Flexible Reality
Friday, October 15, 2004
If there wasn't any justification for the probe would the "market" have responded this way?
Insurance Probe Drives Down StocksFri 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 BaghdadBy 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 debateBy 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 VoteBy 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.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
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 DrivesBy 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.''
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
After Debate III: 2004
Debate III: 2004The 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 Constitutionby 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' displayLinda 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
<------------------------------------->
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
WiMax: A Solution without a Demonstrable Problem to Address
Wi-Fi Successor Called High-Speed Hype, for NowTue 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
Monday, October 11, 2004
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.
