Sunday, April 29, 2007

by Bill Moyers on PBS - May 27th, 2007

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. Despite profound questions and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. How did they get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 continue to go largely unreported? Bill Moyers Journal premieres at a special time, with "Buying the War," a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Full Transcript is here.
<------------------------------------->

On April 25, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales reviewed the film, calling it "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year ... as disheartening as it is compelling." Shales further observed: "The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls 'the marketing group' -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?"

Setting the Record Straight
Jessica Lynch tells Congress what really happened to her in Iraq.
By Julie Scelfo
Newsweek
Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET April 28, 2007
April 24, 2007 - Jessica Lynch became a national hero in 2003 after she was dramatically rescued by a team of Special Ops soldiers from an Iraqi hospital where she was believed to be a prisoner of war. Her story was compelling not only because she was a 19-year-old supply-unit clerk who had stumbled into an attack during convoy travel with her unit, but because she was portrayed by military authorities as having valiantly fought back against her attackers even as her unit was surrounded and her comrades were killed and injured. The legend quickly unraveled, however, after Lynch returned to the States, recuperated from her substantial injuries (broken arm and leg bones, damage to her back and kidneys, and a six-inch laceration to her head) and began to speak out about what had really happened. Today, Lynch testified before a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing probing the source of misleading information about Lynch and about the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan. NEWSWEEK's Julie Scelfo spoke with Lynch, who turns 24 on April 26, about her experiences. Exerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you decide to testify?
Jessica Lynch:
Mainly it was about me just getting out the truth. I’ve spent the past four years trying to tell everybody the real truth, and not the stories they put together. They were false, ya know?

What was the greatest misinformation about you?
The whole Rambo story, that I went down fighting. It just wasn’t the truth.

So what really happened?
I didn’t even get a shot off. My weapon had jammed. And I didn’t even get to fire. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the back of our [Humvee], which made Lori [Piestewa], my friend, lose control of the vehicle, and we slammed into the back of another truck in our unit.

Who is to blame for spreading the misinformation?
Well, I think really the military and the media. The military, for not setting the record straight and the media for spreading it, and not seeking the true facts. They just ran with it instead of waiting until the facts were straightened out.

What do you hope Congress achieves with today’s hearing?
I hope it [helps] the Tillman family get the accurate information that they deserve. They need to know what happened to their son and why they were lied to.

Do you feel like this is a pattern, misinformation from the military?
Well, it kind of seems like that’s the way it’s been happening. I hope they can learn from mistakes and correct this and not let other family members and soldiers have to deal with the things that my family and I went through.

What was the hardest part of having misinformation spread?
Knowing that it wasn’t the truth. I just, I had to get [the truth] out there. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself knowing that’s not exactly how it happened.

You said during your testimony you weren’t there for political reasons. But do you have an opinion about how the administration used your story and Tillman’s story for political gain?
I don’t know because there’s no way of knowing why this stuff was even created in the first place. Only the people who created it would have the answers.

So how is your recovery going?
I still have a lot of problems, a lot of injuries. I will probably never heal or be the same again. But I’m OK with it, and I’ve learned to cope with it in my own way.

You said in your testimony that Iraqi nurses actually tried to return you once to the Americans. What happened?
We were fired upon, and [the] driver of the ambulance had to turn around and brought me back to the hospital.

So the Iraqis were trying to return you?
Yeah, hopefully that’s what they were doing. That’s what I was told they were doing. We were headed to a checkpoint and we were fired upon.

If the Iraqis wanted to give you back, why did the military stage a big rescue? Couldn’t they just knock on the hospital door?
I don’t know. I hope that they had my interests in mind, and were wanting to get me out of there.

Do you feel like you were exploited by the military?
No, I don’t. I felt sort of like that in the beginning, yes. But now, four years later, I don’t.

During today’s testimony Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, says he feels his brother’s death was “exploited” for political reasons.
I agree, they did that in a way. Pat Tillman's situation was similar to mine but completely different. He didn’t have the opportunity to come home and tell the truth and set the record straight like I did.

Rolling Stone Magazine offers the top five rants of Keith Olbermann.

