Yeah, that got our attention. Visual cues always work better than just text. 

Spin City: QaQaa Explosives & The Administrations Replies

All The President's Excuses

The White House has been unable to explain how 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared under its watch in Iraq, and has instead tried to deflect blame with a series of excuses.
None of them hold up. Read this new document from American Progress for the full story.

EXCUSE #1 – THEY WERE GONE WHEN WE GOT THERE: Administration spokesman Dan Senor said on CNN that "there's a very high probability that those weapons weren't even there
before the war." All the evidence, however, suggests the opposite. In an
Oct. 25 AP story, a Pentagon official said, "US-led coalition troops had
searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and
confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact."
According to Today's New York Times, after U.S. troops came through, Iraqis on
the scene in Al Qaqaa "described an orgy of theft"
as the sensitive military site was picked clean by looters. Iraq's top science
official, Mohammed al-Sharaa, confirmed these reports, saying, "It is
impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the
regime's fall. The officials that were inside this facility (Al Qaqaa)
beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall."

EXCUSE #2 – WE DIDN'T
KNOW ABOUT IT: One White House strategy has been to simply plead ignorance.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We were informed on October
15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now."
What they're not talking about: The New York Times reported that Iraqi officials
say they warned Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, that
Al Qaqaa had probably been looted in May 2004, six months ago.

EXCUSE #3 – WE'VE
SECURED LOTS OF OTHER MUNITIONS: White House Press Secretary Scott
McClellan tried to minimize the importance of the 380 tons of explosives that
went missing, saying, "400,000 tons of munitions have been seized or destroyed
by coalition forces." But McClellan is comparing apples to oranges. The
400,000 tons the White House cites refers to munitions – including guns and
ammunition. Pound for pound, the 380 tons of explosives are much, much more
powerful. For example, "the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound
of the same type of material." By that math, the size of the explosives
cache looted would be enough to bring down 760,000 planes.

EXCUSE #4 – THE NBC
STORY: The Bush campaign spun an NBC News story in an attempt to bolster
its excuse, charging, "NBC Nightly News
later reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Iraq was liberated, US
troops entered Al Qaqaa and did not find the explosives." NBC News,
however, resisted that characterization. What the network actually said:
"Military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second
Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al Qaqaa weapons facility, south of
Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons,
including the high explosives, HMX and RDX...And because the Al Qaqaa facility
is so huge, it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually
anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX."

REALITY –
ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: In a blistering op-ed in the Boston Globe,
former Ambassador Peter Galbraith describes the widespread looting of sensitive
materials in Iraq as a "preventable disaster."
Iraq's sensitive material was stored in only a few known locations, all of which
were closely monitored by the international community. U.S. troops, however,
were not given any relevant intelligence about these sites from the White House
and there was never a plan in place to secure them after the invasion. According
to Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, spokesman for one of the first units to reach Al Qaqaa,
"orders were not given
from higher to search or to secure the facility or to search for
[explosives]." Iraqi witnesses to looting at Al Qaqaa also say Al Qaqaa
"employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers' responsibility."

Under the Radar

MEDIA – RIGHT-WING ECHO CHAMBER 101: Even since the story broke three days ago that the administration failed to secure 380 tons of powerful explosives in Iraq, President Bush and his surrogates have been unable to stem the political damage. Enter the right-wing spin machine. This morning, the headline on the Drudge Report blares in 36-point font: Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms; Pentagon: Weaponry relocated before war. Drudge links to a story in the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times written by Bill
Gertz. In that story, Gertz reports John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology, "believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, 'almost certainly' removed the high-explosive material that went missing." On Fox and Friends this morning Fox News jumped all over the Russian rumors. Drudge, Gertz and Fox wildly distort the story – but unless you read the Financial Times, you might not realize it. Drudge's headline notwithstanding, "the Pentagon distanced itself from [Shaw's] remarks." Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita – who has enthusiastically embraced any theory that would exculpate the administration – when asked about Shaw's comments said, "I am unaware of any particular information on that point." Drudge and Gertz fail to mention that Shaw "has not provided evidence for his claims." Russia, through its U.S. embassy, "rejected the claims as 'nonsense', saying there were no Russian military in the country at the time."

IRAQ – RAMADI SLIPPING: The New York Times reports the provincial Iraqi capital of
Ramadi, a city "which is larger and strategically more important than its sister city of
Falluja," is in danger of falling into insurgent hands. "While Ramadi is not exactly a 'no go' zone for the marines, like the insurgent stronghold of Falluja…officers say it is fast slipping in that direction. In the last six weeks, guerrillas have stepped up the pace of assassinations of Iraqis working with the Americans, and marine officials say they suspect Iraqi security officers have been helping insurgents to attack their troops. Reconstruction efforts have ground to a halt because no local contractors are willing to work." The disintegration of authority in the region "puts in jeopardy both the Bush administration's plan to stage nationwide elections by Jan. 31 and any sense of legitimacy such elections might have. It also complicates the American military's plans to invade
Falluja, because of the close coordination between insurgents in the two cities."

VOTING – ABSENT ABSENTEES IN FLORIDA: Election officials in Florida are wondering how many of "a batch of 58,000 absentee ballots" in Broward County have been "lost." County voters requested the ballots more than two weeks ago, but hundreds have reported not receiving them. In recent days, the complaints have overwhelmed the phone system. The county has responded by blaming the US Postal Service. "That is something beyond our control," said Deputy Supervisor of Elections Gisela Salas. "We really have no idea what's going on."

VOTING – JUDGE HALTS CHALLENGES IN OHIO: A federal judge in Ohio "temporarily stopped hearings Wednesday on Republican challenges of thousands of voter registrations, ruling in favor of Democrats who alleged that the challenges were an attempt to keep legitimate votes from being counted." The Republicans had challenged as many as 35,000 registrations in the crucial swing state, because "mail came back undelivered." Meanwhile, late on Wednesday, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell issued a directive that, "for the first time, will allow political parties to apportion partisan challengers by precinct instead of polling site." The directive will allow partisan operatives to overload challengers in competitive precincts. In Ohio, the Republican Party has registered 3,600 challengers, while the Democratic Party has registered 2,000.

MEDIA – U.S. GETS LOW MARKS FOR FREEDOM: Reporters Without Borders, a group that evaluates freedom of the press throughout the world, ranked the United States "22nd alongside Belgium and behind countries including Bosnia, France and Trinidad and Tobago on a media freedom index released this week." The report cited "violations of source confidentiality, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations." Iraq ranked 148th and was described by the group as "the most deadly place on Earth for journalists in recent years."

WAL-MART – COMPANY OPPOSES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WORKERS: Vice President Cheney's favorite company, Wal-Mart, is pulling out all the stops to block Proposition 72 on the California ballot, "a measure that will require employers to provide basic health insurance to workers." Besides spending $500,000 to aid opponents of the measure, AP reports that Wal-Mart is breaking a tradition of trying to stay out of politics by spending more than $2.4 million on California races this fall – "well beyond any previous sum the company has spent here in one year." Wal-Mart's big funding to block Proposition 72 came just one day after TV ads cited a study from a University of California research group estimating "California taxpayers spend $32 million a year providing health care to Wal-Mart workers."

More on the Explosives at al QaQaa

From Josh Marshall at Talkingpointsmemo.com
Oct. 26th, 2004

The latest video tape of al Qaqaa unearthed by a local ABC affiliate and now picked up nationally seems like pretty much game, set, match.

Those corrugated barrels that look like what the IAEA described as the containers for the explosives? Turns out that's exactly what they are. So say at least two former weapons inspectors.

And what about the IAEA seals that were supposed to be there? Turns out those are in the video too.

The only question now, it seems, is why the president and his advisors spent four days spinning out increasingly far-fetched excuses and tall-tales about this, hoping to brazen it out through November 2nd without fessing up.
-- Josh Marsha

EU chief Barroso backs down - (United Press International)


By Gareth Harding
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Strasbourg, France, Oct. 27 (UPI) -- Facing a defeat by EU lawmakers Wednesday, European Commission President-designate Jose-Manuel Barroso delayed a vote on his incoming executive team.

'I have come to the conclusion that if a vote is taken today, the outcome will not be positive for European institutions or for the European project,' Barroso told parliamentarians in Strasbourg.
Legislators in the EU assembly threatened to reject the 24-member team of commissioners Tuesday, largely because of provocative remarks made about homosexuals and women by Italian member Rocco Buttiglione.
The Barroso executive had been due to take office Nov. 1. Current commission president Romano Prodi will now stay in office until a new vote is held in the parliament in mid-November. Euro-deputies expect Barroso to reshuffle his team before then to avoid another humiliating climb-down."

Do you remember Saddam's pistol?

Bush keeps Saddam's pistol as trophy
Japan Today
May 31st, 2004

WASHINGTON — U.S. President George Bush keeps in his White House offices a trophy of one his high points in the Iraq war, the pistol that Saddam Hussein held when soldiers pulled him from his underground hideaway.

Military specialists mounted the sidearm, and soldiers who helped in the deposed Iraqi president's capture presented it to the president, the White House said Sunday. The president keeps the gun in a small study adjoining the Oval Office.

"He really liked showing it off," the report in Time magazine quotes an unnamed recent visitor to the White House as saying. "He was really proud of it."

Though it was widely reported at the time that the pistol was loaded when US troops grabbed Saddam, Mr Bush has told visitors that the gun was actually empty - and that it is still empty and safe to touch, Time pointed out.
<------------------------------------->

Al QaQaa Timeline

Note: In February 2003 the IAEA confirmed the sealing of 350 metric tons, (754,000 pounds) of HMX and RDX explosives at the Al QaQaa weapons facility. A month later the IAEA certified the HMX was still there; but could not certify that the RDX was sealed. A month later on April 10, 2003, the 101st Airborne Second Brigade entered the site briefly on their way north to Bagdad. A month later the ISG and US Forces found no RDX or HMX at the site. Five months later, the story of the disappearance of the explosives made it onto the US new outlets. Neither the CPA, the IAEA, the ISG, nor the US military authorities made any mention of the disappearance. The Pentagon suggests the explosives may have been moved between February and April of 2003.

The 350 metric tons of explosives, which is equal to the current calculated mass of cocaine which comes into the US annually, would have required heavy moving equipment, and at least 25 trucks to move this quantity of explosives. Since Al QaQaa was a well known weapons facility, and the US Airforce had recon aircraft in the air over Bagdad during the "disappearance window", the casual observer must conclude the US Military considered other sites to be more vital to be protected from looting. Since it was not Saddam's palaces, not the Art Museums, not the Hospitals, and since the Kurds and Brits took care of the oil fields, there must have been something else that warranted protection. What was it?

Allawi Faults U.S.-Led Forces on Execution of Iraqi Soldiers
By EDWARD WONG
NY Times
Published: October 26, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 26 - Prime Minister Ayad Allawi partly blamed the American-led military forces on Tuesday for the massacre by insurgents of 49 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers on Saturday, saying the military had shown "major negligence."

In a speech before the interim National Assembly, the prime minister said a committee he had assembled had begun investigating the ambush, the deadliest of the guerrilla war. The assault took place on Saturday night in remote eastern Iraq, as three minibuses of unarmed Iraqi National Guardsmen were heading south for the soldiers' leave. Guerrillas dressed as police officers waylaid the travelers at a fake checkpoint, killed all 49 soldiers and their 3 civilian drivers, mostly with shots to their heads, police officials said. The vehicles were burned.

"I think there was major negligence by the multinational forces," Dr. Allawi said before the 100-member assembly. "It was a way to damage Iraq and the Iraqi people."

The relentless assaults on Iraqi security forces continued, as a militant group called the Army of Ansar al-Sunna posted Internet photos showing that it had captured 11 Iraqi guardsmen. A message on the Web site said the insurgents had captured the "infidels" of the "crusaders' militia" on a road between Baghdad and Hilla, about 50 miles south, where the guardsmen were apparently out on patrol. In the photos, the guardsmen sit at the feet of three armed guerillas.

The kidnappings and the massacre on Saturday revealed the weak state of the Iraqi security forces, despite President Bush's assertion that local police officers and soldiers will soon be able to take over security duties from 138,000 American troops. An Iraqi national security aide said on Monday that up to 5 percent of the Iraqi forces might be infiltrated by insurgents, and American troops say the police and national guardsmen are worthless or working with insurgents. Reporters also frequently encounter Iraqi security officers who say they are ready to take up arms against the occupation forces.

Prime Minister Allawi's razor words before the National Assembly marked the first time he has publicly criticized the American-led forces, and revealed his profound frustration at the assault and quite possibly at the deteriorating security situation in the country. He did not elaborate on his criticism. He added that he expected attacks to rise as Iraq moved toward general elections scheduled for January.

The ambushed guardsmen had just finished basic training at an American-run base in Kirkush, and it was unclear why they were traveling without any arms or other protection, especially given the frequent attacks on Iraqi security forces. The guerrillas who staged the ambush likely had inside information on the movements of the soldiers, Iraqi defense officials have said.

The First Infantry Division, which is charged with controlling restive Diyala Province, where the assault took place, did not return an e-mail request seeking comment on Dr. Allawi's accusation. The office of Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is overseeing the recruiting and training of the Iraqi security forces, also did not return a similar request.

The interior minister, Falah al-Naqib, also appeared before the National Assembly and said that the government was starting to filter out police officers whom it deemed to be bad.

"Some of them are lazy," he said. "They came just for the sake of making a salary or earning a living. We have a real unemployment problem." If the men are turned away from these jobs or fired, he said, then insurgents will recruit them and pay them an even higher salary.

In interviews, police officers almost invariably cite the lack of jobs as the main reason why they chose to join the Iraqi security forces, despite the dangers. The nationwide unemployment rate is an estimated 60 percent. The average police officer makes more than $220 a month, a solid middle-class income in this society.

Several prominent arrests recently have revealed potential high-ranking corruption among the security forces. Last month, the First Infantry Division arrested a commander of the Iraqi National Guard in Diyala Province, where the massacre took place, saying he had ties with the insurgency. In August, marines arrested the police chief of Anbar Province, which includes the volatile cities of Falluja and Ramadi, on charges of corruption.

American Progress Action Fund

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin

Oct. 26th, 2004

IRAQ

The $225 Billion Mess

The Washington Post reported this morning that the White House is planning to seek another $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, bringing the total cost close to $225 billion. Also, USA Today reports, "Pentagon officials are considering increasing the current U.S. force by delaying the departures of some U.S. troops now in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others scheduled to go there next year." This will affect more than 20,000 U.S. soldiers. The new numbers "underscore that the [Iraq] war is going to be far more costly and intense, and last longer, than the administration first suggested." Unfortunately, the war has also been made longer and tougher in part by a series of serious mistakes and errors in judgment by the administration. (For an idea of just how much the war in Iraq has already cost your state, take a look at this map.)

INSURGENT THREAT IGNORED: USA Today reports the administration was repeatedly warned about the strong possibility of Iraqi insurgency in the days before the war. These warnings, however, were ignored. For example, two reports by the National Intelligence Council "warned Bush in January 2003, two months before the invasion, that the conflict could spark factional violence and an anti-U.S. insurgency." A separate report by the Army War College a month before the invasion predicted, "The longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely violent resistance will develop." The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, however, "discounted these warnings."

LOSING FALLUJAH: The Los Angeles Times reports the administration's inconsistent, politically motivated response to the insurgency "turned Fallujah from a troublesome, little-known city on the edge of Iraq's western desert to an embodiment of almost everything that has gone wrong for the United States in Iraq." Today, Fallujah is a "haven for anti-American guerrillas, a base for suicide bombers, and a headquarters for the man U.S. officials consider the most dangerous terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi."

ZARQAWI GOT AWAY: The White House passed up the chance to take out Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal reports that in June 2002, the Pentagon drew up detailed plans for a military strike designed to hit the terrorist in his camp. Gen. John Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff, called the camp "one of the best targets we ever had." The White House, however, quashed the plan, unwilling to cause any international controversy in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. Zarqawi got away and used the war in Iraq to spearhead a terrorist insurgency. He is responsible for a string of deadly car bombings, beheadings as well as the recent massacre of more than 40 Iraqi army recruits.

REAL THREATS IGNORED: In its zeal to chase down phantom weapons of mass destruction – which did not exist – the White House left dangerous explosives – which did exist – unguarded and open to looting by terrorists. Pentagon officials said the facility "was not high on U.S. commanders' list of sites to guard because survey teams found no nuclear or biological materials." Scott McClellan also stated yesterday, "There is not a nuclear proliferation risk," he said. "We're talking about conventional explosives." These "conventional explosives" have been widely used in the car bombs and suicide bombs that are killing U.S. troops in Iraq. They are also powerful enough to bring down entire buildings or "shatter" airplanes.

ADMINISTRATION PUSHES BOGUS THEORY: Yesterday, in an attempt to downplay the looting of the dangerous explosives, the administration tried to sell the theory that the weapons were already gone by the time the U.S. forces reached the Al Qaqaa military facility, leaving the U.S. no chance to safeguard the material. The LA Times reports, "Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity." One former U.S. intelligence official who worked in Baghdad concurred: "You don't just move this stuff in the middle of the night." On top of that, Iraqi officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier this month "that the explosives were looted after April 9, 2003, when U.S. forces entered Baghdad."

OIL WAS THE PRIORITY: The administration has had to fight the perception that the United States invaded Iraq for the oil, a perception that has fueled Iraqi anger at the U.S. presence. In a press conference yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked why the U.S. had left the dangerous explosives unguarded. He responded, "At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields."

JUDICIARY

The Scalia/Thomas Majority

Chief Justice William Rehnquist underwent surgery yesterday related to "a recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer." Rehnquist's serious condition – even as he is expected to return to the bench on Monday – "gave fresh prominence to the future of the Supreme Court." Bush has said publicly that the Supreme Court justices he admires are arch conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If re-elected, it is possible Bush could get three or more appointments, "enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land." The result: "Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear."

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In the second presidential debate Bush was asked, given the opportunity, who he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Bush responded that he wouldn't pick a judge who supported "the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights." Why would President Bush reference Dred Scott v. Sandford, which hasn't been good law since the end of the Civil War? Because "to the Christian right, 'Dred Scott' turns out to be a code word for 'Roe v. Wade.'" Dred Scott has been compared to Roe v. Wade by prominent conservatives such as George Will, Peggy Noonan and Michael Novak. By referencing Dred Scott, Bush made it clear that "he would never, ever appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe." If Roe v. Wade is overturned, "there's a good chance that 30 states, home to more than 70 million women, will outlaw abortions within a year; some states may take only weeks." (For more on Bush's misuse of the Dred Scott decision read this new column from American Progress).

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD CRIMINALIZE PRIVATE SEXUAL CONDUCT: If Scalia and Thomas controlled the Court, "states could once again criminalize private, consensual conduct between adults, and could prevent local governments from enacting even the most basic anti-discrimination protections for gay men and lesbians." Last year, when the Court ruled that the police violated a gay man's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD END FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD ALLOW STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Justice Thomas has suggested that "despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary...the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states." If that view prevailed, "states could adopt particular religions and use tax money to proselytize for them."

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE SEX DISCRIMINATION: If Scalia and Thomas were in charge, "public universities, such as the Virginia Military Institute, would be able to discriminate against women in admissions." Also, federal law "could no longer be used to protect students from sexual harassment or other types of discrimination at the hands of other students."

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD LEGALIZE BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate." The Court ruled that the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the 'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered."

A SCALIA/THOMAS MAJORITY WOULD GUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS: A Scalia/Thomas majority would make short work of the law that protects our air, water and land. Scalia and Thomas, for example, voted to strip the EPA "of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so." Already, federal judges appointed by Bush "were less sympathetic to environmentalists' pleadings than those appointed by previous Republican presidents... ruling in favor of environmental challenges 17 percent of the time."

Under the Radar AFGHANISTAN – MORE PRISONER ABUSE?: Cherif Bassiouni, the U.N. Human Rights Commission's independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan, "criticized the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan for violating international law by allegedly beating Afghans to death and forcing some to remove their clothes or wear hoods." While the coalition justifies many of its practices as necessary for fighting the "war on terrorism," Bassiouni said they undermine efforts to enforce compliance with international law and standards. He cited several examples of alleged violations by coalition troops, including entering people's homes without warrants, detaining people without judicial authority, "beatings resulting in death ... forced nudity and public embarrassment, sleep deprivation, prolonged squatting, and hooding and sensory deprivation." Bassiouni also "blamed warlords, local commanders, and drug traffickers" for many of the rights violations, but stressed that "the absence of security" had allowed such elements to exact "a direct and significant impact on all human rights." TERRORISM – EMBRACING GADHAFI: President Bush has "often cited Libya's announcement last December that it would stop trying to build nuclear weapons as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has deterred other nations from terrorism," but the Washington Post's David Ignatius says the administration is "undercutting its 'war on terrorism'" by embracing a Libyan regime now known to have plotted to assassinate the ruler of Saudi Arabia. New details support evidence that "in November 2003, at the very time that top Libyan officials were negotiating with U.S. and British diplomats the details of a supposed renunciation of terrorism, Libyan operatives were recruiting a hit team to kill Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and destabilize the oil-rich kingdom." Privately, the administration admonished Gadhafi, but "it has gone almost unmentioned publicly by an administration eager to claim success for its anti-terrorism policy." So much for not sending mixed messages. CORPORATE – BUSH FOREIGN POLICY THREATENS PROFITS: A new poll shows President Bush's foreign policy may be hurting overseas profits for American companies. The poll, by an independent global market research firm, says "American corporations are in danger of suffering a major shift in purchasing habits as nearly 20% of foreign consumers say they'll avoid select U.S. products due to America's position on foreign affairs." The poll reveals that "people in China, Japan, Germany and other industrialized Western nations are less willing today to purchase American brands — notably Starbucks, Marlboro and Mattel — or fly American-based airlines than before the Iraqi invasion and the United States' unilateral foreign policies." More than half of those surveyed cited "an increasingly negative perception of the U.S., while 67% believe U.S. foreign policy is guided by 'self interests' and 'empire building.'" CIVIL LIBERTIES – FBI TURNED BLIND EYE TO PRISONER ABUSE: The New York Times reports, "FBI agents witnessed harsh treatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003, but did not believe that what they saw was abusive or worth reporting, according to a newly released document." Some of the things the agents saw: an inmate with a sack over his head who was covered with a shower curtain and handcuffed to a waist-high rail; a naked or partly clothed inmate made to lie prone on a wet floor; inmates stripped naked and put in isolation cells. "The document, a May 19 report by the FBI's counterterrorism division," shows the bureau's leadership became concerned about what its agents had seen only after Abu Ghraib went public. The report said the treatment witnessed by the agents seemed similar to what agents "had seen in prison strip-searches in the United States." MEDIA – SMITH DOESN'T WATCH OWN SHOWS: Apparently, even Sinclair CEO David Smith is turned off by his company's programming: in an interview on Friday, Smith denied being a Republican activist and said he rarely watched anything but golf on TV. He denied trying to sway the presidential election by requiring his stations to air a special on Friday that included several minutes of an anti-Kerry documentary, and said he gave more money to Democrats than Republicans. According to Federal Election Commission records, at least the latter of these statements was untrue. Since 1997, Smith has given only $2,250 in donations to Democrats while he has pitched in $22,000 for Republicans. "Brothers Frederick G. Smith and J. Duncan Smith, also Sinclair board members, have made tens of thousands of dollars in GOP contributions over the same period, record show."

