeating the same two talking points over and over is meaningless. Anyone over a 2nd grade level would be offended by the transparent manipulation of it. Bush is a crappy product, and fear is his spin team's only marketing tool. I think its effectiveness is waning on the American public, but since they only know one trick, I expect a raise in the terrror alert level to counteract Bush's poor debate performance.
I've never seen an ass whipping in a political debate as I saw tonight. Kerry just rolled Bush.
Tonight was amazing, way beyond my wildest expectations, and.....
Listening to callers on radui who are for Bush, and they're making excuses....
Anybody who takes as much goddamn vacation as he does has no business being tired. Ever!
you can tell how bad chimpy did, all his surrogates look shell shocked.
El Smirko sure was drinking a lot of water.
Wanna know what's lame? "It's hard work doing president things!"
We are in danger now. Bush's people know he just lost the election, minus a major October surprise.
I'll bet I sleep soundly tonight.
"I know how the world works!" That line didn't work on my parents when I was 19.
McCain just said that Bush won the debate, but Kerry did a decent job.
We can't afford homeland security? WE CAN'T AFFORD HOMELAND SECURITY!?
Yes, here at Eschaton the joy is amplified by the silence of trolls.
Howard Fineman just said, "Bush had about 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate."
Bush puts his daughters on a leash???
I don’t think the thugniks were prepared for this at all
Kerry wins, you got the right idea, focus, we are all gonna stay focused.
Roberts Rules of Order Refresher
Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case.
Josh Marshall says Bush's motto has become: "It's Not My Fault." Claiming credit for the two things that went right; but attempting to avoid blame for the dozens of things that went wrong. "It's Not My Fault", he says...
Sometimes the Multi-Millionaire Cheney has concerns about Millionaire Bush: "How can he make money that way?"
The Politics of Science: Bush and Kerry Battle It Out
by Roddy Scheer
E/The Environmental Magazine
September 29, 2004—Nature, a leading international science periodical, has published written responses from President Bush and challenger John Kerry to questions regarding their respective stands on various scientific issues, including stem cell research, global warming, genetically modified crops and nuclear weapons development. As might be expected, the candidates rarely agreed on what should be done regarding federal policy on most matters of science.
In general, Bush came down on the side of preventing research on new stem cell lines, waiting and seeing regarding global warming, allowing the free market to regulate genetically modified foods, and continuing the development of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Kerry wants to lift restrictions on stem cell research, restart international negotiations regarding climate change policy, watch genetically modified foods more closely and stop all nuclear weapons development.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
A Key Point in National Service
Tzahal - The Israel Defense Forces (abbr. IDF)The IDF was established on May 26 1948, by the Provisional Government of the State of Israel. The IDF is an organic part of the people, essentially based on reserve service by the civilian population.
The IDF has proven itself one of the most important factors in effecting the integration of the varied cultural elements of Israel's population. In the early days of the state, the IDF probably had more influence in this respect than any other single element, and today it is on a par with the school system in bringing about national integration.
From its inception, Israel established a system of compulsory military service requiring both men and women of certain ages to report for varying periods of service. The IDF comprise three types of service: conscript service, reserve service and regular service. On conclusion of his or her conscript service, every soldier is assigned to a reserve unit. The IDF is composed of three elements: regular officers and N.C.O.; the standing army - regular officers, N.C.O.s and conscripts; and reserve forces, which can be mobilized at any given time.
Note: America might not need a "Draft"; but it most likely would benefit from compulsory national service by everyone! It's very difficult to become or stay a bigot with others who share your foxhole!
Senator says it's time to consider reviving the draft
All Americans must sacrifice to defend the nation, he says
Helen Dewar, Washington Post
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Washington -- Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and influential member of the Foreign Relations Committee, wants the United States to consider reviving the draft as part of a broader effort to ensure that all Americans "bear some responsibility ... pay some price" in defending the nation's interests.
At a committee hearing Tuesday and in subsequent interviews, the Nebraska Republican said he was not advocating reinstatement of the draft, although he added he was "not so sure that isn't a bad idea."
His main interest, he said, is to ensure that some kind of mandatory national service is considered so "the privileged, the rich," as well as the less affluent, bear the burden of fighting wars of the future.