The Most Honest Man in News

Keith Olbermann is mad as hell -- and unlike Rush Limbaugh, he's not faking it

MARK BINELLI

>> Not sure he's the most honest man in news? Take a look for yourself: We've collected the top five rants of Keith Olbermann. [WATCH IT NOW]

An unfamiliar viewer tuning in to Keith Olbermann's prime-time news program on MSNBC, Countdown, might, at first glance, assume he was watching a highly traditional broadcaster. Olbermann has a long, sober face and trim hair that's going gray. With his glasses, he looks like a Fifties newsman -- Clark Kent behind an anchor's desk -- while his stentorian delivery can sound almost self-consciously retro, the sort of voice (of God or your high school principal) mocked nightly by Stephen Colbert.

But there's a sharp contrast between the way Olbermann looks and sounds and what he's actually saying. After President Bush recently called for a troop escalation in Iraq, for example, Olbermann described the strategy as "absurd" and "childish," then added, "Mr. Bush, the question is no longer 'What are you thinking?' but rather 'Are you thinking at all?' " He has described Fox News anchor Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster" and begged Rush Limbaugh to "Please, go back on the drugs." His nightly "Worst Person in the World" feature has honored, among others, Dennis Miller, John McCain and former first lady Barbara Bush. Then there is Olbermann's favorite target, Bill O'Reilly, known on Countdown as Bill-O, "the Sisyphus of morons" and "the Big Giant Head." The persistent needling has so irked O'Reilly (who refuses to mention Olbermann by name on his own show) that the Fox host regularly rants about the "liberal bias" at NBC and started a Web campaign to have Olbermann replaced with Phil Donahue.

"I'm not declaring victory in that war," Olbermann tells me, "but I think the point that Jonathan Alter of Newsweek made on the air the other day was pretty solid -- that if my goal was to make O'Reilly go nuts, I have succeeded."

All of this has turned Olbermann, previously best known as the wisecracking host of an ESPN sports-highlights show, into an unlikely hero of the left. While O'Reilly's puffed-up sense of outrage quite often plays like a performance -- you could easily imagine him leaving his persona at the office and spending his evenings as a happy rich guy -- Olbermann comes off as someone speaking out of genuine anger. His ability to tap into a very dark place has inspired a number of comparisons to the 1976 film Network, in which a television news anchor goes insane on the air and, to the shock of management, becomes extremely popular, largely because he is seen as telling the truth. Olbermann has hosted Countdown since 2003; he spent the six years before that bouncing around various networks, in danger of becoming a second-tier cable-news fixture like Tucker Carlson. His mad-as-hell Network moment came last August, when he was stuck in a plane on a runway and happened to read that Donald Rumsfeld had compared war critics to Nazi appeasers. That night he ended Countdown with a furious six-and-a-half-minute attack that began, "The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet."

Audience response was positive, so Olbermann began hitting the Bush administration even harder. Scathing commentaries, directly inspired by broadcast legend Edward R. Murrow, became a regular feature on Countdown. As in Network, momentarily losing it seems to have paid off. Since August, the show's nightly audience has increased by sixty-three percent, with Olbermann proving especially popular in the key demographic of twenty-five-to-fifty-four-year-olds. The long-struggling MSNBC, meanwhile, became the only one of the four cable-news networks to post an increase in viewership last year. (Fox News, by comparison, saw its prime-time viewership decline by twenty percent, though it remains far and away the ratings leader in cable news.)

"That scene from Network where Howard Beale is walking down the street in his pajamas, mumbling to himself -- that's not me," Olbermann insists. "I'm not in a state of perpetual outrage. But I don't think I've ever taken a position on the air that I didn't feel strongly about. What I do is not some kind of performance designed to create an image for myself, or to create false anger in people. The difference between me and O'Reilly is, I will shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater if there's a fire. I think Bill would shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater to hear the sound of his own voice."

On a recent weekday, Olbermann meets me for lunch at the Parker Meridien Hotel in midtown Manhattan. He's tall (nearly six-four) and already dressed for the evening's broadcast (in a blue pinstriped suit). "I'm going to sit with my back to the wall, like we're in The Godfather," he says. He's only half-kidding, having just received his second death-threat letter since September. (The first contained a white powder that turned out to be soap.) In a more absurd vein, Geraldo Rivera recently challenged Olbermann to a fight, calling him a "midget." (In 2003, Olbermann reported on how Rivera gave away U.S. troop positions while covering the war in Iraq.) Olbermann responded by pointing out that he is seven inches taller than Rivera. "Geraldo, you should not give me a hard time," he added. "I can still remember when you were a big deal . . . when I was a kid."