Another Viewpoint...

The More Things Change...
By DAVID BROOKS
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: October 23, 2004

Why is this country still tied?

Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.

Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?

That is the central mystery of this election.

The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.

But what explains this stable divide?

Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.

Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.

But two forces do account for the stable political divide. First, partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people care that passionately about being a Democrat or a Republican.

Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that bind the group.

In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe different policies. They describe different realities. In short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.

Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that runs through recent elections.

Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But he should have a clear, broad vision of America's exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated.

Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government.

It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement.

"Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." The Emperor



 

Ok, you asked: "What do these people have in common?"

Ronald Reagan
Bob Dornan
Michael Huffington
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Arnold Schwarzenegger
John McKay
Bob Dole
Henry Hyde
Bob Livingston
Neil Bush
Ted Bundy
Sam Walls
Guy Millner
Rush Limbaugh
Dan Burton
Rudolph Giuliani
Strom Thurmond
Bob Packwood
Newt Gingrich
Bill O'Reilly
Jack Ryan
Bob Barr
Marv Albert

...
Hint: All are Republicans
...
Hint: All have admitted to adulterous behavior
...
Answer: All have spoken on numerous occasions about how Republicans are the party that makes faith, and traditional family values the centerpiece of their personal lives. Hippocrites Extraordinaire !!

Note: And if you want to push the envelope, try coming up with twenty five well-known Democrats who have had sex related problems while in office...or had the gall to pretend they were "up-standing citizens". I can come up with five; but not twenty five.

Whistleblower Asks for Halliburton Investigation
Mon Oct 25, 2004 01:54 PM ET
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

The Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official has demanded an investigation into contracts given to Halliburton, citing "improper action" that favored Vice President Dick Cheney's old company.

According to documents made available to Reuters on Monday by congressional sources, Army Corps whistle-blower Bunnantine Greenhouse complained of "repeated interference" in billions of dollars of contracts given to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root for work in Iraq and the Balkans.

"This interference was largely focused on multibillion-dollar contract issues pertaining to a Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root," said a letter faxed on Thursday to Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee by lawyers for Greenhouse.

"As set forth below, employees of the U.S. government have taken improper action that favored KBR's interests," the letter said.

An Army attorney said in reply the matter was being referred to the Defense Department's inspector general for "review and action, as appropriate" and the Corps was asked not to act against Greenhouse until a sufficient record was available.

The Corps issued a brief statement saying it supported the right of employees to use established procedures to ensure governmental actions complied with applicable laws.

"In order to ensure that Ms. Greenhouse's privacy rights are protected and to ensure that a fair investigation can proceed, the Army Corps will not provide further comment," said a Corps spokeswoman.

The Pentagon inspector general's office declined comment on the request for an "independent executive agency" to examine the allegations made by Greenhouse and said it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation. A decision could take months or even years.

Greenhouse lawyer Michael Kohn said his client went public after the Corps tried to remove her from her post as principal assistant responsible for contracting and not because she wanted to influence next week's election by raising questions about Halliburton, which was run by Cheney from 1995-2000.

"This is not an assault against Halliburton, it's an effort to make the contracting process work," Kohn said.

Halliburton, which is already under investigation for overcharging for work in Iraq, has been a target of Democratic criticism ahead of the Nov. 2 election, with suggestions the Texas firm got special treatment because of Cheney.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said KBR did not have any information on what Greenhouse may or may not have said to Pentagon officials in 2003 when a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion was given to KBR to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.

"On the larger issues, the old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election," said Hall.

Greenhouse said the Iraq oil contract given to KBR, which was later replaced by a competitively bid deal, as well as another to feed and house U.S. troops in the Balkans, put at risk the "integrity of the federal contracting program."

Kohn said KBR contracts were awarded despite his client's reservations, which she expressed in hand-written notes on official documents, a tactic her superiors asked her to stop.

In one case, he said Army Corps officials bypassed getting a signature from Greenhouse to grant a waiver for KBR to be relieved of its obligation to provide cost and pricing data for bringing fuel into Iraq.

That waiver was granted after a draft Army audit said KBR had overcharged the military by at least $61 million to bring in fuel to Iraq to ease a shortage of refined oil products.

October 25, 2004
TRACKING THE WEAPONS
Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

This article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no-man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Administration officials said yesterday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.
Note: Have you heard the one about closing the door once the chickens have fled the coop?

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could be used to produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings. The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the material of the type stolen from Al Qaqaa, and somewhat larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. But the other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain. "This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.

The Qaqaa facility, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was well known to American intelligence officials: Saddam Hussein made conventional warheads at the site, and the I.A.E.A. dismantled parts of his nuclear program there in the early 1990's after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In the prelude to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Bush cited a number of other "dual use" items - including tubes that the administration contended could be converted to use for the nuclear program - as a justification for invading Iraq.

After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

In an interview with The Times and CBS in Baghdad, the minister of science and technology, Rashad M. Omar, confirmed the facts described in the letter. "Yes, they are missing," Dr. Omar said. "We don't know what happened." The I.A.E.A. says it also does not know, and has reported that machines tools that can be used for either nuclear or non-nuclear purposes have also been looted.

Dr. Omar said that after the American-led invasion, the sites containing the explosives were under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, an American-led entity that was the highest civilian authority in Iraq until it handed sovereignty of the country over to the interim government on June 28.

"After the collapse of the regime, our liberation, everything was under the coalition forces, under their control," Dr. Omar said. "So probably they can answer this question, what happened to the materials."

Officials in Washington said they had no answers to that question. One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. In the chaos that followed the invasion, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.

"Should we have gone there? Definitely," said one senior administration official. "But there are a lot of things we should have done, and didn't."

An Arsenal Turned No-Man's Land

To see the bunkers that makeup the vast Qaqaa complex today, it is hard to recall that just two years ago it was part of Saddam Hussein's secret military complex. The bunkers are so large that they are reminiscent of pyramids, though with rounded edges and the tops chopped off. Several are blackened and eviscerated as a result of American bombing. Smokestacks rise in the distance.

Today, Al Qaqaa has become a no-man's land that is generally avoided even by the Marines in charge of north Babil Province. Headless bodies are found there. An ammunition dump has been looted, and on Sunday an Iraqi employee of The New York Times who made a furtive visit to the site saw looters tearing out metal fixtures. Bare pipes within the darkened interior of one of the buildings were a tangled mess, zigzagging along charred walls. Someone fired a shot, probably to frighten the visitors off.

"It's like Mars on Earth," said Maj. Dan Whisnant, an intelligence officer for the Second Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "It would take probably 10 battalions 10 years to clear that out."

Saddam Hussein's engineers acquired HMX and RDX when they embarked on a crash effort to build an atomic bomb in the late 1980's. It did not go smoothly. In 1989, a huge blast ripped through Al Qaqaa, the boom reportedly heard hundreds of miles away. The explosion, it was later determined, occurred when a stockpile of the high explosives ignited.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the United Nations discovered Iraq's clandestine effort and put the I.A.E.A., the United Nations arms agency, in charge of Al Qaqaa's huge stockpile. Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said.

None of the explosives were destroyed, arms experts familiar with the decision recalled, because Iraq argued that it should be allowed to keep them for eventual use in mining and civilian construction. But Al Qaqaa was still under the authority of the Military Industrial Council, which was led for a time by Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. He defected to the West, then returned to Iraq and was immediately killed.

In 1996, the United Nations hauled away some of the HMX and used it to blow up Al Hakam, a vast Iraqi factory for making germ weapons.

The Qaqaa stockpile went unmonitored from late 1998, when United Nations inspectors left Iraq, to late 2002, when they came back. Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. The Iraqis said they had used the explosive in civilian programs.

The remaining stockpile was no secret. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., frequently talked about it publicly as he investigated, in late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.

During the following weeks, the I.A.E.A. repeatedly drew public attention to the explosives. In New York on Feb. 14, nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council, Dr. ElBaradei reported that the I.A.E.A. had found no sign of new atom endeavors but "has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX."

An Inspector's Warning

A European diplomat reported that Jacques Baute, head of the I.A.E.A.'s Iraq nuclear inspection team, warned officials at the United States mission in Vienna about the danger of the nuclear sites and materials once under I.A.E.A. supervision, including Al Qaqaa.

But apparently, little was done. A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether they ever returned.

By late 2003, diplomats said, I.A.E.A. experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken I.A.E.A. seals on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

But the Bush administration would not allow the agency back into the country to verify the status of the stockpile. In May 2004, Iraqi officials say in interviews, they warned L. Paul Bremer III, the American head of the occupation authority, that Al Qaqaa had probably been looted. It is unclear if that warning was passed anywhere. Efforts to reach Mr. Bremer by telephone were unsuccessful. But by that time, the Americans were preoccupied with the transfer of authority to Iraq, and the insurgency was gaining strength. "It's not an excuse," said one senior administration official. "But a lot of things went by the boards."

Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Al Qaqaa stockpile.

"Iraq is obliged," he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen."

The agency, Dr. ElBaradei added pointedly, "has received no such notifications or declarations from any state since the agency's inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in March 2003."

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say that the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost . He added that his ministry judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.

Five days later, on Oct. 15, European diplomats said, the I.A.E.A. wrote the United States mission in Vienna to forward the Iraqi letter and ask that American authorities inform the international coalition in Iraq of the missing explosives.

Dr. ElBaradei, a European diplomat said, is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.

Its fate remains unknown. Glenn Earhart, manager of an Army Corps of Engineers program in Huntsville, Ala., that is in charge of rounding up and destroying lost Iraqi munitions, said he and his colleagues knew nothing of the whereabouts of the Qaqaa stockpile.

Administration officials say Iraq was awash in munitions, including other stockpiles of exotic explosives.

"The only reason this stockpile was under seal," said one senior administration official, "is because it was located at Al Qaqaa," where nuclear work had gone on years ago.

James Glanz reported from Baghdad and Yusifiya, Iraq, for this article, William J. Broad from New York and Vienna, and David E. Sanger from Washington and Crawford, Tex. Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad.

Factcheck.org on Wolves

Go to VP Cheney's recommended website for the straight scoop providing insight into the Wolves Ad.

You -Can- Grow Your Own Fuel !! 

Retail Gas Prices Have Increased Over 27% a Year for the Past Five Years, So What's Next?

Urban Biodiesel Production as an Alternative
Dr. K. Shaine Tyson
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd, Golden CO 80401-3393

"Biodiesel is a renewable, alternative fuel produced from vegetable oils, animal fats, and recycled
cooking greases. It can be substituted for diesel fuel or blended into diesel fuel in any
proportion. Most people use a blend of 20% biodiesel in diesel fuel called B20 in their state,
federal, and local vehicle fleets and in utility applications. Other applications include
construction equipment, urban bus fleets, school bus fleets, agricultural equipment, generators,
and boats.

Making biodiesel in urban areas offers many benefits to the urban community. These
benefits include local fuel security, air pollution reduction, lower air toxic emissions, lower
environmental impacts of spills and other unintentional environmental hazards, new jobs, cost
savings to the local sanitation plant from avoided sewage line blockages and lower operating
costs, and less illegal dumping of waste oils. Most large metropolitan areas can support a
biodiesel production facility based on their generation of used cooking oils and waste greases.

These facilities can be expanded if supplies of oils, such as soy, canola, or mustard oils, from
agricultural areas are available. Biodiesel production can strengthen ties been urban and
agricultural communities. Large metropolitan areas should consider the potential for biodiesel
production in their communities.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Biomass fuel generation by either Biodiesel or Ethanol production technologies are currently active worldwide, and are becoming a mature industry. The EU has increased its biodiesel production over 30% a year for the past five years. US biodiesel production was 6.7 million gallons in 2000, and ethanol production was approximately 1.4 billion gallons in 1998. While these are a small portion of the estimated 150 billion gallons of automobile and truck fuel usage per year in America, they could become a much larger segment if given a greater mandate by the Federal, State, and City Governments.

While the retail price of gasoline has been increasing by over 27% a year for the past five years, the cost of manufacturing biodiesel has been decreasing by almost this same percentage. Biodiesel can easily be stored, pumped, and delivered as a standby fuel to facilities that currently maintain a diesel fuel based fleet of vehicles.

With the increase in global warming, and given the fact that one acre of palm trees can be harvested to yield 500 gallons of biodiesel we are missing a bet by not giving this technology the resources it needs to carry the World through the transition from petroleum based fuels to biomass, or hydrogen. Also, given the productive resources of under-developed nations in Africa, Asia, the America's, and the Middle East, developing a renewable source of fuel through biomass processing could add significantly to the economies of these areas.

Write your City/State/Federal Congressmen, Senators, Mayors, and Councilmen and ask them to investigate the benefits that are possible with this technology.And less anyone suggest that this is only a "tree-huggers" dream world, you can forward them to the US Navy Logistics Center where they can demonstrate the viability of a conversion to biodiesel fuel.

Oil's up, so gas prices are rising

As the price of oil goes up so do gasoline costs. But by how much?
September 30, 2004: 3:51 PM EDT
By Les Christie, CNN/Money Contributing writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The spot price of a barrel of oil surpassed $50 this week, so car owners should brace themselves for a new round of price hikes at the gas pumps.

According to the Department of Energy, big changes in spot oil prices show up in retail prices, usually 10 days to four weeks later. Between 92 and 114 percent of the spot price change is passed through to retail customers within two-and-one-half months.

Although the price of crude is the major part of gasoline prices, the effect of oil-price changes is dampened by other contributors to the price of gas. Among those variables: refining costs and profits, distribution and marketing costs and profits, and, especially, taxes. A doubling of crude prices does not result in a doubling of gas prices.

At the end of 2002, when gasoline averaged about $1.38 a gallon, crude oil hovered around the $30-a-barrel mark and accounted for nearly 46 percent of the price of gasoline, or 63 cents a gallon. The next biggest component, taxes, made up 30 percent, or 42 cents per gallon. Distribution and marketing and refining costs both accounted for about 12 percent, or 17 cents each.

Fast forward to August and September of 2004, when a barrel of oil traded at around $40. Oil prices made up a larger slice of the much bigger gas-price pie, about 52 percent in August, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), an arm of the DOE. That means crude prices account for about a dollar of the $1.92 motorists pay for a gallon of gas.

Because petroleum products are used throughout the refining process -- fuel oil is burned to crack the oil, for example, and oils and greases applied to keep equipment operating smoothly -- refining costs also rise when crude does, but at a much lower rate.

In August, refining costs accounted for 14 percent of the price of gas, about 27 cents, a 10-cent rise from December 2002. Jacob Bournazian, a gasoline price analyst at the EIA, says that actual refining expenses do not go up very steeply with the cost of crude. Much of the increase in refining costs probably went to expanded marketing efforts and profits.

Distribution costs are up only slightly as well. You do have to pay more in fuel costs to move gas through a pipeline and in tanker trucks, but it adds only a penny or two to the price of gas.

What doesn't change with shifting crude prices are taxes; they are "static," assessed on a per gallon basis, according to Don Davis, president and CEO of DataStream Market Analysis, which gathers pricing information for oil industry clients. So when other costs rise, taxes account for commensurately less of the burden.

The amount of tax paid on a gallon of gas varies considerably by state, from 26.4 cents in Alaska to a high of 57.6 cents in New York. On a national average, you pay 42 cents per gallon, of which 18.4 cents represents the federal gas tax.
Total impact

All told, the impact of a $10 increase in crude prices "comes to between 30 and 50 cents" on a gallon of gas, says Bournazian. But he adds that when such a crude price increase comes quickly, the impact on gas prices would be "closer to 50 than to 30 cents."

Davis points out that the increase of 20 cents a gallon this year adds less than $5 a month to the bills for all but the most active drivers. Most will spend only an extra dollar or two, a drop in the bucket compared with the other costs of operating a car. (See Costliest places to own a car).

There are a lot of indications that $50-a-barrel crude will continue, according to Bournazian, especially since prices often soften coming out of the summer driving season, when demand is heaviest.

"You don't expect a third-quarter spike in oil prices," he says. "It makes you say, 'my God, what will happen in the fourth?'"

If oil continues to trade in the $50 a barrel range, American consumers will probably expect gas-pump prices near $2.40 a gallon in a few weeks.

Russia Approves Kyoto Accord

Kyoto Clears Final Hurdle
Deutsche Welle
Oct. 21, 2004

After seven years in limbo, Russia's parliament finally ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the last obstacle before the climate treaty comes into force worldwide. It is a victory for politics, says DW's Jens Thurau.

For environmentalists around the world, Friday was a day worthy of celebration: after years of waiting, Russia finally agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. As the 29th of 36 large industrial countries, the signing of the international climate treaty by the Russian parliament, or Duma, means the UN accord will finally go into effect worldwide.

After the United States pulled out of the treaty in 2001, all eyes turned to Moscow in the hopes that the giant polluter, which accounts for 17 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, would sign onto the protocol and push it into action. Unlike other international accords, the 1997 protocol required more than a simple majority of signatory countries: It required ratification by countries constituting 55 percent of global emissions.

Factories and car exhaust contribute to Moscow's high smog levels
For years the other signatory nations, particularly in Europe, waited for Russian approval to set the treaty into action. And now after ratification by the Duma and President Vladimir Putin's signature, the Kyoto Protocol sends a signal around the world that goes far beyond environmental protection: The international community has demonstrated it is capable of a multilateral approach, despite strong opposition from the United States

From: Factcheck.org - VP Cheney's Selected Source for Unbiased Information
...eh...when he wanted help re Haliburton
...he might say something different now about this

$8 Million Worth Of Distortions Two Bush ads full of misleading and false statements ran more than 9,000 times in 45 cities last week. October 21, 2004 Modified: October 21, 2004   Two misleading Bush ads accusing Kerry of supporting tax increases on gasoline and middle-class parents were running heavily last week. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence, which tracks TV ads in the top 100 markets, the two Bush ads accounted for nearly half of the estimated  $16 million spent by Bush and the Republican National Committee during that week alone. Both ads repeat claims we've repeatedly disputed here. They both attempt to portray Kerry as eager to raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers, which Kerry has said consistently he won't do. One ad characterizes Kerry's votes against proposed tax cuts as votes to "raise taxes," an outright falsehood. A Bush ad called "Thinking Mom" ran at saturation levels last week in 42 cities at an estimated cost of $2.5 million. A parallel ad called "Clockwork" ran even more heavily, in 44 cities at an estimated cost of  $5.4 million. Together the two ads aired 9,118 times on stations monitored by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG. Bush-Cheney '04 Ad "Thinking Mom" Announcer: And we'll be checking traffic on . . . Woman: 5:30, gotta get groceries, we're gonna be late. Announcer: John Kerry and the liberals in Congress have voted to raise gas taxes ten times. Woman: Ten times? Gas prices are high enough already. Announcer: They've also raised taxes on senior's Social Security benefits. And raised taxes on middle class parents 18 times. No relief there from the Marriage Penalty. Woman: More taxes because I'm married? What were they thinking? Announcer: . . . 350 times. Higher taxes from the liberals in Congress and John Kerry. Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message. Two Ads, Several Distortions Both ads make statements about Kerry that are misleading or downright false on several counts: Gasoline taxes: It's false to say Kerry voted "to raise gas taxes ten times" as stated in the "Thinking Mom" ad. Even the Bush campaign's own list of votes doesn't back that up. There has been only one increase -- more than a decade ago -- when the federal gasoline tax went up just over four cents per gallon as part of Clinton's 1993 package of tax increases and spending cuts. The Bush campaign lists  ten votes Kerry cast, five of them on the measure that resulted in that 1993 increase. Four others were against Republican proposals to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase after it was already in place -- so it's false to say those were votes to "raise" the tax. The same goes for the tenth vote, which was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline gas tax altogether during a spike in prices in 2000. Social Security benefits:  Kerry did vote to increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation, as stated in both ads, but  not for all seniors. That was also as a part of the 1993 Clinton economic package. The increase was only for those with over $44,000 a year for a married couple. That increase currently affects just over 8 million taxpayers, a fraction of the 47 million who get Social Security benefits. And all the proceeds from the increase go to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund, something the ad fails to mention.  Bush Ad "Clockwork" Announcer: They voted to raise our gas taxes ten times. And raised taxes on Social Security benefits. Higher taxes on middle class parents 18 times. John Kerry and the liberals in Congress's record on the economy:  higher taxes 350 times. An average of once every three weeks for 20 years. Like clockwork. John Kerry and the liberals in Congress on the economy. Troubling. Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message. Middle Class Parents: Another falsehood in the "Mom" ad is the claim that Kerry has "raised taxes on middle-class parents 18 times. No relief there from the marriage penalty." It's true Kerry often opposed Republican proposals in the past, usually on grounds that they granted more relief to upper-income taxpayers than he would like. And some of those proposals included giving married couples a break, as well as granting or increasing tax credits for dependent children. But those votes wouldn't have resulted in raising taxes above what they were at the time. Furthermore, during the Democratic primary contests Kerry fiercely defended keeping  the so-called "marriage penalty" relief and increased child tax credits when other Democratic candidates would have repealed them along with the rest of Bush's cuts. Kerry also would retain Bush's lower rates for low- and middle-income taxpayers. Kerry said consistently he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year. In an interview on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer Kerry stated: Kerry:  I don't want to roll back the marriage penalty, I don't want to roll back the child-care (sic) credit, I don't want to punish people who got a $300 break at the 10 percent and 15 percent (rate), so I don't take that back. That was more than a year ago -- July 14, 2003 -- and Kerry's position hasn't changed since. The "Clockwork" ad falls short of an outright falsehood on this point. It says Kerry supported "higher taxes on middle class parents 18 times." Bush officials argue that voting against a tax cut is voting for "higher" taxes -- meaning higher than the alternative, not higher than people are actually paying. Still, we find the "Clockwork" ad to be misleading. 350 times: Both these ads repeat the misleading claim that Kerry has voted for "higher taxes" 350 times. See our original article  from last March for details on why that's wrong. Sources US Department of Health and Human Services, "2004 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds," Table I.C1.-Medicare Data for Calendar Year 2003 Washington DC 24 March 2004: p3. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," transcript #7663, 2 July 2003. Related Articles Taxing Social Security & Gasoline: Bush Attack Lacks Context Kerry supported an increased tax on Social Security benefits, but he also supported a repeal and Bush didn't. Bush accuses Kerry of 350 votes for “higher taxes” Higher than what? Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush’s own words mislead reporters.

View Bush Ad "Thinking Mom" View Bush Ad "Clockwork" FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first). Sign Up Now

This was NOT pre-ordained...

Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
NY Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 21 - Senior American officials are beginning to assemble a new portrait of the insurgency that has continued to inflict casualties on American and Iraqi forces, showing that it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated.

When foreign fighters and the network of a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are counted with home-grown insurgents, the hard-core resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 people, a tally that swells to more than 20,000 when active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included, according to the American officials.

These estimates contrast sharply with earlier intelligence reports, in which the number of insurgents has varied from as few as 2,000 to a maximum of 7,000. The revised estimate is influencing the military campaign in Iraq, but has not prompted a wholesale review of the strategy, officials said.

