Flexible Reality
Flexible Reality
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 AlternativeDr. 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
Recent Political Ads
|
$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. SourcesUS 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 Kerry supported an increased tax on Social Security benefits, but he also supported a repeal and Bush didn't. Bush campaign falsely accuses Kerry of voting 350 times for tax increases. Bush’s own words mislead reporters.
|
This was NOT pre-ordained...
Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More FundsBy 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 2004By 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 productLast 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"
|
src="http://www.projectbillboard.org/tickerbig.js">
"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 PresidentNY 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 ReportOctober 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 Fees10.19.2004, 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 CostsBy 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 WorkersBy 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 DraftNY 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 HarassmentProducer 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 airwavesBy 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.
Other Sites