I bring up the general impression people have of Olbermann -- that he will say anything, that he does not give a fuck. "Yeah, but I've always gotten that," he says. "Twenty years ago, when I was doing four minutes of sports on local television in Los Angeles, someone wrote an article in which the premise was how at least fifty percent of what I did was a satire of television. Like, 'Look how ridiculous this is, me sitting here. And you sitting on the other end, watching me -- what are you doing that for?' I think that's always been my attitude."

After joking about how the menu contains a number of desserts disguised as entrees, Olbermann orders a Belgian waffle with cream and berries. "The first time I came in here," he says, "I was looking for granola." When I laugh, he says, "I'm not kidding." When the waffle arrives, he cuts it in half, then cuts the halves into a number of roughly equal-size smaller pieces, which he then individually daubs with cream. He speaks with a similar fastidiousness, never dropping his precise broadcasting-school enunciation.

Now forty-eight, Olbermann grew up in Westchester, a wealthy suburb of New York. His father was an architect who designed malls and stores. "There was a time when all but four or five of the Baskin-Robbins stores in the United States were his," Olbermann notes. As a kid, Olbermann was an obsessive baseball fan who listened to games in his bedroom on the radio after his parents ordered the TV off and the lights out. "That was a mistake," he says, "because it would just heighten your sense of being there, as someone described these faraway places like Kansas City. Fifty percent of baseball fans over the age of forty became fans exactly that way." By age eight, he had decided on a career: announcer for the Yankees.

He entered Cornell at sixteen, majoring in communications and working at the college radio station. "I was always counter-counterculture," Olbermann says. "I was the last kid with short hair. I went to a private high school, and a month after I got there, they eliminated jackets and ties. I was the kid that said, 'I kind of liked the jacket.' So I kept wearing it for the next four years. I've since controlled it, being so contrarian. But for a while it was really strong: 'I'm not listening to rock & roll, because everyone else is.' I listened to comedy, news. The Beatles were always sacrosanct, but after that, it was always like, 'Well, that's a bad impression of the Beatles' or 'That's the name of the band? Oh, I don't think so.' " (He's since come around to rock: He and his girlfriend of nine months, Katy Tur, a 2005 graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara, recently caught Patti Smith's sixtieth-birthday show in New York.)

One of Olbermann's first jobs out of college was as a sportscaster at a startup radio network attempting to appeal to listeners under twenty-five. Management encouraged Olbermann to indulge in wacky on-air bits, like having a competition to see which athlete said "you know" most frequently during interviews. "Micheal Ray Richardson, the basketball player, won that one," Olbermann recalls. "But there was a controversy, because it turned out he was a stutterer, and instead of stuttering he'd taught himself to say 'you know'; so he got eighteen of them out in, like, seventeen seconds."

CNN eventually took notice and hired Olbermann. In 1992, he moved to ESPN's SportsCenter, which became a cultural phenomenon: Sports fans ate up Olbermann and co-host Dan Patrick's funny, quick-witted reinvention of the musty end-of-the-day highlight reel. Five years later, Olbermann left ESPN under a cloud of stories about how he'd become a nightmare to work with. Much of the acrimony was documented by sportswriter Mike Freeman in ESPN: The Uncensored History; one of Olbermann's co-hosts, Suzy Kolber, recalled locking herself in the bathroom and weeping because of the way Olbermann treated her. Upon the release of Freeman's book, Olbermann wrote a long apology to his former co-workers, chalking up his tantrums to a deep-seated insecurity. "I have lived much of my life assuming much of the responsibility around me and developing a dread of being blamed for things going wrong," he wrote. "Deep down inside I've always believed that everybody around me was qualified and competent, and I wasn't, and that some day I'd be found out."

"Keith had this knack for pissing people off," admits Patrick, who has known Olbermann for twenty-three years and who still co-hosts an afternoon sports-radio program with him. "He pissed me off a lot. But at the end of the day, he'd make great TV. He could be upset about the littlest thing, or fighting management about something, but I think he worked better if he had a pebble in his shoe. I don't know if he sought out controversy or things that might bother him for that reason. But if he was agitated or uncomfortable, I always knew he'd be great.

"It makes me wonder," Patrick continues with a chuckle, "what he'll do if there's a Democrat in the White House."