In recent interviews, military and other government officials in Iraq and Washington said the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on "unlimited money'' from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and Saddam Hussein's relatives..

Their financing is supplemented in great part by wealthy Saudi donors and Islamic charities that funnel large sums of cash through Syria, according to these officials, who have access to detailed intelligence reports.

Only half the estimated $1 billion the Hussein government put in Syrian banks before the war has been recovered, Pentagon officials said. There is no tally of money flowing through Syria to Iraq from wealthy Saudis or Islamic charities, but a Pentagon official said the figure is "significant."

Unclassified assessments by some private analysts have recently sounded some of the same warnings. This week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, in releasing its annual global military survey, said perhaps 1,000 Islamic jihadists have entered Iraq to join the fight, and it estimated that it would take five years for the American military to prepare Iraqi forces to take over fully from the forces of the United States and its allies.

American military and Pentagon officials continue to hold that as Iraqi security forces increase in numbers and effectiveness, they will be able to gather even more detailed and timely information, an important consideration if the insurgency is to be stifled. Perhaps the most important variable, these officials note, is that a large segment of the Iraqi population still has not decided whether to give active support to the new government.

Despite concerns about foreign fighters, American officials said the most significant challenge to the stabilization effort came from domestic Iraqi insurgents, and not from foreign terrorists, despite the violence of attacks organized or carried out by foreigners.

These officials said that in many places, secular Sunni Muslim insurgent leaders - mostly Hussein-era supporters - were being challenged and even surpassed in authority by militant Sunni activists from inside Iraq. This development presents fresh concerns to Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister, as he tries to negotiate a political solution to stalemates in places like Falluja, where Pentagon and military officials say the insurgency increasingly is taking on a radical Islamic face.

Throughout the occupation of Iraq, American officials have struggled to construct an accurate portrait of the insurgency they have been fighting. In discussing this most recent intelligence, the officials appeared to present a fuller picture of the security problems than has been provided in previous interviews or other public statements.

But just as some earlier intelligence estimates before the war have proved incorrect, specialists acknowledge that the current assessments, too, are inevitably imperfect.

"What makes it more difficult is that you're dealing with an insurgency without a single face," said a senior Army intelligence officer with nearly a year's experience in Iraq. "It's not just one group of insurgents rallying under one cause. It's multiple groups with different causes loosely tied together by the threads of anti-U.S. sentiment, some sort of Iraqi nationalism, Muslim-Arab unity or greed."

Another officer, Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas III of the Army, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, said in an interview in Baghdad, "It's detective work, and it's very difficult work." General DeFreitas called it "a challenge for the U.S. military to use tools, well designed for maneuver warfare, against an insurgency,'' adding, "Insurgents don't show up in satellite imagery very well."

According to data assembled by the military, about 80 percent of the violent attacks are criminal in nature - kidnappings for ransom or hijackings of convoys - with no political motivation. Of the other 20 percent, which include the most violent attacks on Iraqi security forces, the American military and international organizations, about four-fifths are attributed to domestic insurgents rather than to foreign terrorists.

The Ramadan holy season that began this month has prompted a 25 percent increase in daily attacks, according to Pentagon officials, but they see no indication yet of a major insurgent offensive. They did express concerns that such an offensive could come in November or December, as voter registration gets under way in earnest, or could be timed to the elections in January.

"What we don't see yet is a unifying leader of the insurgency," General DeFreitas said.

One Pentagon official said that the insurgency was now organized regionally, and that evidence pointed to some planning across regional boundaries. But there is no national insurgent network, the official said.

Even the Zarqawi organization, which can plan and carry out attacks outside its base in Falluja and the broader Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad, has no sustained operations or base outside that area, this Pentagon official said.

Even as American attacks are killing dozens of fighters and some leadership figures every week, officials said, insurgents in many parts of Iraq have been able to promote lieutenants into higher leadership roles and are able to attract a steady stream of recruits. But some of the new leaders are not as qualified as their predecessors, military officers said, in particular those filling spots in the Zarqawi network in Falluja.

Senior military and Pentagon officials said the new information was being developed because of the growing role of the Iraqi police and other security forces, who are more adept than American forces at spotting insurgents or people who might come forward with tips. Iraqis are setting up centralized operations centers to share information and coordinate anti-insurgent activities.

But a Pentagon official noted evidence that even the new Iraqi security forces had been penetrated by insurgents, or at least by people willing to share information with them.

One example of that penetration is the Tuesday attack on an Iraqi National Guard base north of Baghdad, which killed 4 and wounded 80. The attack came at the exact time guardsmen were mustering for a ceremony, which is seen by experts as an indication that those firing off the mortars held inside information.

Military officials say they are getting a clearer view of the major financial backers of the insurgencies, and of the main operatives and their cell networks inside Iraq. The financial leadership is said to number about 20 people, mostly operating outside Iraq.

Among the most influential militant financiers are members of the Majid family, particularly three cousins of Mr. Hussein, who are actively involved in the smuggling of weapons, fighters and money into Iraq, and who live in Syria. Another key organizer is Muhammad Yunis al-Ahmed, a former Baath Party leader and aide to Mr. Hussein, officials say.

These former Baathists are helping to arm and equip cell leaders in the Sunni heartland, who in turn run local teams. Many turn to unemployed and disaffected Iraqi men, eager to earn money. The going rate in parts of Baghdad for planting roadside bombs is $100 to $300 for each explosive, a senior military officer said.

Military and Pentagon officials say there is no shortage of funds for the insurgency, though the counterinsurgency campaign has slowed the delivery of money to some areas. That prompted a Pentagon official to say guerrilla activities diminish when the money runs low between deliveries.

Pentagon officials said there appeared to be no official Saudi government support for the financial network, but expressed dissatisfaction with the level of Saudi efforts to block the money transfers. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington said his country had strict banking regulations, and would examine any evidence of Saudi citizens' supporting the Iraqi insurgency.

Earlier this week, in Mahmudiya, American marines said they had discovered the leader of the financing network for Mr. Zarqawi among the detainees at a military camp there. The marines said the man, Mahmud Abdel Aziz al-Harami al-Janabi, was captured along with other suspected militants in a raid on Sunday. And Pentagon officials say that some members of the Zarqawi network have fled Falluja, and that those still inside are setting up military-style defenses in anticipation of a ground attack.

And Mr. Zarqawi is being challenged by local tribal and religious leaders, who likewise are seizing the initiative from former government leaders in the area.

Senior military officials said the recent American-led offensives in Najaf, Tal Afar and Samarra, followed by economic and reconstruction aid, had created a more stable security environment that is leading to more information on the location of insurgents.

Marine intelligence officers responsible for operations in western Iraq said there were at least five major insurgent leaders of the groups operating in Falluja, whose aim is to undermine the fledgling Iraqi government, drive out the American troops and make money through smuggling and extortion rackets.

Marine officers said that in addition to Mr. Zarqawi, a Sunni extremist named Omar Hadid and a sheik named Janabi, a radical Sunni cleric, were both influential anti-American militants.

They said Mr. Hadid ran a gangland-style operation, making money through car smuggling and hostage-for-ransom operations, as well as from tithes collected by sympathetic mosques.

Former members of the Baath Party and of Iraqi security services and criminal gangs also operate in Falluja.

"It's a loose confederation of interests as well as marriages of convenience,'' Col. Ron Makuta, the chief intelligence officer for the First Marine Expeditionary Force, said in an interview on Thursday at its headquarters at Camp Falluja, outside the city.

The Mackris Filing

NY State Supreme Court filing for Andrea Mackris suit against Bill O'Reilly is here.

"Let them eat cake"...

Public University Tuition Is Up Sharply for 2004
By GREG WINTER
NY Times
Published: October 20, 2004

Tuition at the nation's public universities rose an average of 10.5 percent this year, the second largest increase in more than a decade, according to the latest annual survey by the College Board. Last year's rise, 13 percent, was the highest.

Private universities and community colleges also increased tuition, by 6 percent and 9 percent, in a year when inflation has been about 2.5 percent. The tuition increases at private and community colleges were also among the steepest in a decade. It is the first time that the average tuition at the nation's postsecondary institutions has surpassed $20,000 for a private college, $5,000 for a public university and $2,000 for a community college.

The survey of nearly 2,700 colleges and universities, released yesterday, did not try to determine the reasons for the steep increases. But among the many factors cited by its authors and other higher education experts were shrinking endowments, large increases in health insurance costs for campus employees and anemic spending on higher education by states.

"Until we publicly debate the quiet cost-shifting from state support to tuition that continues in far too many states, no amount of effort by our institutions to raise revenue and cut expenses will be able to preserve affordable tuition formulas, particularly at public colleges and universities," said David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, which represents college presidents.

Ideal Christmas Present !!

Public TV zapper hot product
Last Updated Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:01:27 EDT
CBC News
SAN JOSE, CALIF. - A keychain device that enables people to turn off TVs just about anywhere is flying off the shelves, its inventor says.

Cornfield Electronics, which makes the device, is rebuilding its website because of the rush of orders. The TV-B-Gone ($14.99 US) remote control was made public Monday in Wired magazine and on the web.

"I thought there would just be a trickle, but we are swamped," the inventor, Mitch Altman of San Francisco, told the Associated Press. "I didn't know there were so many people who were into turning TV off." The device, an on-off switch, works on about 1,000 TV models, offering users relief from unwanted pictures and noise in airports, restaurants and bars.

It's like a universal remote control programmed to run through about 200 infrared codes that turn TVs on or off. Aim the device, push the button and most TVs will go off. Altman, an electrical engineer, says he tested the device all over the world and most people didn't react when the TV went off. He doesn't like television and doesn't own one.

American Progress Action Fund
Oct. 21st, 2004

VOTING

Ashcroft's Partisan Assault

For more than 35 years – starting with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 – the Department of Justice has fought to protect the right of citizens to vote and have their vote counted. Then John Ashcroft became attorney general. Now, Ashcroft is marshalling the resources of the federal government in an attempt to prevent eligible, registered voters from having their votes counted. On Monday, the Justice Department filed an 11th-hour brief in Michigan district court opposing efforts by civil rights groups (including the Michigan National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ensure that registered voters who appear in the right city, township or village – but the wrong precinct – have their votes counted. (Read how to make sure your vote counts.)

PROVISIONAL BALLOTING EXPLAINED: In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to address problems with the deeply flawed 2000 federal election. One central provision is the requirement to allow a voter who doesn't appear on the registration to cast a provisional ballot. Before casting a provisional ballot, voters must attest that they are eligible and appearing in the appropriate "jurisdiction." The provisional ballot is later reviewed by an election official to determine whether the vote should be counted.

JUDGE REJECTS ASHCROFT'S BOGUS ARGUMENT: In its brief, the Justice Department – arguing to restrict the use of provisional ballots – acknowledged the key to the case lies in the term "jurisdiction." The Department of Justice argued that "Congress did not define the term 'jurisdiction'" when it passed HAVA. Therefore, the term is defined by "the laws of each state." So, according to the Justice Department, if Michigan decides each precinct is a jurisdiction, that is permitted under the law. One problem: Congress made clear that HAVA should be consistent with the National Voter Registration Act, which defines a jurisdiction as a city or town. Yesterday, federal Judge David M. Lawson not only ruled against the Justice Department's position but said its brief added "nothing to the arguments."   

ASHCROFT WON'T PROSECUTE VOTER DISCRIMINATION: Since Ashcroft has taken the helm, the Civil Rights Division "has all but stopped filing lawsuits against communities alleged to have engaged in discrimination against minority voters." In more than three years, the Justice Department "has filed just one contested racial vote-discrimination case, in rural Colorado, which it lost."

ASHCROFT MANIPULATES REDISTRICTING LAW: The Justice Department is also tasked with passing judgment "on legislative redistricting in areas that have a history of discrimination." With Ashcroft in charge, the department's "actions have consistently favored Republicans." For example, in Mississippi the Justice Department "stalled the redistricting process for so long that a pro-Republican redistricting plan went into effect by default." In Texas, Tom DeLay (R-TX) "engineered passage of a revised congressional redistricting plan through the state legislature, which may mean a shift of as many as seven seats from the Democrats to the Republicans." Career officials in the Justice Department "produced an internal legal opinion of seventy-three pages, with seventeen hundred and fifty pages of supporting documents, arguing that the plan should be rejected as a retrogression of minority rights." Ashcroft overruled the recommendation and the new districts are in place for the 2004 election.

ASHCROFT POLITICIZES THE HIRING OF CAREER ATTORNEYS: In the past, the program for hiring new attorneys was "run by mid-level career officials, who were known for their political independence." At the insistence of Ashcroft, the program "has been run by political appointees." The new hiring method "has already had an effect" – especially in politically sensitive cases such as those involving voting rights. One current employee told the New Yorker, "Soon, there won't be any difference between the career people and the political people. The front office is replicating itself. Everyone here will be on the same page."

Under the Radar POLITICS – TAKING A BREAK FROM NATIONAL SECURITY: President Bush, in an unprecedented move, is sending members of his security team away from their jobs and out on the campaign trail. The Washington Post reports National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is stumping for Bush in key battleground states, breaking the "long-standing precedent that the national security adviser try to avoid overt involvement in the presidential campaign." Rice was roundly criticized by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, who "said the national security adviser is the 'custodian' of the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and should be seen as an objective adviser to the president. In addition, Brzezinski objected to Rice taking time from her regular duties to perform political chores. He said with the nation at war in Iraq and in the midst of trying to stabilize Afghanistan, Rice doesn't need the distractions associated with a political campaign." POLITICS – TAKING A BREAK FROM HOMELAND SECURITY: AP reports, "When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge leaves the Washington area on official business, nearly three-fifths of his public events are in the 17 states considered the most hotly contested in the presidential election." Ridge has claimed his department would stay out of the fray, saying, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." In fact, "Ridge and his senior executives, who have pledged that the department would not become entrenched in politics, did nearly half their public events in those 17 states." IRAQ – BUSH PREDICTED NO CASUALTIES: Right-wing religious leader and Bush supporter Pat Robertson yesterday said the president "dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq" and told the televangelist before the war that "we're not going to have any casualties." The Bush spin team quickly tried to deny the reverend's claim by calling into question the religious leader's veracity. Adviser Karen Hughes said, "He must have misunderstood or misheard it." "Of course the president never made such a comment," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Karl Rove claimed he had been at that meeting and Bush had not made the remark. Robertson stood his ground yesterday, refusing to back away from the charge. ENVIRO – MERCURY RISING: A new national study conducted by the University of North Carolina shows a whopping 21 percent of all women of child-bearing age have mercury levels in their bodies that exceed federal health standards. That's almost double the rate of the last study conducted in 2000, which concluded 12 percent of women had levels which were too high. The Bush White House has relaxed mercury regulations in recent years. It also let industry lobbyists to write the regulations – the EPA's mercury emission rules, which were written this year, contained "at least a dozen paragraphs [that] were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions." ENVIRO – SUPERFUND IN SUPER TROUBLE: Bad news for the environment: Thirty-four Superfund projects in 19 states will go unfunded this year. Superfund, the government's toxic cleanup program, is facing historic budget shortfalls which were exacerbated when the Bush administration ended the tax on corporate polluters that funded the program. Reps. John D. Dingell (D-MI) and Hilda L. Solis (D-CA), who demanded last August "that the EPA describe the full impact of the budget shortfalls, said yesterday that the agency has yet to give Congress a full accounting. 'EPA's failure to inform Congress and the public about the site specific needs of the Superfund program in a timely manner makes it much more difficult to get the support necessary to address this serious problem,' the two lawmakers said." CONSERVATIVE QUOTE OF THE DAY: "And guys, if you exploit a girl, it will come back to get you. That's called 'karma.'" - Bill O'Reilly, "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids"

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore !"

Note: Ok, normally I enter my comments here in italics to separate other people's comments from mine; but today's news just put me over the top. So I'm going to write plainly:

The "Bush 43" Administration is absolutely the least professionally competent, the most idealogically oriented, the nastiest politically, the least democratic, and the most hideously elitist group we have had running this country in my lifetime. They have brought out the worst in our society, in our political dialogue, in our international prestige, and our respect for the rule of law and adherence to the living Constitution.

They have wasted precious lives in an elective war against a country we had no international authority to invade. They have wasted the good will and sense of community that flowed to America after 9/11. They have squandered a once-in-a-lifetime $500 billion Federal surplus, and replaced it with a $400 billion dollar deficit. They have expended time, money and talent on devisive social issues instead of focusing on important concerns like border security, first responder and civil defense issues, global warming, nuclear proliferation, infectious disease transmission, genocide in the undeveloped world, on, and on.

As a nation, we might be frightened by the prospect of another terrorist attack on our homeland, or to our friends elsewhere in the world; but we must not allow that fear alone to guide our choice for the next administration. So called "partial-birth-abortion" affects at most a few hundred child-bearing women this year, whereas the flu vaccine shortage has the potential of indirectly killing several hundred times that many. Saying that genocide is going on in Darfur but essentially doing nothing to stop it other than to promise to send a few million dollars is obscene. Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Hungary, and England have each sent more direct and humanitarian aid per capita to Darfur than we have.

Unfortunately our much vaulted free press, and loyal opposition have rolled over in their willingness to accept, repeat, and tacidly support this Administration's political spin, manipulated scientific enquiry, unsupported conjecture, and outright lies. In some cases because they fear for their jobs and careers which can be vehemently attacked by Administration entities bent on preventing opposition to their actions.

As an American who has fought for this country in war, paid taxes, and been a productive citizen for many years, it is increasing painful to see what Bush 43 has fostered among us: a disrespect for pluralism, antipathy toward a diversity in faith doctrine and morality, an approval of unrestrained capitalism, and a willful disregard of and distaste for those who are slightly different in skin color, economic status, educational attainment level, or national origin than they are. Not everyone can have blond hair, blue eyes, gleaming white teeth, and a ranch home in the suburbs; but the real nastiness is this Administration has managed to convince a sizeable portion of the country that they are concerned about and working for the common man and woman, when their actions plainly prove the opposite.

There might be something you don't "like" about Sen. Kerry; but the things you should not stand for is what Bush 43 has done to this country during the past four years. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" And if you are one of the few who can answer yes to that, than consider your circle of friends...are they better off?

Don't Give An Inch !!
And Never Forget The Power of Activists to Change The Dynamic of a Situation !!

MEDIA – SINCLAIR'S RETREAT: Yesterday, shareholders challenged Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision to air, commercial free, a highly partisan documentary smearing Sen. John Kerry. The shareholders demanded that those with opposing views be given an equal opportunity to air their views. The action was filed by Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, on behalf of its clients. General Partner Jim Glickenhaus said, "We are not partisan. We are investors. Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view." Sinclair responded to the demand by announcing it will not air the documentary – "Stolen Honor" – in its entirety. Rather, the company plans to air "a special news program, called 'A POW Story,' that will include the documentary's allegations against Kerry in a 'broader discussion.'" According to Media Matters, which underwrote the original lawsuit, "should the program fall outside the boundaries of fairness and impartiality outlined in the demand letter, legal action may resume."

More On Flu Vaccine

American Progress Action Fund
Oct 20th, 2004

FLU VACCINE

Oh, Canada?

For years, the Bush administration – at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry – has been blocking access to cheaper FDA-approved prescription drugs imported from Canada because it claimed they were not safe. But yesterday, in an abrupt about face, the administration announced the FDA is in "active negotiations" to obtain an extra 1.5 million doses of flu vaccine from a Canadian manufacturer. Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford said "the FDA would inspect the Canadian facilities to see if they meet U.S. standards" and, if they meet those standards, it is possible the Canadian-made vaccine "would make it to American consumers this flu season." The FDA did not explain why, if the safety of Canadian-made vaccine could be established so quickly, it still hasn't figured out whether prescription drugs reimported from Canada are safe. (For the record, the FDA "can't name a single American who's been injured" from drugs purchased from a Canadian pharmacy.)

CANADIANS CONTRADICT CRAWFORD'S CLAIM: Crawford tried to save face by telling American reporters that "purchases of foreign vaccine would likely be done on a government-to-government basis, with U.S. authorities taking direct possession of the additional supplies," but Canadian officials said that's not true. "Certainly not that I'm aware of," said Dr. David Butler-Jones, head of Canada's new Public Health Agency. "Given that the vaccine that is available is either in the private sector or already in the provinces' and territories' hands, largely, that would be kind of funny to buy that back. "

THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WARNED: The president continues to blame "a production flaw" for the vaccine shortage, but the Bush administration received warnings about the vaccination supply and could have taken steps to diminish the problem. After Chiron Corp. informed British and American officials on Sept. 13 that there were unresolved contamination problems at its Liverpool, England, plant, the British government responded by contacting other manufacturers and securing alternative supplies. The Bush administration, on the other hand, failed to act before all doses of the flu vaccine had been purchased. The administration had already ignored two GAO reports which warned of impending production shortfalls.

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE? The secretary of Health and Human Services also announced yesterday that 2.6 million extra doses of the flu vaccine would be made available through Aventis Pasteur, the one company still approved by the FDA to sell flu vaccines this year. Even with these added doses, 40 percent of Americans who want the vaccine will have to go without the shot. And the new shipment also will arrive well "after the date the government recommends for vulnerable Americans to have had their shots," making it "unclear how helpful the extra vaccine doses will be." The new doses will not be available until January; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that people be vaccinated in October or November.

HEALTH IS A CONGRESSIONAL PERK: There's one place in the United States. that isn't experiencing a flu vaccine shortage: Congress. "Directly contraven[ing] the instruction being given by the government's executive branch," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the Capitol's attending physician are urging "all 535 lawmakers to get the vaccines even if they are young and healthy." Despite the shortage, many lawmakers were quick to comply, making sure to get their flu shots before they headed home to campaign this month. Those who haven't gotten their shots plan to, like Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), who said in an interview yesterday: "I haven't done it yet, but I want to." All told, the congressional physician's office "has dispensed nearly 2,000 flu shots this fall, and doses remained available yesterday." E-mail your members of Congress to see whether they're bypassing the lines to get shots for themselves.

FLU SHORTAGE COULD AFFECT TROOP READINESS: AP reports, "At military bases already strained by the demands of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the men and women who defend the nation aren't being defended against the flu." Normally, "the Navy hospital at Camp Lejeune…would be getting 50,000 to 60,000 doses of flu vaccine." This year, however, the base has yet to receive a single dose. This is especially dangerous in a time of war: special operations Marines can be deployed at any time but will be vaccinated only after the Department of Defense decides how to dole out the military's supply. "If they get exposed to an area where the flu is epidemic, there is a readiness problem," said George Reynolds, director of community health at Lejeune's hospital.

NY Times Presidential Endorsement: 2000 Election

Al Gore for President
NY Times Editorial
Oct. 29th, 2000

Despite all the complaints about the difficulty of falling in love with either Al Gore or George W. Bush, these two very different men have delivered a clean, well-argued campaign that offers a choice between two sharply contrasting visions of the future. Even though Vice President Gore is a centrist Democrat and Governor Bush has presented himself as the most moderate Republican nominee in a generation, they have sketched very different pictures of the role of government and how actively the president should help families secure adequate education, health care and retirement. This is also the first presidential campaign in recent history centered on an argument over how best to use real, bird-in-the-hand resources to address age-old domestic problems while also defining the United States' role in a world evermore dependent on it for farsighted international leadership.