Hagel said he did not expect to see action on such a bill this year but wanted to spark debate that would "bring some reality to our policy-making" about future military needs. With American armed forces abroad stretched thinner than they have been at any time since Vietnam and with needs likely to continue indefinitely, "this is a steam engine coming right down the track at us," he said.
Appearing with Hagel on NBC's "Today" show, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations panel, agreed with Hagel's goal of shared sacrifice and did not rule out a draft. However, Biden said, "I don't think it's necessary now. ... (The) "whole notion of a shared burden is something we should be talking about well beyond the issue of just the draft."
Legislation has been introduced in both houses to revive the draft, which was ended in 1973 as the Vietnam War wound down and subsequently replaced by an all-volunteer army. The bills are sponsored by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. No action has been scheduled on either measure.
Hagel, an independent-minded conservative with a penchant for provocative comments, supported the war in Iraq but has criticized many aspects of the administration's postwar operations. Rarely, however, has he taken on a more controversial subject than the draft.
"My colleagues are running away from this as fast as they can," he said, but "there isn't a one of them who doesn't understand what I'm doing."
President Bush is right that the country is engaged in a long-term war, Hagel said, and the country is "making commitments for future years that we cannot fulfill" in fighting terrorism and trying to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Already 40 percent of the ground troops in Iraq come from the National Guard and Reserves, and recruitment and retention will be a problem, he said.
Moreover, he said, all Americans should be asked to "share the sacrifice" of protecting their country. "It's unfair to ask only a few people to bear the burden of fighting and dying."
A mandatory national service requirement for civilian as well as military work could help meet many needs at home while simultaneously providing personnel for the armed forces, Hagel said.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Be Prepared...
Schadenfreude: n. delight in another person's misfortune
[German : Schaden, damage (from Middle High German schade, from Old High German scado) + Freude, joy (from Middle High German vreude, from Old High German frewida, from fr, happy).]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Florida Shenagians 2000 Redux ??
Still Seeking a Fair Florida VoteWashington Post
By Jimmy Carter
Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair. The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"
The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.
The most significant of these requirements are:
A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
<------------------------------------->
"...woman said these jobs are going boy, and they a'int coming back..."
Consumer Confidence Falls Again in Sept.Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:53 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
By Dena Aubin
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumer confidence edged lower again in September after falling in August, as persistent worries about the job market weighed on sentiment, a report on Tuesday said.
The Conference Board, a private forecasting group, said its index of the mood of U.S. consumers fell to 96.8 from a revised 98.7 in August. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a rise to 99.0.
Consumer worries about the labor market have clouded the outlook for consumer spending, which powers two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Soaring oil prices, which crimped spending in the second quarter, pose another threat to economic growth.
"Confidence in the state of the economy is diminished and within that, confidence on job prospects is the biggest factor," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp. "I would guess that the impact of higher oil prices is feeding through as well. The problem with energy prices is that when they rise, there's nowhere to run."
The percentage of consumers surveyed who said jobs were hard to get rose to 28.3 percent from 26.0 percent, while those seeing jobs as plentiful fell to 16.8 percent from 18.4 percent.
"The recent declines in the index were caused primarily by a deterioration in consumers' assessment of employment conditions," Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said. "Soft labor market conditions have clearly taken a toll on consumer confidence."
NOT ON MY WATCH:
American Progress Report
Sept 28, 2004
In her book on genocide, "A Problem From Hell," Samantha Power recounts how President Bush wrote four words in the margins of a memo he received on President Clinton's response to the Rwandan genocide: "Not on my watch." And yet, just a decade after close to a million Rwandans lost their lives as the world stood by, the international response to the unfolding crisis remains "agonizingly slow." And, unfortunately, it is happening on President Bush's watch. As the man who urged Americans to "fight evil" and touts his preference for "action" over deliberation, he has offered not one public speech on Sudan and made no contingency plans, even as the situation "threatens to become one of the most devastating humanitarian disasters of our times."
Monday, September 27, 2004
Kofi Annan's Interview on the BBC
The War In Iraq Is Illegal
Choice of words mattersBy Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
The use of a single word in diplomacy can often mark a significant moment and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's use of the word "illegal" about the war in Iraq is one such moment.
He has carefully avoided the word before.