After lunch, Olbermann takes the A train downtown to a radio station above Madison Square Garden, where he broadcasts his portion of Patrick's show. "When I started doing the radio show, I started taking the train again," he says, swiping his MetroCard through the turnstile. "It makes me feel like a human being. Someone from the New York Daily News called the office and said, 'Is it true you took Olbermann's car service away? Someone saw him riding the subway!' "

We make it to the station ten minutes before airtime. Olbermann, who has done no preparation for the show, slips off his jacket, revealing a pair of blue suspenders, and sits in front of the microphone. A hardcover edition of Clay Aiken's memoir, Learning to Sing, is propped on a ledge across the room. There's also a pile of LPs on the floor (on top: Bruce Willis' The Return of Bruno) and a box labeled "box of crap we'll never use," with a large stuffed-animal monkey sticking out.

The station manager pokes his head in the door. "Geraldo's on line two," he jokes.

"Answering phones now, is he?" Olbermann asks.

Patrick, who is broadcasting from Arizona, comes on the line. He greets Olbermann by his on-air nickname, "KO" -- pun, presumably, intended -- and says, "I saw Geraldo talking about you the other night."

"Where'd you see him -- playing banjo on the street?" Olbermann says. "They canceled his show."

Patrick chuckles and says, "I saw him on O'Reilly. I thought he was saying he'd found his niche."

"No," Olbermann says, "it was 'itch.' Turns out it was in his mustache."

Olbermann clearly relishes his feuds and doesn't seem to worry much about sparking new ones. When I ask him why he thinks Katie Couric's stint as CBS anchor isn't working, he shoots back, "It's simple. She's not good at it." (Asked if he'd take the gig himself, he says, "Of course. But I don't think they'd ask me." A few weeks later, MSNBC extended his contract for another four years and announced that he will contribute reports to NBC Nightly News.)

Last June, the Daily News printed e-mail exchanges between Olbermann and hostile viewers. The host advised one correspondent to "go fuck your mother" and another to "kill yourself." He also told a fan that fellow MSNBC host Rita Cosby was "nice but dumber than a suitcase of rocks." Though the e-mails were meant to embarrass Olbermann, they only served to underline what people already know and like about him. It's hard to imagine Tom Brokaw even bothering to respond to an e-mail critic, let alone writing "you couldn't be stupider, wronger or dumber," but Olbermann's status as a loose cannon is a large part of his appeal, and the sizable ego he brings to the table makes him the perfect foil for the likes of O'Reilly.

"Keith's importance, to me, is as a truth teller," says Huffington Post founder and frequent Countdown guest Arianna Huffington. "I think the way he's been represented -- as leaning to the left or catering to the anti-Bush crowd -- minimizes what he has done, which is to ignore the traditional journalistic view of the anchor as referee and stop pretending there are two sides to every issue. That's not how it is. Sometimes the truth is on one side."

Now, when Olbermann takes the subway to work, strangers approach and thank him for doing a good job. President Clinton recently sent him a handwritten note of congratulations. "There was a blowback at first," Olbermann says, "but at a certain point the genius -- the unintentional genius -- of the American broadcasting system kicks in, which is, if you make them money, they don't care what you say."

>> Not sure he's the most honest man in news? Take a look for yourself: We've collected the top five rants of Keith Olbermann. [WATCH IT NOW]

Posted Feb 22, 2007 9:39 AM

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Reid: U.S. Can't Win War
Associated Press | April 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.

Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to bring peace to Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The exchange came before the House voted to endorse legislation it passed last month that would fund the war in Iraq but require combat missions to end by September 2008. The Senate passed similar, less-sweeping legislation that would set a nonbinding goal of bringing combat troops home by March 31, 2008.

"Our troops won the war clearly, cleanly and quickly," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. "But now they are stuck in a civil war," and the only solution is a political and diplomatic compromise. "And there is no Soldier who can get that done," he added.

The House voted mostly along party lines to insist congressional negotiators trying to reconcile the House and Senate bills retain the firm timetable.

Despite the vote, which was orchestrated by Republicans to try to embarrass Democrats, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

Bush pledged to veto either measure and said troops were being harmed by Congress' failure to deliver the funds quickly.

The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June. The Army is taking "prudent measures" aimed at ensuring that delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14.

While $70 billion that Congress provided in September for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has mostly run out, the Army has told department officials to slow the purchase of nonessential repair parts and other supplies, restrict the use of government charge cards and limit travel.

The Army also will delay contracts for facilities repair and environmental restoration, according to instructions from Army Comptroller Nelson Ford. He said the accounting moves are similar to those enacted last year when the Republican-led Congress did not deliver a war funding bill to Bush until mid-June.