Having listened to their debate, we today firmly endorse Al Gore as the man best equipped for the presidency by virtue of his knowledge of government, his experience at the top levels of federal and diplomatic decision-making, and his devotion to the general welfare. We offer this endorsement knowing that Mr. Bush is not without his strong points and that Mr. Gore has his weaknesses. But the vice president has struggled impressively and successfully to escape the shadow of the Clinton administration's ethical lapses, and we believe that he would never follow Bill Clinton's example of reckless conduct that cheapens the presidency. Like Senator John McCain, Mr. Gore has been chastened by personal experience with sleazy fund-raising. He has promised to make campaign finance reform his first legislative priority, whereas Mr. Bush is unwilling to endorse the elimination of special-interest money from American politics.

We commend Mr. Bush for running a largely positive, inclusive campaign. He has not reviled government like Ronald Reagan in 1980 or played on divisive social themes as his father did in 1988. But on women's rights, guns and law-enforcement issues, he has a harsh agenda, and the centerpiece of his domestic program is a lavish tax cut for the rich that would negate the next Congress's once-in- a-century opportunity to move the country toward universal health care and stabilization of Social Security and Medicare.

Leadership

Mr. Bush has asked to be judged by something more than his positions. He offers himself as an experienced leader who would end the culture of bickering in Washington and use wisdom and resoluteness in dealing with domestic social problems and international crises. But his résumé is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be. He does have great personal charm. But Mr. Bush's main professional experience was running a baseball team financed by friends and serving for six years as governor in a state where the chief executive has limited budgetary and operational powers. His three debates with Mr. Gore exposed an uneasiness with foreign policy that cannot be erased by his promise to have heavyweight advisers. John F. Kennedy, as a far more seasoned new president, struggled through the Cuban missile crisis while his senior advisers offered contradictory advice on how to confront a Soviet military threat on America's doorstep. The job description is for commander in chief, not advisee in chief.

The vice president has admitted to his limitations as a speaker. But Al Gore has a heart — and a mind — prepared for presidential-scale challenges. When it comes to the details of policy making, he will not need on-the-job training.

Taxes and the Economy

Preserving the nation's remarkable prosperity must be considered the thematic spine of this election. Mr. Gore helped stiffen Mr. Clinton's resolve to maintain the budgetary discipline that erased the federal deficit, stimulated productivity and invigorated the financial markets. Now, Mr. Gore and his running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, promise to maintain fiscal rigor while using the surplus on spending programs and tax breaks for the working families that profited least from the biggest boom in American history. More specifically, Mr. Gore would seize this opportunity to improve the environment and spend more money to hire teachers and build schools. We like his capitalism with a conscience more than the trickle-down sound of Mr. Bush's compassionate conservatism.

To be blunter, Mr. Bush's entire economic program is built on a stunning combination of social inequity and flawed economic theory. He would spend more than half the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security surplus on a tax cut at a time when the economy does not need that stimulus. Moreover, as Mr. Gore has said repeatedly and truthfully, over 40 percent of the money would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Mr. Bush would expand some programs for schools, but he also embraces the Republicans' ideologically driven approach of using vouchers to transfer money from public to private schools. There is nothing compassionate or conservative about blowing the surplus on windfalls for the wealthy instead of investing it in fair tax relief and well-designed social programs.

The nation's biggest domestic need remains universal access to health care. Neither candidate would move as fast as we would like. But Mr. Gore has outlined steps that would start us down the road to covering the 45 million uninsured Americans. He would expand Medicare, guarantee prescription drugs for seniors and provide more opportunity for the uninsured to obtain coverage. Mr. Bush favors a bipartisan approach on these issues, but his proposals have seemed reactive rather than driven by an inner passion.

Mr. Gore's commitment to Social Security is deeply rooted, too, and more responsible. His proposal to supplement the system with personal investment retirement accounts is superior to Mr. Bush's plan to privatize part of the system. The governor's scheme would siphon money out of Social Security at the very moment when both seniors and younger taxpayers want to see long-term fixes to ensure its solvency.

Foreign Policy

Upon his arrival in Washington more than two decades ago, Mr. Gore set out to master the intricacies of arms control and foreign policy. He broke with his party to support the war against Iraq in 1991. He was an advocate of military force in the Balkans, and today he calls for a more muscular approach to using American forces to protect the country's security interests and prevent genocidal conflicts abroad.

We have expressed concern here that Mr. Gore might sometimes be too eager to project power overseas. But it is also true that Mr. Bush's repeated objections to using troops for peacekeeping and nation-building do not add up to a mature national- security vision. Neither does his promise to rely on his running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, and his likely secretary of state, the retired general Colin Powell.

Mr. Gore will have advisers, but he will not need a minder. He understands that in order to influence the allies an American president must lead from the front. He has already been eye to eye with the world's leaders. While Mr. Bush has a contracting definition of national security, Mr. Gore has been in the forefront of redefining it to include issues of health and environment and the containment of regional conflicts that can metastasize into threats to world peace.

Rights and Values

Mr. Gore has said that abortion rights are on the ballot in this election. So are other issues such as civil liberties, environmental protection and gun control. The next president may appoint up to five Supreme Court justices and thereby exercise a lasting impact on the daily lives of Americans. A court tilted by conservative Bush appointees could overturn Roe v. Wade and assert a doctrine of states' rights that would take environmental protection out of federal hands. Ralph Nader and his supporters are not simply being delusional when they say there is no real difference between these candidates. They are being dishonest, and dangerously so.

Mr. Gore brings a lifelong record of protecting basic rights for women, minorities and gays, while Mr. Bush has almost no record at all. The vice president has been the driving force in this administration's environmental successes, and he understands the need for federal regulation for environmental tasks like saving the Everglades and for American leadership to combat global warming. Mr. Bush is for an unrealistic regimen of negotiating with industry on air and water problems and for letting the oil companies loose in sensitive areas.

The Real Choice
Most citizens know that Mr. Gore wins any comparison with Mr. Bush on experience and knowledge. Yet many voters seem more comfortable with Mr. Bush's personality and are tempted to gamble on him. We do not dismiss this desire for someone who they feel does not talk down to them and would come to the White House free of any connection to Mr. Clinton's excesses. But it is important to remember that the nation's prosperity, its environmental progress and its guarantees of civil rights and reproductive freedom took years to build. They could be undone in a flash by a pliable and inexperienced president driven by a highly ideological Congress.

Mr. Gore does have a tendency to be patronizing and to exaggerate. But he has a career of accomplishment that can stand on its own without exaggeration. Despite his uneven performance in the debates, the content of his campaign in these final days demonstrates how much he has grown in the last year. Voting for him is not a gamble on unknown potential.

We support Albert Gore Jr. with the firm belief that he will go just as far in bringing "honor and dignity" back to the White House as Mr. Bush, and that he will bring an extra measure of talent and conviction as well. His seriousness of purpose, his commitment to American leadership in the world and his concern for those less fortunate in American society convince us that he will lead the country into a creative, productive and progressive era at the beginning of the 21st century.

NY Times Give Presidential Endorsement to John Kerry

John Kerry for President
NY Times Editorial
Oct 17th, 2004

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.
•

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.
•

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.
•

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
•

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.
•

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.

The Bush Administration and the Flu Shot Shortage

From American Progress Action Report
October 18th, 2004

FLU VACCINE

Bush's Blame Game

The vaccine shortage this winter means tens of millions of Americans will have to forgo a flu shot, including millions of those who need it most – the elderly, small children and pregnant women. In Michigan, for example, there are 3.4 million people considered a priority for a flu shot, but only 2 million total doses available. It didn't have to be this way. The Bush administration received warnings about the vaccination supply problem and could have taken steps to avert or diminish the problem. It didn't. Instead of taking responsibility for the crisis that resulted, the Bush administration has tried to deflect blame with a series of false, misleading and hypocritical statements. (And, for good measure, it has blamed John Kerry).

BUSH WARNED ABOUT VACCINE SUPPLY PROBLEM IN 2001: In May 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report concluding "a production delay or shortfall experienced by even one of the three remaining manufacturers can significantly impact overall vaccine availability." Specifically, the GAO expressed concern that, in the event of a shortage, "there is no mechanism currently in place to distribute flu vaccine to high-risk individuals before others." The report recommended robust cooperation between the federal government and the private sector to avoid future problems.

BUSH IGNORES THE PROBLEM 3+ YEARS: The GAO produced a follow-up report in September 2004, more than three years later. That report found "the number of producers remains limited, and the potential for manufacturing problems...is still present." Again, the GAO noted "there is no system in place to ensure that seniors and others at high risk for complications receive flu vaccinations first when vaccine is in short supply."

BUSH BLEW OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIES: On Sept. 13, Chiron Corp. informed officials from the United States and England that there were unresolved contamination problems at its Liverpool, England, plant. The British government responded by contacting other manufacturers and securing alternative supplies. The Bush administration failed to act before all doses of the flu vaccine had been purchased.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCUSE RINGS HOLLOW: FDA Acting Commissioner Lester M. Crawford suggests the United States could not find new supplies of the flu vaccine because they didn't know the Chiron plant would be closed until Oct. 5, by which time there was no more vaccine available. Crawford does not specifically deny, however, that the FDA knew there were unresolved contamination issues at the plant starting on Sept. 13.

BUSH WILL SAY ANYTHING TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY: In an effort to avoid any responsibility for the problem, Bush said in the debate last Wednesday the United States had a flu vaccine shortage because "we relied upon a company out of England." But Chiron Corp. is a California company, subject to regulation by the U.S. government, which operates a factory in England. Bush also took credit for identifying the problem, saying "we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country." But it was the British government, not the Bush administration, that closed the factory and prevented the contaminated vaccines from entering the United States. The FDA inspected the plant in June 2003 and found contamination problems – but later announced that the problems had been fixed to its satisfaction.

HYPOCRITICAL RESPONSE – IMPORT VACCINES FROM CANADA: Asked about the vaccine shortage during the debate, Bush said "we're working with Canada to – hopefully they'll produce a – help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations." Apparently, Bush forgot that his administration has been working doggedly to prevent the reimportation of cheaper Canadian drugs at the behest of the pharmaceutical company, claiming they are unsafe. The next day, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson got back on message, saying "getting more vaccine from Canada is unlikely."

DESPERATE RESPONSE – BLAME KERRY: According to Bush campaign Chairman Ken Mehlman, the administration bears no responsibility for the flu vaccine shortage – it's all John Kerry's fault. According to Mehlman, John Kerry is responsible because he opposed a 2003 bill that would limit legal liability for drug manufacturers whose products injure patients. The bill never even came up for a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Why Not Kerry? Why Not Bush?

Note: What are some of the justifications used by prospective voters to avoid supporting the candidate for President?
<------------------------------------->
-Kerry asserts the "War on Terror" should be primarily a law-enforcement, political, economic and idealogical conflict rather than exclusively a military function.

-Kerry has criticized the planning, performance, and results of almost every aspect of the occupation of Iraq, aside from the initial purely military campaign.

-Kerry has changed his position on how to deal with the situation in Iraq

-Kerry is an elitist who doesn't really care about the average person.

-Kerry is not a born-again Christian, or devoutly evangelical in his faith.

-Kerry is disliked by a lot of people on TV.

-Kerry's position on issues is not clear.

-Kerry hasn't done much during his twenty five years in the Senate.
<------------------------------------->
-Bush took America into war with Iraq without just cause, and his Administration mishandled almost every aspect of it, with no-one being held responsible and made to pay any price for their misdeeds, errors, or failures.

-Bush has presided over an Administration that has earned the enmity of the overwhelming majority of the World's population.

-Bush has asserted he has rights at odds with the principles of the Constitution, such as "enemy combattants" or pre-eminent wars.

-During his term, almost every measure of social and economic condition has declined, in many cases to historical records.

-In spite of his claim, Bush has been perceived as the prime focus of intense partisan politics. He has not been a uniter.

-Bush has strenously pushed his faith issues into every aspect of political discourse and governance, creating the perception that the State is subservient to the Evangelical Christian Church's dogma.

-Bush has been judged as favoring the wealthy and priviledged sections of the country to the detriment of the average citizen.

-Several of Bush's Cabinet Officers have been roundly denounced by non-partisan related groups under their perview, such as the Sierra Club, NEA, BIA, CBO, etc.

-Of the three main legislative achievements of the Bush Administration all were initially actively opposed by the Administration.

-Corporate titans indicted for major economic crimes during the Bush Administation have not been brought to justice. Only second tier offenders have been tried and imprisoned. Corporate wrongdoing has been uncovered not by Federal Agencies; but rather by NY State Agencies who end up having to work in opposition to Federal agencies.

-Bush has a higher "unfavorable" rating among likely voters two weeks before the election than any other President seeking relection in modern times.

-But if you want more reasons why not to vote for Mr. Bush, check out these 94 Reasons !

G.W. Bush as the Evangelical President

Note: Ron Suskind in the October 7th NYT Sunday Magazine provides a potent insight into the G.W.Bush presidency.

More from the "Greed is Good" School of Business

Update 8: Marsh & McLennan Comments on Incentive Fees
10.19.2004, 10:16 AM
Forbes.com

The company at the center of a probe into insurance brokerage fees says it took in more than $1.2 billion in incentive payments over the past 18 months and that its decision to stop using such fees will reduce operating income.

Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. disclosed late Monday that its Marsh Inc. insurance unit collected $845 million of such fees in 2003, and another $420 million through June 30 this year.

The fees, which are over and above ordinary commissions, have been paid by insurance companies to brokers, mainly for steering profitable clients the insurer's way. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued Marsh & McLennan last week over the fees as well as for bid rigging, and said the investigation extends to several large insurers.

Spitzer's civil suit says the "placement service agreements," also known as contingent commissions or market service agreements, had led to corporate customers not getting the best prices on property and casualty policies. New York-based Marsh & McLennan has since ended the practice, and this week two major insurance companies named in Spitzer's probe - New York-based American International Group Inc. and Bermuda-based ACE Ltd. - said they also have stopped using such incentives.

Spitzer has alleged that March & McLennan, as part of bid-rigging efforts, sought phony quotes from some insurance companies to try to give commercial customers the illusion of a competitive bidding process. In a statement Monday, Marsh & McLennan said the $845 million in fees represented 12 percent of its risk and insurance services revenue of $6.9 billion and 7 percent of its $11.6 billion in overall revenue. The fees also represented more than 50 percent of the company's earnings over the same period.

Besides ACE and AIG, Spitzer's probe also mentioned Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Munich-American Risk Partners, a division of the German-headquartered Munich Re Group. None of the insurers has been charged.

ACE, AIG and Marsh & McLennan have all said they have hired outside experts to look into their operations. All three of the firms are headed by members of an insurance dynasty. Maurice "Hank" Greenberg is chairman and chief executive of AIG. His son Jeffrey is chairman and CEO of Marsh & McLennan, while another son, Evan, is president and CEO of ACE.

Note: The Greenberg's are prolific donators to politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, with Maurice and Evan contributing mostly to Republican candidates, and Jeffrey mostly to Democratic candidates.

Marsh & McLennan say these fees represent seven percent of it's overall revenue but fifty percent of of its earnings...and they are now agreeing to voluntarily end this contingency fee abuse which brought in $840 million last year. Yeah...sure...

Insurance: Contingency Fees as another form of Payola

Insurance Investigation Widens to Include Costs
By JOSEPH B. TREASTER
NY Times
Oct. 20th, 2004

An investigation into the insurance business is expanding, investigators said yesterday, as Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general, increasingly turns his attention to whether American corporations and their employees are paying more for life, disability and accident insurance than they should be.

In California, John Garamendi, the state insurance commissioner, said last night that he, too, was concerned about extra costs to individuals for life, disability and accident insurance and that he was considering legal action against at least one broker and several insurance companies that sell what are known as employee benefits.

While the current focus of the New York investigation is on bid-rigging and price-fixing among commercial insurance brokers and insurance companies, investigators say Mr. Spitzer is also pursuing reports of payoffs that may increase coverage costs for tens of millions of individuals.

"Eliot Spitzer's interest is in the retail stuff, the effect on regular people,'' said David D. Brown IV, the chief of the state attorney's investment protection bureau.

"Our investigation is broadening and deepening,'' Mr. Brown said. "We are going to look across product lines, across insurers and across brokers, the big and the little."

The insurance controversy became public last week, when Mr. Spitzer sued Marsh & McLennan, the world's biggest commercial insurance broker, accusing the broker of rigging bids from insurance companies and fixing prices for corporate customers in exchange for fees from the insurance companies.

Three insurance companies have entered guilty pleas to rigging bids, and more criminal charges are expected, perhaps as early as this week.

Such bid-rigging schemes, investigators contend, have indirectly increased the costs of everything from houses to toothpaste as corporations pass along the expense. The bid rigging was discovered, Mr. Spitzer said last week, during an investigation into incentive fees insurers pay to insurance brokers.

But there are other potential conflicts of interest in insurance that may have a more direct impact on consumers. Investigators in New York and California are now examining whether brokers and consultants are demanding extra fees for favored treatment in the sale of employee benefits like group life and disability coverage.

Like the investigation into commercial insurance brokers, this inquiry began when Mr. Spitzer's office received a tip. In this case, an industry executive, upset by deals involving brokers and employee benefits insurers, telephoned the attorney general.

In June, subpoenas were issued to Aetna, Cigna and MetLife, some of the biggest sellers of what the industry calls group benefits.

These include life, disability and accident insurance bought for workers by businesses and nonprofits, who often allow employees to add to their coverage if they dip into their own pockets.

"We're very interested in health-related lines and auto insurance,'' one investigator said, "because those are the ones that affect consumers the most.''

In California, Mr. Garamendi said he had been discussing with his staff and other California officials either filing a lawsuit or joining in with others in a lawsuit on employee benefits. He said he planned to announced his decision later this week.

"We are on the verge of taking legal action,'' he said.

The California commissioner said he also planned to draft new regulations that would require insurance brokers to disclose all compensation from insurance companies and explicitly prohibit brokers from steering business to insurers in exchange for payoffs.

The role of insurance brokers is to obtain the best coverage for corporate insurance clients at the best price in exchange for a fee. They are supposed to deal with insurance companies at arms length. Long ago, however, they began collecting fees from the other side of the deal, from the insurance companies, creating a conflict of interest, some industry experts said.

In the field of employment benefits, brokers and consultants often receive two kinds of special payments in their dealings with insurance companies, according to an executive who works in the field.

The most widespread form of payments is a reward to the broker or consultant from an insurance company for a certain volume of business and for business that is expected to have few claims and therefore be especially profitable. This kind of payment, investigators and industry executives said, is the same as the kind widely used in commercial property and casualty insurance; in property casualty insurance, it raises the cost of insurance generally.

These arrangements are known as contingency fees, placement service agreements and market service agreements, just as they are in property casualty insurance.

But an additional form of payment that is absent in property casualty transactions results in higher individual costs for corporate employees who choose to buy life, disability or accident coverage beyond the amount provided by employers.

In those transactions, the executive said, the insurance company tacks on an additional annual fee of perhaps $5 to $15 for every worker who increases coverage.

While the extra money is collected by the insurance companies, the executive said, it is passed on to the brokers. Sometimes, the executives said, employers are aware of the extra charge, sometimes not.

In any case, the executive said, because of the hidden fees on workers, the corporation gets the services of a broker for less in direct costs than otherwise.

The degree to which incentive fees were important to Marsh was illustrated late yesterday, when the company said that it took in $843 million in such fees last year, or about 12 percent of its brokerage revenue of $6.9 billion. The disclosure was the first time the company had outlined the financial impact of the payments.

Marsh said on Friday that it was halting the incentive payments. Yesterday, the company said that the decision would "negatively impact near-term operating income.'' The payments represent 7 percent of its overall revenue. (Marsh's other main businesses are Putnam Investments and Mercer Consulting.)

Mr. Spitzer said on Thursday that the incentive payments could represent more than 50 percent of the parent company's income of $1.5 billion last year.

But Marsh said last night that it could not be sure how much income it earned through the payments because it was unable to determine the expenses associated with them. Marsh said, however, that it paid at least $340 million in expenses in connection with the payments in 2003.

Jeffrey Greenberg, the chief executive of Marsh & McLennan, had previously said that it was company policy not to break out either the revenue or the profits from the payments in its financial statements.

Two rating agencies, Fitch Ratings and Moody's Investors Service, lowered their estimates of Marsh's ability to repay debt and said further downgrades were possible.

Earlier yesterday, shares of Marsh & McLennan fell for a third day. The stock closed down $3.63, at $25.57. Since Mr. Spitzer announced the lawsuit on Thursday, the shares have tumbled 45 percent.

And the investigation is gathering speed. Already, Mr. Spitzer has 20 lawyers investigating the insurance industry, or nearly double the number involved in the investigation into mutual funds.

"This is a much bigger team,'' Mr. Brown said, "and it's much more interdisciplinary. The other cases were largely investor protection. This one involves people from our consumer fraud unit and antitrust as well as from criminal prosecutions."

Referring to Marsh, Mr. Brown said, "The first place we looked, we found massive issues. "We're going to keep pounding on this,'' he said.

Frontdoor vs Backdoor Draft

U.S. Has Contingency Plans for a Draft of Medical Workers
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The Selective Service has been updating its contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers in case of a national emergency that overwhelms the military's medical corps.

In a confidential report this summer, a contractor hired by the agency described how such a draft might work, how to secure compliance and how to mold public opinion and communicate with health care professionals, whose lives could be disrupted.

On the one hand, the report said, the Selective Service System should establish contacts in advance with medical societies, hospitals, schools of medicine and nursing, managed care organizations, rural health care providers and the editors of medical journals and trade publications.

On the other hand, it said, such contacts must be limited, low key and discreet because "overtures from Selective Service to the medical community will be seen as precursors to a draft," and that could alarm the public.

In this election year, the report said, "very few ideas or activities are viewed without some degree of cynicism."

President Bush has flatly declared that there will be no draft, but Senator John Kerry has suggested that this is a possibility if Mr. Bush is re-elected.

Richard S. Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said Monday: "We have been routinely updating the entire plan for a health care draft. The plan is on the shelf and will remain there unless Congress and the president decide that it's needed and direct us to carry it out."

The Selective Service does not decide whether a draft will occur. It would carry out the mechanics only if the president and Congress authorized a draft.

The chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence T. Di Rita, said Monday: "It is the policy of this administration to oppose a military draft for any purpose whatsoever. A return to the draft is unthinkable. There will be no draft."

Mr. Di Rita said the armed forces could offer bonus pay and other incentives to attract and retain medical specialists.

In 1987, Congress enacted a law requiring the Selective Service to develop a plan for "registration and classification" of health care professionals essential to the armed forces.

Under the plan, Mr. Flahavan said, about 3.4 million male and female health care workers ages 18 to 44 would be expected to register with the Selective Service. From this pool, he said, the agency could select tens of thousands of health care professionals practicing in 62 health care specialties.

"The Selective Service System plans on delivering about 36,000 health care specialists to the Defense Department if and when a special skills draft were activated," Mr. Flahavan said.

The contractor hired by Selective Service, Widmeyer Communications, said that local government operations would be affected by a call-up of emergency medical technicians, so it advised the Selective Service to contact groups like the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties.

Doctors and nurses would be eligible for deferments if they could show that they were providing essential health care services to civilians in their communities.