His previous phrasing was to say that the war was "not in conformity with the UN Charter". This was a typical diplomatic phrase designed to get over the meaning, but to avoid directness. It was not exactly a ringing phrase and Mr Annan was content with that.
Now, in a BBC interview, he has been pressed into using the word "illegal" and that is the word which will now be used everywhere to describe his position.
He has not changed his position. But his language has changed and that counts. It is worth noting that he still hedged the word round with references to the UN Charter, but that will be largely ignored.
Diplomacy does not often like directness. Mr Annan is a diplomatic sort of diplomat.
<------------------------------------->
I've indicated that [the Iraq war] was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal
Kofi Annan
UN Secretary General
Annan interview excerpts
BBC: "So you don't think there was legal authority for the war."
Mr Annan: "I have made it clear, I have stated clearly, that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter."
BBC: "It was illegal."
Mr Annan: "Yes, if you wish."
BBC: "It was illegal."
Mr Annan: "Yes, I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
The actual word was wrested from him as the final thing he said. He probably did not intend to say it, but found that he could not avoid it.
So why does he think it illegal?
In the interview, he remarked that Resolution 1441, passed on 8 November 2002, warned Iraq that there would be "serious consequences" if it did not comply with UN demands over its suspected weapons programmes.
Mr Annan said it should have been left to the UN Security Council, in a second resolution, to determine what those consequences were.
The United States and Britain argued they were carrying out the wishes of the Security Council and that their authority was based not just on Resolution 1441, but on previous UN resolutions.
The British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, issued a public statement of his outline argument, though he did not publish, or even give the members of the cabinet, his detailed reasoning.
He said the original Resolution 678 from 1990, which allowed for "all necessary means" to end Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and "restore international peace and security" in the region, still applied.
It had been, he said, "revived" by Resolution 687 from 1991, which demanded that Iraq disarm. Since Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 687, the attorney general argued, there was authority to use force.
For opponents of the Iraq war, the use of the word "illegal" will confirm their arguments in a satisfactory way.
Supporters, including those who might not be wholly convinced by Lord Goldsmith's argument, might rely on the so-called Kosovo defence.
The war by Nato against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999 was not authorised by the UN either, but was viewed by its proponents as a legitimate intervention to protect civilians.
Patriot Act II + 1/2
From American Progress Report: Sept 27th, 2004:
INTELLIGENCE REFORM
Hastert's Political Trickery
A House bill crafted by GOP leaders with no input from Democrats seeks to "graft broadened police powers" onto a plan to reform the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies. The bill, released to House members on Friday, "stands in sharp contrast to the bill passed unanimously [last] week by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee." Rather than working in the spirit of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission for which the bill is named, GOP leaders crafted the legislation behind closed doors and added several controversial provisions many groups say could endanger Americans' civil liberties. The changes in the House bill, besides potentially threatening the freedom of American citizens, "will present major challenges for House-Senate negotiators trying to agree on a single bill later this year."
POLITICIZING SECURITY: "Ebullient Republicans" all but admitted the provisions had been slipped into the bill as a political trick to bait Democrats into voting against a bill concerned with national security. John Feehery, a spokesman for House Majority leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL), said it would be hard for Democrats to oppose measures aimed at preventing future domestic attacks. "The Democrats got spanked hard on homeland security [in 2002]," Feehery told reporters, referring to the GOP's crass politicization of homeland security issues in 2002 Senate races. "I don't think they want to get spanked again." But some House Republicans were less than thrilled with such politicization. "The bill that I saw … I don't intend to support," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. LaHood joined Democratic leaders in expressing skepticism the House and Senate would be able to reconcile their differing versions of the bill before Congress adjourns in mid-October. Here's more on how the Republicans have used national security as a political tool.
BROAD NEW POWERS FOR POLICE: The new bill includes broad measures that could do more harm to Americans' civil liberties than to terrorists. The New York City Bill of Rights Defense Council calls the new provisions "some of the most repressive legislation that we've witnessed in recent years…These provisions represent a massive attack on all of our civil liberties, and in particular the rights and liberties of immigrants and members of the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities." Among such provisions are measures permitting "warrants against non-citizens even when a target can't be tied directly to a foreign power." The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission, in contrast, called for civil liberties to be strengthened.