More stringent steps would be taken in May, such as a hiring freeze and firing temporary employees, but exceptions are made for any war-related activities or anything that "would result immediately in the degradation of readiness standards" for troops in Iraq or those slated for deployment.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the Democrats' stance "disturbing" and all but dared Reid to cut off funding for the war.

"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to de-fund the war," she said.

Reid has left that possibility open. The majority leader supports separate legislation that would cut off funding for combat missions after March 2008. The proposal would allow money to be spent on such efforts as counterterrorism and training Iraqi security forces.

Reid and other Democrats were initially reluctant to discuss such draconian measures to end the war, but no longer.

"I'm not sure much is impossible legislatively," Reid said Thursday. "The American people have indicated . . . that they are fed up with what's going on."

Gilded Once More, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

One of the distinctive features of the modern American right has been nostalgia for the late 19th century, with its minimal taxation, absence of regulation and reliance on faith-based charity rather than government social programs. Conservatives from Milton Friedman to Grover Norquist have portrayed the Gilded Age as a golden age, dismissing talk of the era’s injustice and cruelty as a left-wing myth.

Well, in at least one respect, everything old is new again. Income inequality — which began rising at the same time that modern conservatism began gaining political power — is now fully back to Gilded Age levels.

Consider a head-to-head comparison. We know what John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in Gilded Age America, made in 1894, because ... he had to pay income taxes. ... His return declared an income of $1.25 million, almost 7,000 times the average per capita income ... at the time.

But that makes him a mere piker by modern standards. Last year, ... James Simons, a hedge fund manager, took home $1.7 billion, more than 38,000 times the average income..., and the top 25 combined made $14 billion. ...

The hedge fund billionaires are simply extreme examples of a much bigger phenomenon: every available measure of income concentration shows ... levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s. The new Gilded Age doesn’t feel quite as harsh and unjust as the old Gilded Age — not yet, anyway. But that’s because the effects of inequality are still moderated by progressive income taxes, which fall more heavily on the rich...; by estate taxation, which limits the inheritance of great wealth; and by social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which provide a safety net for the less fortunate.

You might have thought that in the face of growing inequality, there would have been a move to reinforce these moderating institutions — to raise taxes on the rich and use the money to strengthen the safety net. ...

But... Taxation has become much less progressive: ... average tax rates on the richest 0.01 percent ... have been cut in half since 1970, while taxes on the middle class have risen. In particular, the unearned income of the wealthy — dividends and capital gains — is now taxed at a lower rate than the earned income of most middle-class families. ...

Meanwhile, the tax-cut bill Congress passed in 2001 set in motion a complete phaseout of the estate tax. If the Bush administration hadn’t been too clever by half, hiding the true cost of its tax cuts by making the whole package expire at the end of 2010, we’d be well on our way toward becoming a dynastic society.

And as for the social insurance programs..., the Bush administration tried to privatize Social Security. If it had succeeded, Medicare would have been next.

Of course, the administration’s attempt to undo Social Security was a notable failure. The public, it seems, isn’t eager to return to the days before the New Deal. And the G.O.P.’s defeat in the midterm election has put on hold other plans to restore the good old days.

But it’s much too soon to declare the march toward a new Gilded Age over. If history is any guide, one of these days we’ll see the emergence of a new Progressive Era, maybe even a new New Deal. But it may be a long wait.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Hallelujah Nuns Chorus on YouTube

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

More Stupidity:
  • Credit cards: issuers are rewarded more when people misuse credit cards - by paying late, by missing a payment, by taking cash out of an acccount, etc.

  • Insurance: the insured want the service provided by their coverage; but they pay the insurance companies for their claim of risk for providing the service

  • Tits: women complain that men stare at their bosoms and are nutty about tits; yet most of the "fashion" magazines in the grocery store have covers with breasts prominently displayed, whereas the men's magazines have cars, boats, animals, and almost anything but tits.

  • Disaffected Republicans: only seem to have acquired a dislike of Pres. Bush since the mid-term elections. The preceeding six years doesn't seem to concern them.

  • Student murder: everyone has, or knows a student, so the VT massacre talks to them...a whole lot less people know anyone in the military, so they can easily ration their caring...giving to the former, ignoring the latter.

  • Giving: ever notice how difficult it is to give something of value away to an agency without being hounded for additional donations years afterward.

A hostage situation

PRINCETON, New Jersey: There are two ways to describe the confrontation between the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it's a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President George W. Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders - the troops - if his demands aren't met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: By a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.