But the contractor said: "There is no getting around the fact that a medical draft would disrupt lives. Many familial, business and community responsibilities will be impacted."

Moreover, Widmeyer said, "if medical professionals are singled out and other professionals are not called, many will find the process unfair," and health care workers will ask, "Why us?"

In a recent article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, published by the state medical society, Col. Roger A. Lalich, a senior physician in the Army National Guard, said: "It appears that a general draft is not likely to occur. A physician draft is the most likely conscription into the military in the near future."

Since 2003, the Selective Service has said it is shifting its preparations for a draft in a national crisis toward narrow sectors of specialists, including medical personnel.

Colonel Lalich, citing Selective Service memorandums on the subject, said the Defense Department had indicated that "a conventional draft of untrained manpower is not necessary for the war on terrorism." But, he said, "the Department of Defense has stated that what most likely will be needed is a 'special skills draft,' " including care workers in particular.

That view was echoed in a newsletter circulated recently by the Selective Service System, which said the all-volunteer force had "critical shortages of individuals with special skills'' that might be needed in a crisis.

The Selective Service and Widmeyer held focus groups this summer to sample public opinion toward registration and a possible draft including medical personnel. People from a variety of professions, including doctors and nurses, were questioned.

The report summarized the findings this way:

¶"There was substantial resistance to the notion of a call-up of civilian professionals that would send draftees to foreign soil."

¶A draft of civilian professionals was seen as unworkable because "training would be inadequate to transform groups of people who had never worked together into cohesive units."

¶People are apprehensive about the length of service that might be required. The "occupation of Iraq has proved more costly, in terms of dollars and lives, than most Americans expected." Members of the National Guard are "serving tours of duty far longer than many ever anticipated."

¶People believe the government has the ability to "find whomever it needs" in a crisis, by using a "master database" if necessary.

President Bush and Mr. Kerry have said they oppose a draft. "Forget all this talk about a draft," Mr. Bush said at the second presidential debate, on Oct. 8 in St. Louis. "We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the president."

But Mr. Kerry said, "You've got a backdoor draft right now" because "our military is overextended" as a result of policies adopted by Mr. Bush.

Bryan G. Whitman, a spokesman for the Defense Department, said: "The all-volunteer force has been working very well for 30 years. There is absolutely no reason to go back to a draft."

Essential Krugman: Feeling the Draft

Feeling the Draft
NY Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 19, 2004

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.

There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.

It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.

This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.

Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."

In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has "inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the reservists who refused to go on what they described as a "suicide mission."

Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."

Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed terms of enlistment by "stop loss" orders.

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?

The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.

Gee...another powerful person having problems of a sexual nature
President's, Priests, and Pundits
But what role does force play in each?

TV Host O'Reilly Accused of Harassment
Producer Alleges Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly Sexually Harassed Her Over Phone

Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly poses on the roof of the Fox building in New York in this Oct. 13, 2003 file photo.A Fox News Channel producer sued O'Reilly for sexual harassment Wednesday,Oct. 13, 2004 alleging her boss had phone sex with her against her wishes three times. Fox filed a countersuit, saying the complaint was a politically motivated extortion attempt. (AP Photo/Jim Copper)
The Associated Press
<------------------------------------->
O'Reilly takes harassment claim to airwaves
By Adam Nichols
New York Daily News

New York — Fox TV host Bill O'Reilly took to the airwaves Wednesday night to slam an employee's claims he subjected her to sleazy phone sex and other lewd harassment — charging he's the victim of a $60 million shakedown attempt.

Andrea Mackris, an associate producer of "The O'Reilly Factor," accused the conservative talk show host of making "disgusting" calls to her — and threatening to ruin her career if she complained.

In her lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Mackris, 33, charged that O'Reilly pelted her with sexually explicit phone calls, pestered her for three-way sex with another woman and bragged in lurid detail about his prowess in bed.

It was the latest — and most personal — controversy to envelop O'Reilly, a best-selling author and writer whose syndicated column appears in the New York Daily News. His popular TV show has become a lightning rod for criticism from the left.

Mackris, of Manhattan, had worked with O'Reilly since April 2000, apart from six months earlier this year, when she moved to CNN.

She said her boss started making lewd comments after she split with her fiance in May 2001, and the alleged harassment escalated after she returned to Fox in July.

In three calls since August, O'Reilly, 55, who is married and lives on Long Island, spoke graphically about his sexual fantasies during a series of "perverted ravings," she claims.
<------------------------------------->
More here on this.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Yeah, O'Reilly is a bully...and it's not hard for any woman to see he would be quite capable of doing this. Maybe he's innocent; but I'll take bets on Mackris's version being the one that's proven true.

If there wasn't any justification for the probe would the "market" have responded this way?

Insurance Probe Drives Down Stocks
Fri Oct 15, 2004 08:48 PM ET
By Aleksandrs Rozens and Joseph Giannone

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Top U.S. life insurer MetLife Inc. (MET.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Friday it had received several subpoenas from New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, in a sign that a probe into alleged rigging of bids in exchange for fat fees in the insurance industry is widening.

The disclosure was among a series of developments related to the investigation, which has shaken the entire insurance world and is already triggering changes in the way business is done.

Marsh & McLennan Cos. (MMC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , which was sued by Spitzer on Thursday for steering unsuspected clients to certain insurers and reaping huge fees as a result, announced on Friday it was replacing the chief executive of its Marsh Inc. insurance brokerage unit. It also said it would suspend a controversial practice that is at the heart of the case.

Investors' fears about the extent of the investigation drove down the shares of insurers and insurance brokers for a second day. Tens of billions of dollars of market value in insurance industry stock has been wiped out since the Spitzer probe was disclosed on Thursday.

Not One...but Eighteen !! There -IS- Something to This !!

Inquiry Opens After Reservists Balk in Baghdad
By NEELA BANERJEE
and ARIEL HART
NY Times

The Army is investigating members of a Reserve unit in Iraq who refused to deliver a fuel shipment north of Baghdad under conditions they considered unsafe, the Pentagon and relatives of the soldiers said Friday. Several soldiers called it a "suicide mission," relatives said.

Some 18 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C., were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers.

Jackie Butler of Jackson, Miss., the wife of Staff Sgt. Michael Butler, 44, said she was awakened about 5:30 or 6 a.m. Thursday by a call from an officer from Iraq. He told her "that my husband was being detained for disobeying a direct order," Ms. Butler said, "and he went on to tell me that it was a bogus charge that they got against him and some of those soldiers over there, because what they was doing was sending them into a suicide mission, and they refused to go."

Every Last Ounce of Effort !

Unchecked citizen box on registration forms stirs debate
By Dara Kam
Special to The Palm Beach Post

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

TALLAHASSEE — Sen. John Kerry's Florida campaign chairman accused Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Glenda Hood on Monday of using a "technicality" to instruct elections supervisors to throw out voter registration applications if potential voters did not check off a box stating they are citizens of the United States.

Just hours before the 5 p.m. deadline to register to vote for the Nov. 2 general election, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Miami, met with state officials and asked them to "err on the side of democracy" and allow the oath attesting to citizenship and residency, which all voters must sign, to meet the statutory requirement concerning U.S. citizens.

A voter registration application is complete under Florida law if it contains the applicant's name, legal residence address, date of birth, and "an indication that the applicant is a citizen of the United States," as well as an oath of loyalty to the U.S. and Florida constitutions and a signature attesting that all the information on the form is correct. The oath also includes the statement "I am a U.S. citizen."

Dawn Roberts, director of the Division of Elections said she would not consider revising the directive. She said, "That affirmation (the oath) is broader than whether or not you're just a citizen."

But Jon Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida College of Law and a Democrat who served as a former Florida House Speaker, said, "That signature certainly would seem to do it. That's not only an indication — it's a sworn oath."

Essential Krugman: Block the Vote

Block the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: October 15, 2004

Earlier this week former employees of Sproul & Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach of America), a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors systematically tore up Democratic registrations.

The accusations are backed by physical evidence and appear credible. Officials have begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by Sproul in Oregon.

Republicans claim, of course, that they did nothing wrong - and that besides, Democrats do it, too. But there haven't been any comparably credible accusations against Democratic voter-registration organizations. And there is a pattern of Republican efforts to disenfranchise Democrats, by any means possible.

Some of these, like the actions reported in Nevada, involve dirty tricks. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired an Idaho company to paralyze Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts by jamming the party's phone banks.

But many efforts involve the abuse of power. For example, Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, tried to use an archaic rule about paper quality to invalidate thousands of new, heavily Democratic registrations.

That attempt failed. But in Wisconsin, a Republican county executive insists that this year, when everyone expects a record turnout, Milwaukee will receive fewer ballots than it got in 2000 or 2002 - a recipe for chaos at polling places serving urban, mainly Democratic voters.

And Florida is the site of naked efforts to suppress Democratic votes, and the votes of blacks in particular.

Florida's secretary of state recently ruled that voter registrations would be deemed incomplete if those registering failed to check a box affirming their citizenship, even if they had signed an oath saying the same thing elsewhere on the form. Many counties are, sensibly, ignoring this ruling, but it's apparent that some officials have both used this rule and other technicalities to reject applications as incomplete, and delayed notifying would-be voters of problems with their applications until it was too late.

Whose applications get rejected? A Washington Post examination of rejected applications in Duval County found three times as many were from Democrats, compared with Republicans. It also found a strong tilt toward rejection of blacks' registrations.

The case of Florida's felon list - used by state officials, as in 2000, to try to wrongly disenfranchise thousands of blacks - has been widely reported. Less widely reported has been overwhelming evidence that the errors were deliberate.

In an article coming next week in Harper's, Greg Palast, who originally reported the story of the 2000 felon list, reveals that few of those wrongly purged from the voting rolls in 2000 are back on the voter lists. State officials have imposed Kafkaesque hurdles for voters trying to get back on the rolls. Depending on the county, those attempting to get their votes back have been required to seek clemency for crimes committed by others, or to go through quasi-judicial proceedings to prove that they are not felons with similar names.

And officials appear to be doing their best to make voting difficult for those blacks who do manage to register. Florida law requires local election officials to provide polling places where voters can cast early ballots. Duval County is providing only one such location, when other counties with similar voting populations are providing multiple sites. And in Duval and other counties the early voting sites are miles away from precincts with black majorities.

Next week, I'll address the question of whether the votes of Floridians with the wrong color skin will be fully counted if they are cast. Mr. Palast notes that in the 2000 election, almost 180,000 Florida votes were rejected because they were either blank or contained overvotes. Demographers from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission estimate that 54 percent of the spoiled ballots were cast by blacks. And there's strong evidence that this spoilage didn't reflect voters' incompetence: it was caused mainly by defective voting machines and may also reflect deliberate vote-tampering.

The important point to realize is that these abuses aren't aberrations. They're the inevitable result of a Republican Party culture in which dirty tricks that distort the vote are rewarded, not punished. It's a culture that will persist until voters - whose will still does count, if expressed strongly enough - hold that party accountable.

Faulty Oil Change Procedures May Be the Cause

Why Are Honda CR-V's Catching Fire?
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: October 12, 2004
Associated Press

A Honda CR-V burned earlier this year in St. Augustine, Fla. At least 60 new CR-V's nationwide have caught fire while on the road, and an inquiry is covering about 280,000 vehicles in the 2003-4 model years.

DETROIT, Oct. 8 - While no injuries have been reported, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reopened and upgraded an investigation into the CR-V to determine what is making some of them suddenly burst into flames, in many cases destroying the vehicles. The expanded inquiry covers about 280,000 CR-V's in the 2003 and 2004 model years.

The Center vs the Wings

Note: It's really amazing to see how the perceptions about some people in public life have changed over a short time frame:
<------------------------------------->
Bill Clinton: Rhodes Scholar, University Professor, Governor, President, Oral Sex Recipient, Impeachment Target, Spouse of a Senator, Public Speaker, TBA

Bob Dole: War Hero, Senator, Presidential Aspirant, Spouse of a Senator, Viagra Salesman, Republican Party Attack Dog

Ralph Reed:Consultant, Christian Coalition Founder, Republican Party Prime Mover, Consultant

William Bennett: Sec. of Education, Book Author, Commentariat, Gambler, Disappeared from the radar

Kenneth Lay: College Professor, Federal Energy Regulator, Bush Pioneer, Enron CEO, Awaiting trial and prison time

Bill O'Reilly: Commentariat, Rupert's Hatchet Man, Charged with Coercive Sex Offense, TBA

Rush Limbaugh: Commentariat, Republican Party Facilitator, Pain Pill Episode, TBA

Jim & Tammy Faye Baker: Preacher, PTL Founder, Graft/Theft, Ten years prison, ignored by mainstream news

George W. Bush: NG Pilot, Frat Boy, Patronage Businessman, Governor, President, TBA

Zell Miller: HS Teacher, Georgia legislator, Governor, Senator, Does Benedict Arnold Impersonation at RNC, TBA

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Trent Lott, Donald Wildmon, David Duke, Laura Schlessinger, Ann Coulter, et al

Gazing at the above list it's possible to conclude that proximity to the extreme right-wing party core has a detrimental effect on public personalities. Like the Sun to Icarus, the core seems to adversely affect all who venture too close to it.

Google One-Ups Microsoft

Google Introduces Search Program for Hard Drives
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 14, 2004

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) -- Online search engine leader Google Inc. is setting its sights on the computer desktop with a new software program that promises to scour through the clutter of documents, e-mails, instant messages and other files stored on hard drives.

The free desktop search program, unveiled Thursday at http://desktop.google.com, marks Google's latest attempt to become even more indispensable to the millions of people who entrust the company to find virtually anything on the Web.

It's a not surprising step into a crucial realm.

Managing infoglut is an increasing challenge for computer users, and the program gives Google an important head start on Microsoft Corp., which is working on a similar file-searching tool that it recently said would not be ready for the next version of its Windows operating system promised for 2006.

``We think of this (program) as the photographic memory of your computer,'' said Marissa Mayer, Google's director of consumer Web products. ``It's pretty comprehensive. If there's anything you once saw on your computer screen, we think you should be able to find it again quickly.''

The may give Mountain View-based Google, the industry leader in Internet search, a significant competitive advantage in luring traffic from chief rivals Microsoft's MSN. and Yahoo Inc., both of which have been improving their technology.

Although the program can be used exclusively offline to probe hard drives, Google designed it so it will meld with its online search engine. Google.com visitors who have new program installed on their computer will see a ``desktop'' tab above the search engine toolbar and all their search results will include a section devoted to the hard drive in addition to the Web.

``The integration with the search engine is the key to this product and what makes it pretty fantastic,'' said Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li, who previewed the new product.

Google is betting the program will expand its search engine audience and encourage even more online searches than it already processes -- a pattern that would yield advertising revenue, the company's main moneymaker.

The company's financial success already has turned its stock into a hot commodity. Google's shares closed Wednesday at $140.90, a 66 percent gain from their initial public offering price of $85 less than two months ago.

Leery of raising privacy concerns that have shadowed its recently introduced e-mail service, Google is emphasizing that the desktop search program doesn't provide a peephole into the hard drive, even when the product connects with the online search engine.

``It's totally private,'' Mayer said. ``Google does not know what happens when the hard drive is searched.''

Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, said she will withhold judgment until she thoroughly reviews the new program. ``The key question will be if this thing ever phones home to the mother ship.''

Despite her reservations, Dixon expects Google's desktop search program to have mass appeal. ``I think most people think of their computer hard drives as these black holes of information, so this could be of some real value,'' she said. ``

Other desktop search programs are already available, such as X1 Search from X1 Technologies Inc. of Pasadena, but Google is the first company among high-tech's household names to try to make it easier for people sift through the mishmash of files, e-mails, and instant messages on personal computers.

Google began working on the program, code named ``Fluffy Bunny,'' about a year ago, Mayer said, in response to a familiar refrain: ``Why can't I search my computer as easily as I can search the Web?''

In addition to Microsoft, AOL is reported to also be working on a desktop search program and most industry analysts believe Yahoo Inc. will develop something similar.

Google is allowing people to download its program for free. Currently compatible only with the Windows operating system, it requires about 10 minutes to download on a dial-up connection and takes some five or six hours to index a computer's hard drive.

Each program user can select the types of information to be indexed and searched.

The product can pore through the files using Microsoft Office applications and several types of e-mail programs, including Microsoft's Outlook and Hotmail and Yahoo.

Google's desktop search still isn't compatible with the company's new e-mail service, called Gmail. If desired, the program automatically saves all AOL instant message conversations and all Web pages stored on a computer.

Google's desktop search program is so powerful, Li said, that computer users should carefully consider what kind of material they want indexed, particularly if they're sharing a computer with family, friends or office colleagues.

``People are going to have to think pretty carefully about this,'' Li said. ``There are some things that you probably don't want indexed on a computer.''

After Debate III: 2004

Debate III: 2004
The transcript of the debate as provided by CNN.COM is here.

Note: Style Points: Aggressiveness to Bush...especially the pounding on the lectern, and the frequent use of body and facial motions. Nuance to Kerry...with medical cost escalation, where funds would come from to pay for his plans. Party buzzword propagation was a draw. Personal attacks: Bush did many more, and attempted to affix Republican party labels onto Sen. Kerry; whereas Kerry spoke somewhat kindlier about Bush the man. The more accurate statistics and analysis came from Sen. Kerry. Best one-liner from Kerry: "Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country." Avoiding a reply to the question asked was Pres. Bush, most tellingly with his response to support for a proposed minimum wage increase.

Addressing the core constituents that need to be energized was a draw as well, with Kerry's remarks about the Congressional Black Caucus, the Annual NAACP convention, Union workers, women, and the "common man", while Bush provided fuel for his candidacy by addressing immigration "as a Governor of Texas", by regurgitating the Republican talking points on steadfastness versus nuance, the "culture of life", faith based initiatives, and the "partial birth abortion" mantra.

Part way thru the debate I recalled a quote from Bertrand Russell:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

...thus putting the debate into context, each contestant was successful in showcasing the merits of their positions as seen by their respective supporters, while attempting to show the faults of their opponents position. In that, there remains one huge difference, and that is: America and the World has seen and experienced what Pres. Bush has and has not done during his term. To use Pres. Bush's phrase against him, one could say: "Bush can run, but he cannot hide." Ross Perot's question can easily be answered by comparing almost any facet of contemporary America with how it was in Nov. 2000. Bush must accept some blame for that; but again, tellingly he does not personally accept blame or responsibility for anything. To Pres. Bush, problems that occurred are not directly attributable to his decisions and actions, rather they are the fault of those to who he entrusted tasks to, whether it was the military brass for not demanding more troops for Iraq, the CIA for not providing accurate information, the Government Regulatory agencies responsible for Corporate oversight, or homeland security agencies that have failed to address vital national concerns.

The 9/11 tragedy occurred over three years ago; but Pres. Roosevelt did not take three years to get the country solidly behind him after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Bush tries to assert the economy was going bad before he came into office in Jan. 2001 and four years later is now finally recovering. Unfortunately his argument is not supported by the GAO, the editors of the Wall Street Journal, the Economist Magazine, or any non-partisan economic institution, and is vocally denied by at least three senior members of his own Administration who left the Administration over Bush's handling of the economy.

There were also a few troubling sections: with Pres. Bush's dogmatic, reflexive, and oblique arguments that are full of sound bites; but devoid of internal cohesion or logic; and Sen. Kerry's lack of vigor in "going for the jugular" when he clearly could have inflicted real damage to the presidents arguments, for example on prescription drugs, or the job creation picture, (specifically where the argument was over 1.6 million vs 500k jobs lost...(ie: a Republican president was responsible for the addition of 843,000 Federal employees during his term, whereas the Clinton Administration presided over a decrease of 335,000 employees on the Federal payroll.)

Today on Teri Gross's Fresh Air program, Pat Buchanan asserted he is supporting Pres. Bush for reelection in spite of the fact he disagrees with almost everything the President has done related to Iraq. If the electorate can truly give Pres. Bush a bye on his handling of the Iraq War, the World will come to the realization there is no sanity in this years election. That fear manipulation, hierarchically rewarded greed, blind faith, spin, scientific enquiry restrained by politics, and money are the real values America abide by. Hopefully we will not have to see this envelope expanded in the next four years.

Debate III: Before

Note: Still not sure who to vote for? Go Here for a Guaranteed Way of Making Your Choice Please read the instructions in Row 1 Column 1
<------------------------------------->
"When an objection cannot be made formidable, there is some policy in trying to make it frightful, and to substitute the yell and the war whoop, in the place of reason, argument, and good order."
Thomas Paine: (1737-1809)
<------------------------------------->
"Religion is the natural reaction of the imagination when confronted by the difficulties in a truculent world."
George Santayana: (1863-1952)
<------------------------------------->

Another View of God's Role in a Secular Society

God in the Constitution
by Robert G. Ingersoll
(1833-1899)

"In this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the people themselves; that they are the only rightful source of authority. For many centuries before the formation of our Government, before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people had but little voice in the affairs of nations.

The source of authority was not in this world; kings were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre was not held by the consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that reason was not accountable to the people for the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will was law.

The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine plan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten the common people; no one thought of educating a peasant -- of developing the mind of a laborer. The people were created to support thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey -- to work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children must expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he imagined it protected his body; he divided his crust with the church, believing that it protected his soul.

He was the prey of Throne and Altar -- one deformed his body, the other his mind -- and these two vultures fed upon his toil. He was taught by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the peasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself. He was kept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of superstition, and because education is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.

The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true of every land -- the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who speak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and those who suffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow before a provincial and patriotic god -- one who protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of mankind.

Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone had the true religion -- that the gods of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the seeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of a different complexion, with those who knelt at other altars and expressed their thoughts in other words -- and even a difference in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the excuse for hatred.

The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People became somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat acquainted with kings -- peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in rags and names.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy -- a renunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the independence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied the authority of every "sacred book," and appealed from the Providence of God to the Providence of Man. Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Constitution for the great Republic.

What was the office or purpose of that Constitution? Admitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate certain departments that should exercise certain powers of the Government. There must be the legislative, the judicial and the executive departments. Those who make laws should not execute them. Those who execute laws should not have the power of absolutely determining their meaning or their constitutionality. For these reasons, among others, a Constitution was adopted.

This Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of passion, men shall not go beyond the point designated in the calm moment of reason. When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to reason, it is well he should define the limits of power, so that the waves driven by the storm of passion shall not overbear the shore.

A constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It defines the limit of power and the limit of obedience. It follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot be enforced by the power of the state.

Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God -- what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation. Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God? Can the offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips be closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration of religious persecution?

And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. What court, what tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence, laws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God?

It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and rightful Governor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If this God is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not add to his power. If he governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of men.

Having this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized in the Constitution of the United States? If he had the supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evidence that he did not desire to be there?

For one, I am not in favor of the God who has "ordained the powers that be." What have we to say of Russia -- of Siberia? What can we say of the persecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and nobles who live on the stolen labor of others? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who wrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice earned? Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional amendment?

The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing whatever to do -- and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be abandoned.

In this country there should be no oaths -- no man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to justify this religious impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: "In God We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United States.

We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves without the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national superstition -- no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings -- and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.