PATRIOT ACT: THE SEQUEL: Though it is named for the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, controversial portions of the House bill more closely mimic provisions suggested not by the 9/11 Commission report but which appeared "in a leaked Justice Department memo in January 2003, dubbed by critics 'Patriot II,' after the 2001 USA Patriot Act." That memo, crafted in secret by the Department of Justice and leaked to the public, sought to weaken "many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance." According to the ACLU, Patriot II made it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping on U.S. citizens, enhanced the government's ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval and authorized secret arrests in immigration and other cases where the detained person is not criminally charged. One section explicitly expanded the attorney general's authority to authorize electronic surveillance and physical searches without court approval at any time after "Congress authorizes the use of military force."
UNIONS NOT TRUSTED WITH SECURITY: The Washington Post reports a small section buried deep within the new House legislation "would make it easier for the president to exclude unions from representing 'homeland security' employees." No one seems to know "where the proposal came from or why it is needed." The two-paragraph provision "would amend one part of civil service law and repeal a section of the 2002 law that sought to smooth the transition of unionized employees into the new Department of Homeland Security." It would also add "homeland security" to the list of functions that the president can deem exempt from union representation.
Watch Your Back with These Folks !
They Will Do Almost Anything for Their Man !!
Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the BibleBy DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 24, 2004
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Sunday, September 26, 2004
NPR's Fresh Air Episode: Sept 18th, 2003
Teri Gross's Interview with Salam Pax, the "Bagdad Blogger" is here. He was supposedly hired by the Guardian in late 2003 to write a forthnightly article...which never appeared. So where is Rael?How Many Ways Must You Hear It Before Seeing It With Your Own Eyes?
An Un-American Way to CampaignNY Times Editorial
Published: September 25, 2004
President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.
When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."
This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.
Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.
It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.
The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.
We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.
Offshoring is the issue ! not out-sourcing !!
As Deep Throat Said: "Watch the Money" !!
Foreign Tax Havens Costly to U.S., Study SaysBy LYNNLEY BROWNING
NY Times Business Section
Published: September 27, 2004
America's biggest corporations are increasingly funneling profits earned in the United States to tax havens around the globe, depriving the United States Treasury of anywhere from $10 billion to $20 billion in lost tax revenue each year, according to a new study.
The study, to be published today in the trade journal Tax Notes, says that United States multinational corporations shifted $75 billion in domestic profits last year to no-tax and low-tax foreign havens like Bermuda and Ireland.
The study's author, Martin A. Sullivan, said that legal loopholes and tax credits could mean in theory that no taxes are owed to the United States government on the shifted income. But he wrote that the shifting is more likely to result in annual tax losses to federal coffers of $10 billion to $20 billion. He said yesterday that at least some of the transfer probably occurred through questionable tax shelters.
In a related study, published by Tax Notes earlier this month, Mr. Sullivan concluded that that profits reported by American multinational companies from their foreign subsidiaries, and not from their operations based in the United States, soared 68 percent since 1999, to $149 billion last year. The earlier study said that the rise in foreign earnings was not accompanied by any gain in real economic activity in the tax havens, suggesting that multinationals were increasingly using offshore tax shelters to shield earnings.
Mr. Sullivan is a former Treasury Department economist who specialized in international taxation. His study is based on Commerce Department data. His estimates of domestic profit-shifting and the corresponding tax losses are for earnings generated by the United States-based operations of American multinational companies, and not for earnings generated by their foreign subsidiaries in low-tax countries.
Under current United States tax laws, American companies can defer taxes on profits earned offshore as long as those profits are not returned to the United States. An updated study by J. P. Morgan Chase in June 2003 said that $650 billion held offshore by American corporations like Exxon Mobil and General Electric was waiting in accounts to be repatriated to the United States if proposed legislation enacting a highly reduced rate is enacted.
The dwindling coalition which initially consisted of 67 countries supporting OIF in 2003, shrank to 34 countries in March 2004, and by the Fall of 2004, there were only three countries in the world who had more than a thousand troops or paid in $50M or more in financial support for OIF. Over 85% of the US Armed Forces fatalities in Iraq have occured after Pres. Bush declared the "End of Major Operations" in May 2003.