Of course, there is a distinction made between churches and individual members. There have been millions of Christians who have been believers in liberty and in the freedom of expression -- millions who have fought for the rights of man -- but churches as organizations, have frequently been on the other side. It is true that churches have fought churches -- that Protestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased to call the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of conscience to others.

Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never interfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the rights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this world.

A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel -- a nation is incapable of having opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all the citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will they all be damned? Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what they please. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying, "it has no soul." There can be no such thing as a Christian corporation. Several Christians may form a corporation, but it can hardly be said that the corporation thus formed was included in the atonement. For instance: Seven Christians form a corporation -- that is to say, there are seven natural persons and one artificial -- can it be said that there are eight souls to be saved?

No human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or experience enough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into this darkness Science has not yet carried its torch. No human being has gone beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as another. Upon this question, chimpanzees and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar with this subject, as the greatest genius that has been produced by the human race.

Governments and laws are for the preservation of rights and the regulation of conduct. One man should not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another. In the metaphysical world there should be no interference whatever. The same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot regulate what is or is not music, what is or what is not beautiful -- and constitutions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfection of statues, the value of paintings, or the glory and subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions the brain will think. In every direction consistent with the well-being and peace of society, there should be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the theology of another; neither should a minority, however small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions of a majority, however large.

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defence. It is enough for us to give to every other human being the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may not be a Supreme Ruler of the universe -- but we are certain that man exists, and we believe that freedom is the condition of progress; that it is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and that without it man will go back to the den of savagery, and will become the fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts.

We have tried the government of priests, and we know that such governments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to have God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of millions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath, or win the approbation of this God.

There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The founders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests, and said to them: "You may turn your attention to the other world -- we will attend to the affairs of this." Equal liberty was given to all.

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man. Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Ten Commandments On the Courthouse Steps?

High court weighs Ten Commandments' display
Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
October 13, 2004

Barely four months after dodging a ruling on the merits of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to examine another heavily freighted symbol of religion in public life: the Ten Commandments.

The justices accepted appeals from two opposing lower-court rulings. One upheld the display of a 6-foot-high Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol; the other ordered two Kentucky counties to remove framed copies of the commandments from their courthouse walls.

The cases pose the same question: Does display of these images on government property amount to an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion?
<------------------------------------->

"Either the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance is religious or it isn't.
If it is, it violates the First Amendment. If it isnt', it violates the Third Commandment."

Would God Side With an Atheist?
A number of clergy argue there are religious grounds for striking 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

From beliefnet.com
By Rebecca Phillips

When Michael Newdow, the nation's most famous atheist, argued in the Supreme Court March 24 that the court should strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, he didn't have the support of his school-age daughter on whose behalf he brought, and won, his original case. But he did have the support of Rev. Bruce Prescott.

The Southern Baptist pastor from Ogden, Utah says siding with Newdow is not as strange as it seems. "I'm not siding with the atheist," said Prescott, Executive Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists. "I'm siding with the Ten Commandments."

Prescott is one of a number of American clergy and religious leaders who have come out in favor of Newdow, claiming that including "under God" in the pledge actually detracts from the nation's piety. Thirty-two individual Christian and Jewish clergy members, along with the Unitarian Universalist Association, have jointly filed an amicus brief agreeing that the words are unnecessary.

Many other religious groups, from the Christian Legal Society to the American Jewish Congress to the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, want to see "under God" stay, and have submitted their own amicus briefs. But the clergy who support Newdow say they are waging a religious battle for God--in whom Newdow doesn't believe. "These amici are concerned both about the religious liberty of persons who adhere to faith traditions other than their own, and about government undermining true religious faith by using religion for political purposes," their brief states.

The brief argues, among other things, that repeating "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance each morning in school runs the risk of rendering the words meaningless. "If the religious portion of the Pledge is not intended as a serious affirmation of faith," the brief states, "then every day, government asks millions of school children to take the name of the Lord in vain."

"To have kids expressing a theological principle at 7 A.M. over the loudspeaker is not a serious way to do it," said Rabbi Dan Fink, one of the amici and leader of Congregation Ahavath Beth Israel in Boise, Idaho. "It is not that we don't want God in our lives. We just don't want [him] trivialized."

"If the name of God is truly significant," explains Rev. Prescott, "then Newdow has got a case."

The original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, did not include "under God." The words were added in 1954 by a congressional act, following a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, and a sermon by Rev. George M. Docherty, pastor of the church that President Dwight D. Eisenhower attended in Washington D.C. Both Congress and the president thought adding "under God" would distinguish the U.S. from the Soviet Union. The congressional act declared the words would "deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, which the high court is hearing on appeal after the Ninth Circuit's decision to strike the words, isn't the first case in which the devout have contested the constitutionality of the pledge. In 1943, Jehovah's Witnesses sued, saying their children should not be forced to salute the flag. The Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, found in their favor.

The petitioner in the current case, the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, where Newdow's nine-year-old daughter attends school, argues that Newdow, a Sacramento physician and lawyer who holds only partial custody of his child, did not have legal standing to bring the case to court. (His daughter never refused to say the pledge and has said she doesn't mind it.) The school district, supported by the Bush administration, also argues that "under God" does not violate the Constitution's establishment clause, the basis for the separation of church and state. Religion has been so significant to the history of the United States, the petitioners say, that officially acknowledging this in the Pledge of Allegiance is lawful.

"The Pledge is simply a patriotic expression that includes a reference to God," the petitioners' brief states. "The phrase 'under God' is nothing like the clearly religious act of prayer," it continues. "In no way can the Pledge be construed to be a supplication for blessings from God nor can it be reasonably argued that it is a communication with God. The Pledge is, quite simply, a patriotic act--not a religious act."

The White House has filed its own briefs, arguing that "under God" is not a religious sentiment. "This Court’s Establishment Clause cases have stated time and again that such official acknowledgments of the Nation's religious history and enduring religious character pass constitutional muster," the solicitor general argues.

It's this assertion--that the pledge has relegated the use of God's name to a nonreligious realm--that riles Newdow's religious backers. "The government says [the phrase] isn't religious at all, that it's about history and demographics," said Douglas Laycock, the University of Texas law professor who represents the 32 clergy in favor of Newdow. "That's a transparent lie."

In addition to the 32 clergy members backing Newdow, the court has received a joint brief arguing for the removal of "under God" by 19 leading scholars, including Boston University's religion department chair Stephen Prothero, Columbia University Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman, and Vanderbilt University New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine.

"Some supporting the phrase argue that it is simply an 'acknowledgment' of America's religious heritage," Levine wrote in an email to Beliefnet. "If the phrase is merely ceremonial, then it becomes a trivialization of the Deity. If the pledge is recited in a rote manner--and since it is recited most often by children in school settings this is always a possibility--then we risk taking the name of the Lord in vain."

The Anti-Defamation League and a group of Buddhist centers across the United States also take Newdow's side--along with secular groups like American Atheists, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But most religious groups who have gotten involved in the Pledge case support the government's position. The American Jewish Congress argues that including "under God" in the pledge is an example of "ceremonial deism." The Pledge's motives are secular, the group says, and the controversial phrase is not equivalent to school prayer.

A brief submitted jointly by Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the Alliance Defense Fund, agrees. "The Pledge is not a prayer or any other type of religious exercise," it states. "Recitation of the pledge does not have the purpose of endorsing or disapproving of religion."

Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of Public Affairs for Agudath Israel of America, suggests that "under God" doesn't trivialize religion--because the pledge of allegiance is not God's primary venue. "We don't want God to be just a motto," said Shafran, whose organization filed a brief under the auspices of the National Jewish Commission on Law & Public Affairs. "But God doesn't have a full impact in that context.

"People should not [be satisfied] with looking at their dollar bills or saying the pledge," he added. "They should relate to God in a more comprehensive way."

For clergymen like Pastor Kevin James, though, taking God in or out of the Pledge won't solve the country's spiritual ills. "Including the phrase hasn't made us more religious and hasn't made us better," said James, pastor of Ogden Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Utah and director of legislative affairs for the Nevada/Utah Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists. "We're a materialistic society," he continued. "There's a problem spiritually with people in America. God's already out."

An Open Letter to Sinclair about "Stolen Honor"

Addressed to:
David D. Smith: President of SInclair
comments@sbgi.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Sir,

Using the public airwaves to forcibly disseminate political propaganda while disguising it as news is reprehensible regardless of which side of "the aisle" it comes from. As a moderate Republican, your choice to preempt regular programming to FORCE your affiliates to show "Stolen Honor" pains me almost as badly as if CBS elected to broadcast Farenheit 9/11 on Nov 1st at 9:00pm.

Broadcast news -SHOULD- be politically neutral !!

Propaganda -SHOULD- not be foisted on the public as news !!

There -IS- a difference !

Please reconsider your choice in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard & Judy Pressl
<------------------------------------->

Dance Students In Russia, Oct. 2004 

WiMax: A Solution without a Demonstrable Problem to Address

Wi-Fi Successor Called High-Speed Hype, for Now
Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:48 PM ET
By Daniel Sorid

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - At virtually every turn, Intel Corp. executives are heaping praise on an emerging long-range wireless technology known as WiMAX, which can blanket entire cities with high-speed Internet access.

Just as Intel helped popularize Wi-Fi, a short-range technology now widely used in airports and in coffee shops, the world's largest chip maker hopes to usher in the "WiMAX era" -- using the technology to displace cable and DSL Internet access and segments of the cellular phone market.

Yet as it heads into turf fiercely protected by the telecommunications and cable industries, WiMAX is likely to gain little traction, at least for several years, analysts said. The demand it does find may come mainly from rural markets outside the United States.

Market research firm iSuppli on Monday described a largely lackluster outlook for WiMAX, which it said is surrounded by hype and will likely fail to catch on beyond niche applications. Established broadband access providers see no reason to adopt yet another technology for delivering data at high speeds, the company said.

Industry-wide demand for WiMAX equipment will not top $1 billion until 2007, according to iSuppli's forecast. Divided up among many industry players, that amount might barely register at a company like Intel, which reported $30 billion in revenue last year. By 2009, the market will reach only $2.5 billion, iSuppli predicted.

Intel, based in Santa Clara, California, is scheduled to report its quarterly earnings on Tuesday afternoon.

"These applications will not be large enough to sustain the multitude of silicon suppliers and equipment manufacturers who have expressed interest in developing products for WiMAX," iSuppli said. "The hype surrounding WiMAX ... as a fixed wireless access technology will remain just that -- hype."

Such skepticism has not stopped Intel, Fujitsu Ltd. (6702.T: Quote, Profile, Research) , and Alcatel (CGEP.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) from investing heavily in WiMAX and promoting it as a logical competitor to DSL and cable Internet access.

In March, Intel and Alcatel announced a "strategic alliance" to develop WiMAX equipment by the second half of next year. The U.S. chip unit of Japan's Fujitsu plans to introduce its own chips for WiMAX early in 2005.

These companies and others envision WiMAX equipment installed outside homes and business, linking up with a base station hosted by fixed-line telecommunications operators. A short-range, Wi-Fi signal, or perhaps an ethernet cable, would bring the Internet to individual PCs in the home.

According to iSuppli, incumbent suppliers of Internet access are deeply invested in their own infrastructure for delivering broadband Internet access via telephone or cable wires, and will be unlikely to spend more for a new wireless technology "that offers no quantum leap in capabilities over their current offerings."

Beyond broadband, WiMAX faces similar challenges. A report from ABI Research on Monday said efforts to position WiMAX as a Wi-Fi killer -- Intel, for instance, plans to support WiMAX in its notebook computer chips in 2006 -- will fail.

"WiMAX enthusiasts sometimes claim that it will 'kill' Wi-Fi. Nothing could be further than the truth," a note from ABI said. High power consumption makes WiMAX an unlikely choice for battery-powered devices like laptop computers and personal organizers.

The best potential for WiMAX, according to iSuppli, may lie in precisely the area least promoted by companies like Intel -- in combined voice, video and data networks that are at best several years away from being developed.

Cellular phone makers have invested more than $100 billion to roll out third-generation cellular networks, which can handle data at speeds suitable for games and video. By the time fourth-generation networks roll out, WiMAX could be the preferred choice.

"With a higher bandwidth capability than existing 3G cellular technologies and reach ... rivaling that of a typical cellular technology cell site, WiMAX has the potential to be adopted by wireless carriers as 4G data-centric technology," according to the iSuppli report.

Even then, the company noted, there are several hurdles to overcome -- including the availability of wireless frequencies licensed by governments, and approval by top-tier wireless carriers.

Reducing Terror to the level of a Nuisance, rather than a War...

Quote of the Day: General Brent Scowcroft, Bush 41 National Security Advisor and Bush 43 appointee to the Forum for International Security--

"Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies.
--"9/11 a Year On" conference, Sept. 2002"
<------------------------------------->And further he wrote<------------------------------------->
...indications of cooperation came from around the world. This spirit helped us to get through phase one of the war on terrorism, which I think was a great military success. It is probably the only military phase in this war on terrorism—which is part of the problem that we face. Because we've also been engaging in military transformation, and the Afghan war showed the awesomeness of that transformation. But it is unlikely to be applicable to subsequent phases because they are unlikely to be military in the sense Afghanistan was. There are not going to be many more volunteers to be the next Taliban. The war is going to be primarily a war of intelligence and we're not nearly as high tech in the area of human intelligence as we are in our military.

This is a war, now in the intelligence phase, which we cannot win by ourselves. We cannot do it. We have to have the cooperation of friends and allies, in capital flows, in terrorist flows. We need the help of every service because our enemy is shadowy, elusive, not playing by any of the rules that we know how to utilize so well.

The nature of our intelligence task in this part of the war is conceptually simple but high tech in a new way. Whenever terrorists talk, whenever they move, whenever they spend money, whenever they get money they leave traces, and theoretically we ought to be able to pick up those traces.

There are several problems. How do you pick them up? Then how do you separate those from the millions of other traces from people going about their daily lives? And how do you do all of that while respecting the privacy of the other millions? That is a problem, partly of technology, and we need to focus on it very deeply.

I'm not going to talk about homeland security, but it is interesting that for the first time in 200 years we now are setting up a Department of Homeland Security. We've never had one before. Why? Because early on we were protected by two great oceans, and lately by our power projection capabilities and we have assumed we could keep conflict away from the United States.

Several problems are beginning to arise in the war on terrorism. Cooperation is waning. The Europeans charge that in essence we stiffed them in Afghanistan, did not accept or utilize the forces they offered until much of the conflict had been completed. We said thanks, we could do it by ourselves. Likewise with other issues, whether it's the conflict in the Middle East, a second Intafada; whether it is Iraq. These frictions are interfering with the concentration on the war on al Qaeda.

Phase one is virtually over, although mopping up in Afghanistan will take a long time and nationbuilding, an essential part of it, will take even longer. The Administration has not explained the strategy for phase two the way it did for the Afghan phase. Last week there was a cartoon in the Financial Times which showed a billboard saying "America's Most Wanted". On the billboard was Osama bin Laden, which a workman was pasting over with a picture of Saddam Hussein.

The Administration is no longer talking about terrorism with a global reach. That's important in several respects. There are all kinds of terrorists. They're all repugnant and we need to deal with them all. But we cannot deal with them all at once. By dropping the phrase that the President began with, terrorism with a global reach, we make all terrorism equal, and dissipate our ability to concentrate. It makes the problem, if we take it seriously, almost unmanageable.

Finally, except on the East Coast, 9/11 is fading as a galvanizing concept.

Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies.

But to win it, will require close cooperation in a worldwide campaign and it will require perseverance, patience, and focus. In the mean time, of course, the world goes on. All of the other problems which preceded 9/11 have not gone away, threatening to divert our attention to what is clearly the predominant problem we face. We must learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Too bad Bush 43 didn't pay attention to his, and his Dad's advisers!

More on the Sinclair Smear by the Former FCC Chairman

A Public Message sent to Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com from Reed Hundt, former FCC Commissioner:
<------------------------------------->

Dear Josh:

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

-- Reed Hundt

Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote
Democrats: GOP again taking senator's words out of context

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's campaign announced Sunday its plans to use as the basis of a new commercial a quote from an 8,000-word New York Times Magazine article about Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

The parsing prompted the Kerry camp to retort that the soon-to-be-released Bush ad was another example of the president's campaign taking words out of context to create a misleading impression.

In the magazine article, a largely analytical cover story by Matt Bai, Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Kerry was a prosecutor before he got into politics, and made fighting organized crime a priority.

Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."

Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS' "Face the Nation," used similar language.

"Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."

The Bush-Cheney campaign also announced it was releasing an ad highlighting Kerry's comment.

Reuters reported that the new Bush commercial's script asks "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"

Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer called the Republican charges "absolutely ridiculous."

"This is yet another example of the Bush campaign taking John Kerry's words out of context, and then blowing it up into something that is nothing," he said.

"The whole article is about how John Kerry recognizes that the war on terror requires a multipronged approach. It's not just the military aspect, but you need diplomacy to be able to enlist your allies. The Bush people have never understood that. John Kerry has always said that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S."

Kerry consistently has rejected assertions that he underestimates the threat of terrorism or views the battle against it as solely a law enforcement matter. He argues that law enforcement and intelligence are critical elements of the battle against terrorism, and that Bush has said the same thing.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was chairman of the Democratic National Convention, where Kerry got his party's nomination in July, said on "Late Edition," "Senator Kerry has said that the No. 1 threat to America is international terrorism, al Qaeda."

TV Group to Show Anti- Kerry Film on 62 Stations
NY Times
Oct. 11th, 2004
By JIM RUTENBERG

Up to 62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group - many of them in swing states - will show a documentary highly critical of Senator John Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago within the next two weeks, Sinclair officials said yesterday.

Those officials said the documentary would pre-empt regular night programming, including prime time, on its stations, which include affiliates for all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

Called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the documentary features Vietnam veterans who say their Vietnamese captors used Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he recounted stories of American atrocities, prolonging their torture and betraying and demoralizing them. Similar claims were made by prisoners of war in a commercial that ran during the summer from an anti-Kerry veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Two of the former prisoners who appeared in the Swift Boat advertisement were interviewed for the movie, including Ken Cordier, who had to resign as a volunteer in the Bush campaign after the advertisement came out.

Sinclair's plan to show the documentary was first made public by The Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

Mark Hyman, Sinclair's vice president for corporate relations, who doubles as a conservative commentator on its news stations, said the film would be shown because Sinclair deemed it newsworthy.

"Clearly John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical," he said. Asked what defined something as newsworthy, Mr. Hyman said, "In that it hasn't been out in the marketplace, and the news marketplace."

Because Sinclair is defining the documentary - which will run commercial free - as news, it is unclear if it will be required by federal regulations to provide Mr. Kerry's campaign with equal time to respond.

But acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman said an invitation has been extended to Mr. Kerry to respond after the documentary is shown. "There are certainly serious allegations that are leveled; we would very much like to get his response," he said.

Asked if Sinclair would consider running a documentary of similar length either lauding Mr. Kerry, responding to the charges in "Stolen Honor" or criticizing Mr. Bush, Mr. Hyman said, "We'd just have to take a look at it."

Aides to Mr. Kerry said he would not accept Sinclair's invitation.

"It's hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic journalism standards," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman.

Sinclair's plans put Mr. Kerry's campaign in an awkward position similar to the one in which it found itself in August, when the Swift Boat group first began running commercials against him containing unsubstantiated charges that he lied to get his war medals. Mr. Kerry's aides at first held back from responding, so as not to give the group and its charges more attention - a decision that some Kerry aides now acknowledge cost him in public opinion polls.

Mr. Clanton said Mr. Kerry's campaign would call on supporters to stage advertiser boycotts and demonstrations against Sinclair's stations.

A group of Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California, readied a letter calling for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the move, arguing that the documentary was not news but a prolonged political advertisement from Mr. Bush and, as such, violated fairness rules.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy group promoting greater media regulation, said he did not think the film would qualify for a news exemption. And, he said, even if it did fall under equal time provisions, those are based on candidate appearances and in this case, since it is Mr. Kerry who appears, "albeit disparagingly," stations would be required to show Mr. Bush or possibly the independent candidate Ralph Nader, if they requested it.

Sinclair was already a galvanizing force for Democrats. The political donations of its executives have gone overwhelmingly to Republicans, according to a review of donations on Politicalmoneyline.com. In April Sinclair refused to run an episode of "Nightline" on its stations in which the anchor Ted Koppel spent the entire program reading the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Stolen Honor" was produced by Carlton Sherwood, formerly a reporter with The Washington Times. His Web site says he received no money from any political party or campaign but got initial funding from Pennsylvania veterans.

The documentary has been distributed by mail order and via streaming Internet connections. Mr. Hyman said Sinclair was not paying for the right to broadcast it.

Yesterday former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt sent the following message to executives at Sinclair Broadcasting Group ...
Dear sirs:

I'm told you were involved in a decision to order Sinclair stations to carry anti-Kerry propaganda. If my information is false, please forgive this intrusion. While I do not believe you should be required to carry pro-Kerry content, except of course for an even-handed sale of your advertising time to both campaigns, I do wish to register my objection and concern if in fact you have obliged your stations to carry anti-Kerry propaganda.

I assure you that if you were carrying anti-Bush propaganda I would be equally concerned.

The problem is this: How can it be part of a broadcaster's public interest obligation to aspire to alter the perceptions of the audience about a presidential candidate by showing biased content that in no way reflects either breaking news or even-handed treatment of the issues? Why should a broadcaster keep its licenses if it behaves in this manner? I hope you will reconsider your edict -- unless, of course, I am misinformed, in which case I do hope you forgive this message.
-- Reed Hundt

PayPal's Website Down !!

Note: The financial processor for eBay buyers and sellers has been offline all day today, with no comment by eBay officials, and no access to any page on PayPal. PayPal like to note they have fifty million subscribers worldwide, so this is a major outage...especially when eBay will not say anything about it.
<------------------------------------->
ABC News
Glitch Disrupts EBay's PayPal ServiceSoftware

SAN JOSE, Calif. Oct. 11, 2004 — Repairs were underway Monday at PayPal as the widely used online payment service struggled to get customers back on track after several days of "intermittent" outages.

Users of the eBay Inc.-owned company began experiencing some glitches on Friday after a monthly upgrade of PayPal's software systems, said eBay spokeswoman Amanda Pires. The problems seemed to subside over the weekend but then recurred Monday, she said.

It is unclear how many of PayPal users were affected. Pires said some users were able to access PayPal while others were not.

PayPal is a common method of payment for buyers on eBay and is gaining in popularity among customers of other online retailers as well as in money transactions between individuals in the off-line world.

Pires could not estimate when the service would return to normal. "We're working to get it fixed as soon as possible," she said. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast

US cybersecurity chief resigns
ComputerWeekly.com
Oct. 4th, 2004

The head of cybersecurity efforts at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has resigned, leaving his job after reportedly giving a day's notice.

Amit Yoran, director of the DHS National Cyber Security Division since September 2003, left the job on Thursday 30 September, according to an Associated Press news report. Yoran, former vice-president of worldwide managed security services at Symantec, resigned because of a lack of priority for cybersecurity within DHS, according to the AP.

The DHS confirmed Yoran's resignation. The agency viewed Yoran's service as a "valuable contribution" to cybersecurity, said Katy Mynster, a DHS spokeswoman. Asked to comment on reports that Yoran resigned over a lack of priority for cybersecurity, Mynster said she believed he quit for other professional reasons. "Cybersecurity has been and will remain a priority for DHS," she said.

Yoran used to be vice-president of worldwide managed security services at Symantec. Yoran is the second US cybersecurity czar to resign in less than two years. In January 2003, White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke resigned, citing frustration with the Bush administration's lack of progress in cybersecurity.

Factcheck.org report on Debate II

Note: Both participants played loose with several facts in the debate. See what VP Cheney's noted website reports on the veracity of several arguments used in the debate.

Not Quite Ready for Prime-Time?

Going to the US Department of Homeland Security website today, and entering the word: "Schools" into their search database results in..."Error 500. Your query returned an error..."

Red Sox Win Series 3-0 !!

...and will face either the Yankees or Minnesota for the right to represent the AL in the World Series. It's been almost twenty years since the Sox have won a playoff series at home.

Can we get the straight story on these computer disks containing photos and layouts of schools in the United States?

From: Talkingpointsmemo.com Blog

According to reports that ran yesterday, (Oct. 7th) the disks came from an "Iraqi insurgent captured in Baghdad last summer, (2003), [who] had allegedly downloaded floor plans of elementary and high schools in Florida, Oregon, Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan and California."

But this CNN report from late this morning says that Department of Homeland Security officials say "the material was associated with a person in Iraq, and it could not be established that this person had any ties to terrorism. He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq."

So the guy with the disks was involved in setting up schools in Iraq? Sounds a little less worrisome than finding them in Zarqawi's butler's knapsack, right? Did everyone get scammed again on this one?

And what's with the school plans being mainly from swing states?

[ed.note: Special note of thanks to sharp-eyed TPM reader AK]
<------------------------------------->
Note: Well yes and no, again. One of the sites was in San Diego, California which is certainly not a swing state, but is a heavily Republican city.

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune: "There is no threat here," said a San Diego police lieutenant who spoke on condition of confidentiality because of the sensitive nature of such investigations. "When you've put out information month after month after month, the public thinks we're crying wolf.

"The context here is, a public source document put out by the U.S. Department of Education was found on a computer. Period. My concern would be if a particular school district, or a particular school, or a particular institution was targeted, which it has not been."
<------------------------------------->
The Beslan tragedy has led to increased attention toward possible terrorist activities directed at schools. From Jakarta, where many schools with international students were ordered to close early last Friday based on warnings from Australian and American intelligence information, to administrators at the State University System of Pennsylvania who expressed concerns about their systems readiness to deal with terrorist activities at high-impact sites such as the Wharton School, or Carnegie Mellon University.
<------------------------------------->
From the Web, the Constitutional Rights Foundation has a comprehensive link page about "America Responds to Terrorism" with URL links for parents, educators, and researchers addressing terrorism concerns.
<------------------------------------->
Terrorism, n: The use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of criminal laws for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.

Re: Debate II: While Pres. Bush did a better job this time around, he still seems to resemble a snake-oil salesman, or the visiting revivalist who is delivering the last sermon before the tent comes down, and his people get on the bus to head out of town...taking the money with them.

The transcript of Debate II is here.
 

Conservatives say they are concerned about the size of government; but a quick look at the data reveals that only two Presidents of the past 25 years have trimmed the size of government, and both were Democrats.

More telling was the name of the President who presided over the largest decline in government employment in the past fifty years was...are you ready for this...are you really ready??...then I'll let you in on a solid fact: It was Pres. Clinton !!

On the contrary, during Pres. G.W. Bush's reign, federal government employment increased by over 800,000 people !!

The Number of Government Employees INCREASED by 843,000
between Jan. 2001 and Aug. 2004
for an average of 19,160 per month.

U.S. Added 96,000 Jobs in September, Fewer Than Expected
By TERENCE NEILAN
NY Times
Published: October 8, 2004

The United States economy added 96,000 jobs in September, the Labor Department reported today, a weaker total than expected and a development that Senator John Kerry will surely try to exploit when he debates President Bush on domestic policy tonight.

The figures showed that the employment rate held steady in September at 5.4 percent, with 8 million people unemployed, but the increase in jobs fell short of Wall Street's expectations of 148,000 payroll additions.

"This is a weak number, no matter how you cut it," said the chief economist at Morgan Stanley, Stephen S. Roach, adding that private sector jobs are up "an average of only 65,000" over the past three months. "That's a pathetic pace of job creation by corporate America."

He added: "If you look at jobs growth over the 34 months of this recovery, then private payroll growth is up about four-tenths of 1 percent over the entire span of this recovery. Normally, the gains are closer to 8 percent, so there is a profound disconnect between this jobless recovery and anything we have seen before in post-World War II history in a U.S. business cycle."

Mr. Kerry was quick to respond to the figures today, saying in a statement: "With 1.6 million private sector jobs lost during his term, President Bush will be the first president in 72 years to face the electorate with an economy that has lost jobs under his watch. Indeed, job creation is now 7 million jobs behind where the administration projected in February 2002 our economy would now be if we followed the president's economic plan."

The economy needs to create an average of about 150,000 jobs a month just to absorb a growing labor force and keep the jobless rate steady.

The four hurricanes that swept through the southeast in August and September probably held down employment growth, the Labor Department said, "but not enough to change materially the bureau's assessment of the employment situation."

Payroll employment has risen by 1.8 million since reaching a trough in August 2003, with about half of the gain, or 885,000, occurring in March, April and May, the department report said. Since May, payroll job gains have totaled 405,000.

Employment increases in September occurred in financial activities, professional and technical services, and temporary help services.

According to Labor Department figures, the net job loss in the private sector since January 2001 is 1.6 million, but the government added 843,000 government jobs between the end of January 2001 and last month.

Essential Krugman: Ignorance Isn't Strength

Ignorance Isn't Strength
NY Times Op-Ed
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 8, 2004

I first used the word "Orwellian" to describe the Bush team in October 2000. Even then it was obvious that George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality are only now becoming clear.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.

This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.

As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.

In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)

The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)

Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.

But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.

How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)

The insulation of officials from reality is central to the story. They wanted to believe Ahmad Chalabi's promises that we'd be welcomed with flowers; nobody could tell them different. They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.

Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.

Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.

The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.

Cheney Says Report Finding No Illicit Arms in Iraq Justifies War
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 7, 2004

MIAMI (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

Note: What the f**k is Cheney trying to say??
First off...nah... there's no sense replying to this absurdity. Fortunately these wacked right-wing spinners are fast becoming shark bait! Good ! They deserve it.

Let's have Sen. Chuck Hagel, or at least a moderate Republican in 08 !! It's way past time for these neocon clowns to get off the stage. Newt can help them with their memoirs. 

Is this Open Letter Real ??

From American Progress Report
Oct. 7th, 2004

ECONOMY – PROFESSORS SEND OPEN LETTER:
One hundred sixty-nine tenured and emeriti business school professors from several of the nation's top universities have written an open letter documenting the drastic failure of President Bush's economic policies and asking for a "dramatic reorientation of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals" of tax policy. The letter, addressed to the president, begins, "Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001… The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago." Bush's second term economic proposals, the professors say, "only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."

Note: This letter is posted on a website that was started on Oct. 1st, 2004 and is registered to: Ellen Seidensticker, 43 Commonwealth Ave, Apt 3, Boston, MA, 02116, Phone: 1-617-728-2428. The only entry on the website is this particular "letter" no referrals, no documentation, etc. Unfortunately for the author, it looks and sounds like an "appeal to authority" logical construction.

There is an Ellen Seidensticker registered at this address, who is a Consultant at Harvard University. She is married to Lou Wells, a Georgia Tech Alumni with a speciality in Physics. While the letter may actually be approved by these 169 professors whose names are attached, it appears bogus.

Anyone have anything on this?

"Compassionate Conservatism"

George W. Bush was spending some time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. One afternoon, he was riding in the back of his official limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the roadside. He ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. "Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man.

"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied.

"Oh, well, you can come with me to my ranch," instructed the president.

"But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me!"

"Bring them along!" replied the president. He turned to the other man and said "You come with us, too".

"But, sir, I have a wife and six children!" the second man answered.

"Bring them as well," answered Bush as he headed for his limo. They all climbed in, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine.

Once underway, one of the poor fellows said, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."

Bush replied, "Glad to do it. You'll love my place... the grass is almost a foot tall!"

From All Hat No Cattle Website
Sent in by Lisa Miller

The 'Pubs need to be concerned too !

DeLay Is Faulted by Ethics Panel for Second Time
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
NY Times
Published: October 7, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, was admonished by the House ethics committee on Wednesday night for the second time in less than a week, this time for appearing to link legislative action to political donations and for sending federal officials to search for Texas legislators during a fracas over redistricting in that state.

In a long-awaited report that provoked an angry reaction from House Republicans, the committee dismissed the most serious charges of bribery and special favors. But the back-to-back admonishments marked an extraordinary turn of events in the House, and Mr. DeLay moved quickly to defend himself even as good-government groups were calling for him to resign as leader.

The rebukes on Wednesday came on the heels of another admonishment, issued last Thursday, to Mr. DeLay for pressuring a Michigan lawmaker to switch his vote on an important health care bill. In a seven-page letter to the majority leader - who was also admonished by the committee several years ago - the ethics panel, composed of five Republicans and five Democrats, issued Mr. DeLay a stern warning.

"In view of the number of instances to date in which the committee has found it necessary to comment on conduct in which you have engaged, it is clearly necessary for you to temper your future actions,'' the panel wrote.

The committee faulted Mr. DeLay for participating in, and helping facilitate, a two-day golf fund-raiser held by a Topeka-based energy company, Westar, to raise money for one of his political action committees. The event took place just as the House was considering energy legislation from which Westar stood to benefit; the panel said that at a minimum, it "created an appearance that donors were being provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy legislation.''

In addition, the panel found that Mr. DeLay had wrongly exhorted officials of the Federal Aviation Administration to look for Texas state legislators when they fled to Oklahoma last year to avoid a contentious vote on redistricting. The panel said the action "raises serious concerns" under House rules that "preclude use of government resources for a political undertaking."

Last Thursday, the panel formally admonished Mr. DeLay for improperly trying to persuade a Michigan Republican, Representative Nick Smith, to change his vote on prescription drug legislation that passed the House by a narrow margin last year. The panel said it had determined that the majority leader offered to endorse Mr. Smith's son in a Congressional primary if the elder Mr. Smith voted in favor of the measure, which was then teetering on the edge of defeat. Mr. Smith did not change his vote, but the legislation passed. His son lost the primary.

New Online Electronic Voting Machine For Florida Voters

Here is the site where you can cast your vote in the Nov 2nd General Election by electronic means via Diebald.

Note: Comments by VP Cheney during the debate, Oct 5th, in Cleveland, Ohio

Mr. Cheney
"Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they’re trying to throw up a smoke screen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton. It’s an effort that they’ve made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there’s no substance to the charges
<------------------------------------->
Mr. Cheney needs to remember his URL's, as he wanted supporters of his side of the argument to visit factcheck.org, not factcheck.com...regardless...certainly Mr. Cheney was not referring to this accusation, rather it was most likely this one.

Several truths about Halliburton are crystal clear:
<------------------------------------->
The AP reported that a Pentagon audit found Halliburton "may have overcharged the Army" and that the auditors found "potential overcharges of up to $61 million for gasoline."

The difference between a potential overcharge and an actual overcharge is a big one, of course. It's the difference between a suspicion and a proven fact. The AP story and other news accounts were based on a preliminary audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Halliburton disputed the findings and insisted that the high prices it charged for gasoline were made necessary by wartime requirements imposed by the Pentagon
<------------------------------------->
Halliburton paid $2 million in 2002 to settle charges that it inflated costs on a maintenance contract at now-closed Fort Ord in California. Vice President Dick Cheney's former company did not admit wrongdoing.
<------------------------------------->
Halliburton took in $3.6 billion last year from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say the company is getting about $1 billion a month for Iraq work this year.
<------------------------------------->
Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran, whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.
<------------------------------------->
In 1995, Halliburton paid a $1.2 million fine to the US government and $2.61 million in civil penalties for violating a US trade embargo by shipping oilfield equipment to Libya. Federal officials said some of the well servicing equipment sent to Libya by Halliburton between late 1987 and early 1990 could have been used in the development of nuclear weapons. President Reagan imposed the embargo against Libya in 1986 because of alleged links to international terrorism.
<------------------------------------->
According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal:

US laws have banned most American commerce with Iran. Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is "non-American." But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the Dallas company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.

An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits "new investments (in Iran) by US persons, including commitment of funds or other assets". It also bars US companies from performing services "that would benefit the Iranian oil industry". Violation of the order can result in fines of as much as $500,000 for companies and up to 10 years in jail for individuals.
<------------------------------------->
In fact, U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, but there's a loophole that G.E., Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have exploited: The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans.

“These three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.”

That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.
<------------------------------------->
The Nigerian parliament issued an interim report on its investigation of allegations that Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, along with three other companies, bribed government officials during the period when U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO. The parliament's report was released Sept. 1st, 2004.
<------------------------------------->
-A GAO finding in 1997 that the company billed the Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost $14.06.
<------------------------------------->
-A year 2000 follow-up report on the Balkans work that found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day.
<------------------------------------->
The Securities and Exchange Commission began in December a formal investigation into Halliburton's accounting practices, focusing on an accounting change made in 1998 during Cheney's tenure as CEO.
<------------------------------------->

Dr. Allawi tailors his speech to the audience
Which Version Will Americans Pay Attention To??

Iraq Chief Gives a Sobering View About Security
By EDWARD WONG
NY Times
Published: October 6, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Wednesday, Oct. 6 - In his first speech before the interim National Assembly here, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi gave a sobering account on Tuesday of the threat posed by the insurgency, saying that the country's instability is a "source of worry for many people" and that the guerrillas represent "a challenge to our will."

In his speech, Dr. Allawi, who has cast himself as a tough leader since taking office in late June, insisted that elections would go ahead in January as planned, but he acknowledged that there were significant obstacles standing in the way of full security and reconstruction. The nascent police force is underequipped and lacks the respect needed from the public to quell the insurgency, he said, and American business executives have told him that they fear investing in Iraq because of the rampant violence here.

His tone was a sharp departure from the more optimistic assessment he gave to the American public on his visit to the United States last month. At his stop in Washington, Dr. Allawi made several sweeping assertions to reporters about the security situation in Iraq, including saying that the only truly unsafe place in the country was the downtown area of Falluja, the largest insurgent stronghold, and that only 3 of 18 provinces had "pockets of terrorists."

He did not directly contradict those statements on Tuesday, but his latest words reflected a darker take on the state of the war. "It is true that the security situation in our country is the first concern for you, and maybe for your inquiries, too," Dr. Allawi said in the 100-member National Assembly, which asked him combative questions after his speech in the nearly hourlong session.

The insurgents "are today a challenge to our will," he continued. "They are betting on our failure. Should we allow them to do that? Should we sit down and watch what they are doing and let them destabilize the country's security?"

Though Dr. Allawi joined President Bush last month in boasting of having 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi policemen, soldiers and other security officials, he acknowledged Tuesday that there were difficulties in creating an adequate security force.

"It's clear that since the handover, the capabilities are not complete and that the situation is very difficult now in respect to creating the forces and getting them ready to face the challenges," he said.

He added that "the police force is not well equipped and is not respected enough to lay down its authority" without backing from a strong army.

Dr. Allawi's talk, given inside the fortified government headquarters on the west bank of the Tigris River, comes at a crucial juncture for the American enterprise in Iraq. Insurgents have stepped up a deadly campaign of car bombings and assassinations even as American-led forces push back into guerrilla territory. The successes of the American offensives in Samarra and Babil Province will ultimately depend on whether the Iraqi security forces can combat the insurgency on their own after the American troops withdraw to their bases.

Paul Bremer III Gets Added to the List...

Bremer Critique on Iraq Raises Political Furor
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JODI WILGOREN

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Assertions by L. Paul Bremer III, the former top American administrator in Iraq, that President Bush had not sent enough troops to secure the country put the White House on the defensive on Iraq policy on Tuesday and prompted Senator John Kerry to expand his assault on Mr. Bush as commander in chief.

Mr. Bremer's comments, made in two recent speeches, quickly moved to the center of the presidential campaign. He said at DePauw University on Sept. 17 that he had often raised the problem with the administration and "should have been even more insistent.'' He also spoke Monday at an insurance conference in West Virginia, where he apparently thought his comments were off the record.

Mr. Kerry seized on the comments, first reported Tuesday by The Washington Post, and argued to an audience in Iowa that Mr. Bush "may be constitutionally unable to level with" the public. He called on Mr. Bush to own up to his mistakes in Iraq.

During a speech on Tuesday at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Mr. Bremer said his remarks about troop strength had been somewhat distorted by the media.

"We certainly had enough going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," Mr. Bremer said, according to The Associated Press. But he added: "One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."

The administration, without disputing Mr. Bremer's statements that he had wanted more troops when he arrived in May 2003, said that the force levels had been set by military commanders there. By the end of the day, Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was insisting that Mr. Bush's instructions to his commanders about more troops were "just let me know, you'll have them."

If administration officials were defending Mr. Bush's decisions in public, in background conversations they were clearly furious with Mr. Bremer, who in recent weeks they have blamed for much that has gone wrong in Baghdad.

Still, two senior officials confirmed Tuesday evening that Mr. Bremer had sought more troops before he took up his post as the head of the coalition authority in Iraq, and that once he arrived in Baghdad he repeated his belief that the United States and its allies had committed insufficient forces to the task.

"The reality is that Paul kept pressing the issue, because it was immediately clear that a lot of facilities - even arms stockpiles - were unguarded," said one senior official who was part of that debate but insisted on anonymity.

Mr. Kerry, hammering away at the president's Iraq policy, called Mr. Bremer's remarks evidence that the administration had mismanaged the war. "There are a long list of mistakes and I'm glad that Paul Bremer has finally admitted at least two of them, and the president of the United States needs to tell the truth to the American people," Mr. Kerry told several hundred supporters in a school gym. "I don't know if the president is constitutionally incapable of acknowledging the truth, I don't know if he's just so stubborn that he's going to go down."

In addition to the Bremer speeches, Mr. Kerry quoted remarks made Monday by the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, that he had not "seen any strong, hard evidence that links" Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Rumsfeld later issued a statement backing away from his comment, which he said "regrettably was misunderstood."

Mr. Kerry said, "Commander in chief means you have to make judgments that protect the troops and accomplish the mission. I would listen to all of my advisers and make the best judgment possible. I can tell you this: General Shinseki asked for more troops, and he was fired. So that's a surefire way to chill a lot of other people from asking for things later."

General Eric K. Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, testified before the war that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed in Iraq afterward; he was contradicted by other Pentagon officials. General Shinseki was not fired but had difficult relations with the Pentagon's civilian leadership and was pushed into retiring at the end of his four-year term in 2003.

At the Pentagon, officials said that Mr. Bremer, while interested in the issue of security, had no authority over troop levels, which was solely the purview of military commanders. "Any views Mr. Bremer may have expressed regarding the capabilities and levels of U.S. forces in Iraq would have been referred to the military commanders and the chairman and members of the Joint Chiefs for their review and consideration," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman.

"Before, during and subsequent to Mr. Bremer's tenure, the military commanders and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the level of U.S. forces in Iraq was the appropriate level, and that was their recommendation to the secretary of defense,'' Mr. Di Rita said.

In a speech on Monday to an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., Mr. Bremer said, "We never had enough troops on the ground" to stop the widespread looting immediately after the fall of Baghdad and the lawlessness and insurrection that followed. The group released portions of his remarks after the speech.

At DePauw University, Mr. Bremer said that "the single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation. He said that he raised his concerns a number of times within the administration, but that he "should have been even more insistent."

His remarks there were posted on the DePauw Web site.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, seemed to suggest in a briefing for reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Bremer had never raised his concerns about troop levels with Mr. Bush, but Mr. McClellan did not entirely rule out that such a conversation had occurred.

"They met on a regular basis, I don't remember that Ambassador Bremer ever talked about that, but we never got into the habit of reading out any of those discussions," Mr. McClellan said.

Mr. Bremer served for more than a year in Iraq, up until the handover of power on June 28.

In his remarks in Iowa, Mr. Kerry cited Bremer's speeches as more evidence of what he called the administration's wrong course in Iraq.

Mr. Kerry said the administration had made "a long list of mistakes" in Iraq, and added that Mr. Bremer had admitted to two of them; that "we didn't deploy enough troops to get the job done, and, two, we didn't contain the violence after Saddam was deposed."

In an e-mailed statement quoted by The Washington Post, Mr. Bremer said that he fully supported the administration's course in Iraq.

Mr. Bremer's remarks in his two speeches were considerably at odds with Mr. Bremer's previous public statements about Iraq.

In an interview on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" on July 20, 2003, not quite 11 weeks after he arrived in Baghdad, Mr. Bremer was asked if the United States needed more troops in Iraq.

"I do not believe we do," Mr. Bremer replied. "I think the military commanders are confident we have enough troops on the ground, and I accept that analysis."


Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Washington for this article, and Jodi Wilgoren from Tipton, Iowa. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.

Again: For the Last Time: "No Clear Link between Al-Zarqawi, and Al Qaeda <-> Saddam"

A New C.I.A. Report Casts Doubt on a Key Terrorist's Tie to Iraq
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: October 6, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - A reassessment by the Central Intelligence Agency has cast doubt on a central piece of evidence used by the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq to draw links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda's terrorist network, government officials said Tuesday.

The C.I.A. report, sent to policy makers in August, says it is now not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored members of a group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the officials said. The assertion that Iraq provided refuge to Mr. Zarqawi was the primary basis for the administration's prewar assertions connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda.

The new C.I.A. assessment, based largely on information gathered after the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the latest to revise a prewar intelligence report used by the administration as a central rationale for war.

Other reports have cast doubt on the idea that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda, and the report of the Sept. 11 commission found no "collaborative relationship" between the former Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

In the months before the war, George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell were among administration officials who asserted without qualification that Iraq had harbored Mr. Zarqawi and members of his terror group.

In June of this year, President Bush described Mr. Zarqawi as "the best evidence of connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda." But while Mr. Zarqawi was once thought to be closely linked to Al Qaeda, his affiliations are now less certain.

Some American and European officials have said there is no clear coordination between Mr. Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, though their aims are similar. In the meantime, Mr. Zarqawi has emerged as an architect of repeated car bomb attacks and as the most active and deadly foreign terrorist operating in Iraq as part of the anti-American insurgency.

The C.I.A.'s new assessment states that it could not be conclusive even about his relationship with Mr. Hussein's government. The C.I.A. review, first reported by Knight Ridder newspapers, did not say on what basis the earlier assessment was being softened, and government officials declined to explain on Tuesday.

VP Cheney's performance during the debate in Cleveland reminded me of Ike's warning about the dangers of an unrestricted military-industrial complex. Mr. Cheney is a proud representative of that unhealthy alliance, and Mr. Edwards did a great job of showing that. 

After the first debate, Mr Cheney said: " And I don't think you can look at that debate tonight and conclude anything other than on the one case we've got in George Bush a man who has done it, who has been there, done it four different -- for four different years now, and done a superb job, made the right decisions for America...".  

This Might Be Interesting...

ELECTION: American Progress Report 10/5/2004

Cheney Debunkered

All eyes are on Cleveland, Ohio, tonight, when Vice President Dick Cheney will square off against Sen. John Edwards in the 2004 campaign's Vice Presidential debate. The Boston Globe this morning offers questions for the Vice President, saying, "Because of the widespread perception that the war in Iraq is at least as much Cheney's war as President Bush's, both debaters tonight must come to grips with Cheney's performance as the official who steered Bush toward the invasion of Iraq and infuriated intelligence professionals by ignoring assessments that did not suit his policy aims and spotlighting others that did." Paul Krugman of the New York Times agrees, saying Edwards should ask tough questions of the man who "played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses." After the invasion, Cheney also took the lead in perpetuating the myth that al Qaeda was somehow tied to Saddam, a claim which he continues to make even thought it has been disproved by all known intelligence. For more on what Cheney will likely say and what you should know, read this American Progress debate backgrounder. Here's what to watch for:

KEY CHENEY CLAIM BLOWN APART: Vice President Cheney still asserts, "[Saddam] had a relationship with al Qaeda," in an ongoing attempt to plant "the idea that Hussein was allied with the group responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." As his primary evidence, the vice president repeatedly has said terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Hussein, stating that Zarqawi "is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq." Today, a new CIA assessment — which Cheney himself requested months ago – blew apart this claim. The report stated, "there is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi." One U.S. official said, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

INTELLIGENCE DEBUNKS CHENEY: It's the latest in a long line of intelligence that shows Cheney's claim is false. Previously, the Sept. 11 Commission found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. CIA interrogators found "Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track al Qaeda found "no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein."

RUMSFELD'S MOMENT OF TRUTH: Further damaging Cheney's unsupported claims of a link between Saddam and Osama, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told an audience yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Iraq and al Qaeda. Immediately after his candid comments to the group, however, Rumsfeld furiously backtracked and tried to get back on message, saying he'd been "misunderstood."

'WE NEVER HAD ENOUGH TROOPS ON THE GROUND': Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, the former U.S. official in charge of Iraq after the invasion, said yesterday that the U.S. effort in Iraq was handicapped from the beginning by a lack of adequate forces, flatly stating, "We never had enough troops on the ground." An insufficient number of U.S. troops to keep the peace early on "established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said in a speech yesterday. The White House didn't adequately plan for the peace in Iraq, badly misjudging the situation and relying instead on falsely rosy predictions. A prime example: On 3/16/03, the week the invasion took place, Vice President Cheney said, "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" and "I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months."

THE ULTIMATE FLIP-FLOP: The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports Cheney opposed invading Baghdad before he supported it. In 1991, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney cautioned against U.S. troops advancing into the city, "telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting 'bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'" He added, "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many." About 146 Americans died in the first Gulf War. This time, more than 1,000 U.S. troops have been killed in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

IN BED WITH THE AXIS OF EVIL: In recent stump speeches, Cheney has tried to defend the invasion of Iraq by saying, "Iraq for years was listed by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror." What he doesn't say: Although the U.S. "concluded that Iraq, Libya and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them," during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton, he ignored that and "the company did business in all three countries." For example, with Cheney at the helm, Halliburton signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while that country was on the terrorism list. And Halliburton is being investigated for doing business while Cheney was CEO with Iran, a country also listed as a "state sponsor of terror" by the State Department. "The grand jury has subpoenaed various documents covering Halliburton's Iranian operations, a sign some evidence has surfaced indicating the company "knowingly violated" U.S. anti-terror sanctions.

CHENEY'S DAYS IN COURT: Cheney, under the guise of "legal reform," has attacked his rivals for being too cozy with lawyers. Watch those stones you're throwing from your glass house, Mr. Vice President. A watchdog site, HalliburtonWatch.org, has found that, with Cheney in charge, Halliburton filed 151 claims in 15 states around the nation, petitioning America's legal system an average of 30 times a year; most actions were filed against other corporations. (Halliburton currently is suing former employees who complained when the giant corporation sliced retiree health care benefits.)

Hydrocarbon vs Fluorine Fuel Cell Membranes

Membrane Breakthrough for Fuel Cells
By MATTHEW L. WALD
NY Times
Published: October 5, 2004

With oil near $50 a barrel, alternatives to gasoline are attracting more attention - including fuel cells, devices that convert hydrogen into electric current with no waste products except heat and pure water.

Fuel cells have found their way into power systems for laptop computers and into many experimental cars. The main drawback to automotive use of fuel cells, though, has been their cost, which at $100,000 can be 25 times the $4,000 for a gasoline engine of equal power. Lately, some companies, including Honda, have been trying to come up with cheaper versions of the most expensive part of a fuel cell: the membrane that takes the hydrogen fuel and separates it into protons and electrons.

This morning, a California company, PolyFuel, plans to announce that it has achieved a breakthrough in fuel-cell membranes by using an alternative material: a hydrocarbon that it says costs only about half as much per square meter.

Compared with the fluorine compounds that are the most commonly used for membranes in fuel cells now under testing, PolyFuel says that hydrocarbon membranes allow production of more electricity per square centimeter of membrane. That could mean that a fuel cell could produce the same power as a fluorine-membrane version, but would be smaller and lighter, further adding to efficiency, according to the company.

PolyFuel is quick to say that it has not moved the fuel cell to the point of commercial viability, but now hopes to be closer to that goal. "We're on a great trajectory here to continue to improve state of the art," said Jim Balcom, the company's president and chief executive.

Hydrocarbon membranes can also run under a wider range of temperatures, and thus allow better performance, he said. But he acknowledged that other drawbacks to fuel cells would still need to be resolved - including the logistics of producing hydrogren and transporting it to electric-car filling stations. The hydrogen molecule is so small that it would escape through the cracks in the pipes used for natural gas. And it is so light that it must be pumped up to extreme pressures to transport more than a few pounds by tanker truck - requiring more expensive pumps and tanks than are currently in use.

The dominant membrane for the fuel cells now in use is a fluorine-based DuPont product called Nafion, which was developed for use in the chemical industry. It is chemically related to Teflon, which DuPont makes. Nafion and other membranes look like plastic food wrap, but are thicker.

According to Mr. Balcom, Nafion will let enough protons slip through to generate about 6.5 kilowatts a meter, but his membrane will generate current of more than 7 kilowatts. (A kilowatt - a thousand watts - would run a single window air-conditioner. A car would require 50 to 75 kilowatts.) A hydrocarbon membrane functions well at temperatures slightly below zero degrees Fahrenheit, he said. Fluorine-based membranes can produce very little power at such low temperatures.

In addition, it can tolerate temperatures near the boiling point, substantially hotter than the fluorocarbon membrane, both men said. This is important because fuel cells generate heat that must be dissipated, and getting rid of heat from a system at 200 degrees is easier than cooling off a device that is already closer to the temperature of ordinary air. Mr. Balcom said that hydrocarbon membranes also require less humid air, allowing for simpler equipment within the fuel cell.

Skeptics of some of PolyFuel's claims include Scott G. Ehrenberg, the chief technology officer of Dais-Analytic, a Florida maker of hydrocarbon membranes. He said that operating the membranes too close to water's boiling point risked surpassing that point - as when a driver quickly accelerated. If the water turned to steam it would tear holes in the membrane, he said.

But he acknowledged the economic importance of cheaper membranes because they can represent nearly half the cost of the fuel cell. In a car, he said, the membranes would require replacement every year or so, the way existing cars require oil and spark plug changes.

Mr. Ehrenberg suggested another advantage to hydrocarbon membranes: they are already mass produced. His company sells millions of square feet of hydrocarbon membranes every year, he said, not for fuel cells but primarily for use in raising the efficiency of commercial air-conditioning systems.

In a commercial building, the ventilation system draws in warm, moist air, chills and dries it, and pumps it inside, and exhausts air that is cool and dry. With a hydrocarbon membrane between those two air flows, the dry air on its way out can suck humidity out of the fresh air on the way in, reducing the workload for the air-conditioner, Mr. Ehrenberg said.

People pursuing hydrocarbon membranes as a cost-cutting measure are "barking up the correct tree," he said.

Let's Get Real About Tax Shelters Guys !!

Republicans Try to Dilute Provisions in Tax Bill
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - Despite widespread agreement that abusive tax shelters are costing the federal government billions of dollars a year, House Republicans are working to eliminate or dilute provisions in a new corporate tax bill aimed at cracking down on illegal shelters.

The provisions, opposed by a range of business lobbyists and tax lawyers, are part of a larger battle in Congress over how hard to attack the rapidly expanding use of complex transactions that turn real-world profits into tax-world losses.

The issue is coming to a boil in a House-Senate conference committee that Monday night resumed considering a corporate tax bill that would provide up to $170 billion in tax breaks.

With only a few days left before Congress is supposed to adjourn, lawmakers are trying to make hundreds of last-minute changes that could affect tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Business groups, ranging from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Business Roundtable, have worked with tax lobbyists and accounting firms to protect the tax shelters.

A study prepared last year for the Internal Revenue Service estimated that abuse of tax shelters cost the federal government $12 billion to $18 billion a year.

A study last week by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research organization, reported that 82 of the nation's most profitable companies paid no corporate taxes in at least one of the last three years.

Both the House and Senate have passed bills that would raise billions of dollars by shutting certain kinds of tax shelters. But House Republicans have balked at several provisions that the Senate passed with broad bipartisan support.

One crucial Senate provision, for example, would greatly increase penalties on people who spin complex transactions that serve no other purpose except to avoid taxes.

Supporters of the Senate bill say it would address a glaring weakness of the system: even when a court finds that a tax deal is abusive, it rarely imposes penalties beyond making a company or a person pay back taxes.

"Multinational corporations use complicated schemes to claim they've had losses when they've really had gains," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who has been pushing for such a provision since 1999. "These schemes are so complicated that even the experts have difficulty getting to the bottom of them. One way of challenging these apparent tax losses is to say this complex scheme that may involve many different entities has no economic substance."

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the revenue estimates on proposed tax bills, estimated that just one of the disputed provisions would raise about $15 billion over the next 10 years.

But House Republicans oppose that measure. Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said two weeks ago that the provision was unnecessary and would have a chilling effect on legitimate business deals.

Opponents of the Senate bill's tax shelter provisions are particularly incensed about a provision that has strong support from Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

That provision would tighten the definition of tax shelters, putting into legislation the well-established judicial doctrine that a financial transaction has to have "economic substance," which means it has to have a purpose beyond reducing taxes.

Kenneth J. Kies, a prominent corporate tax lobbyist in Washington who has defended some of the biggest tax shelters, said the Senate bill would have ensnared scores of companies engaged in routine transactions.

"This is a much broader provision than its being made out to be," Mr. Kies said. "It would set up a standard for economic substance that would be very hard for garden-variety business transactions."

But supporters said the provision would simply add some teeth to a concept that courts have used for years.

The dispute goes to the heart of all kinds of tax shelters, but it could have a big impact on one of the biggest kinds of transactions in recent years: leasing deals in which cities, including New York City, sell subway trains and other public infrastructure to private investors, who then lease them back and take advantage of tax write-offs for equipment depreciation.

The goal of the deals is to give investors tax breaks that are of no use to municipal governments, including many cities and organizations outside the United States, that pay no federal taxes. For the cities, the deals reduce the cost of new equipment at the expense of the federal Treasury.

Both the House and Senate bills would prohibit such deals in the future, but the Senate bill could invalidate many deals that are already in existence. As a result, the Senate bill would raise about $45 billion over 10 years, while the House bill would raise about $19 billion.

But if the final law includes the Senate provisions on "economic substance," investors who entered into such deals could face stiff penalties on top of losing their tax shelters.

Joseph Bankman, a professor of tax law at Stanford University, says California has already reaped $1.3 billion from a similar provision it passed one year ago. The California law declared that any tax shelter that fails the test for economic substance could be subject to penalties but it offered an amnesty to people who came forward voluntarily.

"It is still very much the exception rather than the rule that people have to pay penalties," Mr. Bankman said.

Calvin Johnson, a professor of tax law at the University of Texas in Austin, said the Internal Revenue Service would have to impose "gargantuan" penalties before it really frightened off companies or individuals trying to shelter tens of millions of dollars.

But Mr. Johnson said there was a pressing need to attack the widespread view, which he said was generally accurate, that people can avoid penalties simply by obtaining an opinion from tax lawyers in advance of a deal that says the transaction fits the letter of the law.

"There is a common view that you can set up an elaborate scheme and that if you have the opinion of a respectable attorney that you can't be assessed any penalties," he said.

But the conventional wisdom may be changing. In a decision that electrified tax-shelter promoters, a court ruled in August that Long-Term Capital Management, the huge hedge fund that nearly went bankrupt in 1998, took $106 million in improper tax deductions and owed $56 million in taxes and penalties.

"The Long-Term Capital case showed that the I.R.S. has many arrows in its quiver," said Tim McCormley, executive director of the Tax Executives Institute, an association of tax professionals who work at major corporations. "In the past, taxpayers had what they viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card if they had an opinion from a highly respected law firm. That's not the case anymore."

City Challenged on Fingerprinting Protesters
By DIANE CARDWELL
NY Times
Published: October 5, 2004

(New York City): Since coming under fire for their handling of protesters arrested during the Republican convention, Bloomberg administration officials have said that sluggish fingerprint processing in Albany was a major cause of the long delays in releasing detainees, although state officials have denied any tardiness.

Now it looks as if much of the fingerprinting may not have been legal in the first place. According to lawyers at the New York Civil Liberties Union, the city may have violated state law by routinely fingerprinting arrested protesters.

In a letter sent yesterday to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, officials of the organization wrote that although the law allowed the police to fingerprint people charged with minor offenses in certain circumstances, "this could not justify the routine fingerprinting of the nearly 1,500 people reportedly arrested during the convention for minor offenses."

The officials, Donna Lieberman and Christopher Dunn, the group's executive director and associate legal director respectively, wrote that state criminal-procedure law defined narrow circumstances for fingerprinting when the offenses are minor. Those circumstances are when the police cannot establish the person's identity, when they suspect that the identification supplied is not accurate, or when they suspect that there is an outstanding warrant.

Legal questions about the fingerprinting policy have come up before. At a hearing in September over the city's treatment of arrested protesters, Justice John Cataldo of State Supreme Court in Manhattan noted that the city could have dispensed with the fingerprinting entirely as most of the offenses were so minor that state law did not require it.

Ms. Lieberman and Mr. Dunn also wrote that they found the "blanket fingerprinting" of people arrested at demonstrations troubling because "the entry of fingerprints into law enforcement databases can have lifelong consequences."

Republicans currently are a majority in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and they hold the White House after increasing their percentages in each branch for the past several elections. Is that what YOU want?? 

The Daily Outrage: Fox TV Commentator: Carl Cameron

In the wake of President Bush's disastrous showing at last week's debate, Fox News political reporter Carl Cameron attributed ridiculous quotes to John Kerry, designed to make him seem patrician and out of touch. Fox pulled the story from its website after Josh Marshall exposed it as a complete fabrication.
<------------------------------------->
From American Progress Action
October 3rd, 2004

MEDIA
We Deceive, You Decide

After Kerry's strong performance during the debate Friday night, it was no secret that Republicans and the right-wing media were desperate to find a way to criticize Kerry. But no one knew they were this desperate. Carl Cameron, the top political reporter at Fox, made up ridiculous quotes which he attributed to Kerry and posted on Fox's website as news. Cameron – who bills himself as an objective journalist – falsely quoted Kerry saying, "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" and "Women should like me! I do manicures." Coincidently, Cameron's quotes parrot Republican talking points that aim to depict Kerry as patrician and Bush as a man of the people. Another Cameron doozy attributed to Kerry: "I'm metrosexual – [Bush is] a cowboy." Fox pulled the story from its website after journalist and blogger Josh Marshall exposed it as a complete fabrication. Fox spokesman Paul Schur said that Cameron "made a stupid mistake which he regrets. And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment." But Schur refused to say what discipline Cameron faced, later saying "we're simply moving on." Cameron has declined to discuss the incident and continues to report from the campaign trail. Write Fox and tell them that Cameron lacks the objectivity to cover the presidential race.

FOX NEWS DOESN'T LEARN: The day after the Cameron incident, Fox News posted an interview with a group called Communists for Kerry, which it presented as a legitimate, pro-Kerry organization. Fox quoted 17-year-old Komoselutes Rob, a member of the group, as saying, "We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office." The report concluded, "it is unclear whether the Kerry campaign has welcomed the Communists' endorsement." What Fox didn't mention: Communists for Kerry is a parody by a Republican front group. Fox News later retracted the article and claimed it wasn't at fault because "FOXNews.com's reporter asked the group's representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was." If Fox would have bothered to click the "About Us" link on the group's website, it would have discovered "Communists for Kerry is a campaign of the Hellgate Republican Club, a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy '527' organization that exists for the purpose of; Informing voters with satire and irony."

CAMERON PALS AROUND WITH BUSH BEFORE INTERVIEW: This isn't the first time that Carl Cameron's objectivity has been called into question. In a scene captured in the film "Outfoxed," Cameron is caught palling around with Bush moments before an interview during the 2000 presidential campaign. Cameron: "My wife has been hanging out with your sister." Bush: "Yeah, good." Cameron: "She's been all over the state campaigning, and Pauline has been constantly with her." Bush: "Yeah, Doro [Bush's sister] is a good person." Cameron: "Oh, and she's terrific. When she first started campaigning for you, she was a little bit nervous, but now she's up there—" Bush: "Getting her stride?" Cameron: "She doesn't need notes, she's going to crowds and she's got the whole riff down." Bush: "She's a good soul." Moments later, the cameras turned on and Cameron slipped instantly into his "objective journalist" persona. Cameron later said that "The whole thing is, in retrospect, an embarrassment that I feel really bad about."

CAMERON REPEATEDLY DESCRIBES KERRY AS OUT OF TOUCH MILLIONAIRE: On July 3, Cameron "reported" that "The problem for Kerry may be who he is. An Ivy League millionaire, who has rubbed elbows with the world's wealthiest sophisticates, while most of rural America is considered Bush country." Cameron made no mention that Bush attended Yale, is a millionaire, and has spent as much time as anyone rubbing elbows with "wealthy sophisticates." On June 29, Cameron similarly noted that "Kerry has always been one of the haves, educated at the finest schools [and with] a billionaire wife." Find out more about how Fox News anchors' "reporting" often becomes indistinguishable from Bush campaign propaganda.

CAMERON PUSHES MYTH THAT BUSH NEVER SAID MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: On Sept. 27, Carl Cameron "reported" that "Though the banner said mission accomplished, the president never actually use[d] those words. Nonetheless, a new Kerry attack ad repeats the charge." One problem: Bush did say "mission accomplished." On June 5, 2003, Bush said to troops in Qatar, "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."

BRIT HUME SAYS CAMERON IS FAIR TO KERRY: Days before Carl Cameron presented fake Kerry quotes as news, Brit Hume, Fox's Washington managing editor, said, "our day-in, day-out coverage by Carl Cameron has been extremely fair to Kerry." Of course, Hume himself isn't the most objective observer, either. In June, July and August, Kerry's evaluations on Hume's show, Special Report, "were negative by a 5 to 1 margin."

The "Flip-Flopper" Label -- How It's Done
From the Hauser Report: Oct 3rd, 2004

Salon has an article by Matthew Craft today, Winning the war of words, that talks about how the Republicans are so well able to get the public to believe their misleading and distorting slogans. From the article:

"After months of tireless repetition, the Bush-Cheney campaign's 'flip-flop' charge against John Kerry has become a national cliche. I'm sure you noticed that during the debate Bush kept repeating the "mixed messages" line. Over and over. Whatever the question, Bush returned to this theme, even when it did not seem to be an appropriate answer to the question. This line ties into the "flip-flopper" campaign theme, because what a "flip-flopper" does is send "mixed messages."

You and I are informed and know that Kerry IS NOT a flip-flopper, of course, but what about the general public? The Republicans have spent something like 200 million dollars repeating this message over and over and over and over and over. And not just in TV ads. They are using every channel through which people receive "messages." For example, I've written about receiving e-mail chain-letters -- those things your sister-in-law from Kansas is always forwarding to you, that have about 300 other people's e-mail addresses at the top and have already been forwarded eight times -- that have as the actual message a joke, another joke, a joke about Kerry being a flip-flopper, a joke, and a sign-off about God smiling on little children or something. Well, where do you think those originate? This is just one example of manipulating a channel through which people receive messages.

The result of this comprehensive message communication effort is that people who don't spend a lot of time informing themselves about what is going on in the world have heard this single message repeated on the radio, through the internet, on TV, in articles, and, most importantly, from friends. And so it has become "conventional wisdom," or what you might call "a truth" that you can not trust Kerry because he is a flip-flopper. The Republicans laid out this plan of attack a long time ago and have consistently stuck to this one theme, repeating it over and over, right through the debate and continuing with the ads they are running today. This is how it is done.

From the article,
'That's exactly what research shows,' said George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley. 'Repeat something over and over and it gets in people's brains.' Republicans, Lakoff argues, have found success through 'framing' issues along lines that fit their worldview and sticking to them. The Democrats aren't nearly as effective."

Most people do not have time to study issues, and, instead, rely on other cues to decide who to vote for. The Republicans have studied this process and manipulate people using these cues, while Democrats continue to believe that just taking positions on issues is enough. This is why Kerry always talks "positions" and Bush always talks "values." The way to reach people is at a deeper level than "issue arguments."

From the Salon article,
His [George Lakoff's] book "Don't Think of an Elephant," with a foreword by Howard Dean, came out on Sept. 15 and quickly made a cameo among Amazon's bestselling books. What's surprising about Lakoff's analysis is how it can be used to make sense of otherwise conflicting ideas. His theory of political preferences, taken on its merits, offers insights into the Zell Miller enigma and might explain the mystery of why people don't vote in their self-interest.

In the reality show called American politics, you don't need to master the issues to take the White House. In fact, Lakoff and many others now argue, a stance on an issue matters less than the candidate's "values," a recognizable moral system. Many Democrats don't vote for their self-interests, and, as Thomas Franks pointed out in his recent book "What's the Matter with Kansas," most poor Kansans don't either.

"People always vote their values," Lakoff said. Democrats and liberals always assume people vote their self-interests, he said, like shoppers with a grocery list. "Polls and focus groups are based on this metaphor of a political campaign as a marketing campaign. That's just wrong. Cognitive science shows us that's not how people work."

How voters' minds work is, like the study of decision making, a source of endless debate. Political scientists assume that most people skip the hard work of immersing themselves in the issues before picking a candidate and look for shortcuts instead. But what are they, and which come first?

We (Progressives, Liberals, Democrats) need to start thinking past the election cycle. Thinking that a candidate or political party is going to somehow magically know what to say to lead all of us out of this mess is not realistic.

What we need to do is restore in the widespread general public underlying Progressive values, and this will bring support from which candidates can draw their strength. This is what the Right has been doing for thirty years. They have been manipulating the public's underlying values, and THEN their candidates can show up and use code-words to tap into that underlying value "language" they have developed.

Ethanol and Biodiesel Development Perspectives in the Bush Administration

Bush Administration's Record Raises Serious Questions About Its Commitments

Chooses 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 Sensibility
By 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 Respect
By 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.

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.

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.