But this isn't a normal political dispute. Bush isn't really trying to win the argument on the merits. He's just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

What's at stake right now is the latest Iraq "supplemental." Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: "Whoops! Whaddya know, we're running out of money. Give us another $87 billion."

At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he's broke and needs extra cash.

What I haven't seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm's way without first ensuring that they'll have the necessary resources.

As long as a Republican-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration's requests, you could say that this wasn't a real problem, that the administration's refusal to put Iraq funding in the regular budget was just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war - and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it's an act of hostage-taking.

Actually, it's even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill Congress will send won't even set a hard deadline for withdrawal. It will include only an "advisory," nonbinding date. Yet Bush plans to veto the bill all the same - and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said, in his great Cooper Union speech in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"'

So how should Congress respond to Bush's threats?

Everyone talks about the political risks of confrontation, recalling the backlash when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. But there's a big difference between trying to force a fairly popular president to accept deep cuts in Medicare - which is what the 1995 confrontation was about - and trying to get a deeply unpopular, distrusted president to set some limits on an immensely unpopular war.

Meanwhile, there are big political risks on the other side. If Congress responds to a presidential veto by offering an even weaker bill, voters may well react with disgust, concluding that the whole debate over the war was nothing but political theater.

Anyway, never mind the political calculations. Confronting Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.

The fact is that Bush's refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, America is already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq - now extended to 15 months - are breaking the back of the volunteer military.

If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months - 21 months! - Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

E-Scrap 2007 to be held in Atlanta

E-Scrap 2007: The North American Electronics Recycling Conference will be held October 24-25, 2007 in Atlanta.

The Hyatt Regency Atlanta will be bustling with e-scrap industry leaders and experts attending extensive and detailed industry assessments, including analyses of stewardship systems and trends in the U.S. and Canada, e-scrap collection issues, recycling market factors, and legislative and policy considerations.
In addition to the info sessions, E-Scrap 2007 will feature a tradeshow showcasing the latest innovations and service offerings from firms providing e-scrap equipment and processing systems, as well as firms providing reclamation opportunities, consulting services and markets for e-scrap materials.
For more information, contact Cara Bergeson, Conference Manager, at (503) 233-1305 or via email at cara@resource-recycling.com.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

PC sales slow, portable sales grow

Market analysts Gartner, Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut) and International Data Corporation (Framingham, Massachusetts) released reports this week, showing strong growth for laptops and slowing growth for desktop PCs.

Overall, PC sales rose 8.9 percent worldwide to 67 million units in the Gartner report and by 10.9 percent to 58.9 million units in the IDC report, noting that HP (Palo Alto, California) continues to top Dell (Round Rock, Texas) in sales. IDC also noted the growth was stronger in the portable PC and consumer markets than in commercial markets.

The IDC report says that the demand for mobile PCs, such as laptops and ultraportable PCs, as well as consumer PCs, drove growth in the first quarter, as did the the release of Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system.

In a report released in March, IDC claimed that notebook computer sales will overtake desktop PCs by 2011 with global notebook sales growing by 26 percent in the last calendar year, while desktop sales grew by just two percent.

Why We Can't Wait, by James Hansen, The Nation:

There's a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known ... by ... the public and policy-makers...

The only way we are going to prevent having an amount of CO2 that is far beyond the dangerous level is by putting a price on emissions. ... But a price on carbon emissions is not enough, which brings us to the third recommendation: We need energy-efficiency standards.

{My} final recommendation concerns how we have gotten into this situation in which there is a gap between what the relevant scientific community understands and what the public and policy-makers know. A fundamental premise of democracy is that the public is informed and that they're honestly informed. There are at least two major ways in which this is not happening. One of them is that the public affairs offices of the science agencies are staffed at the headquarters level by political appointees. ...

Another matter is Congressional testimony. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution expected that when a government employee--a technical government employee--reports to Congress, his testimony would have to be approved and edited by the White House first. But that is the way it works now. And frankly, I'm afraid it works that way whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican one.

These problems are worse now than I've seen in my thirty years in government. But they're not new. I don't know anything in our Constitution that says that the executive branch should filter scientific information going to Congressional committees. Reform of communication practices is needed if our government is to function the way our Founders intended it to work.

The global warming problem has brought into focus an overall problem: the pervasive influence of special interests on the functioning of our government and on communications with the public. It seems to me that it will be difficult to solve the global warming problem until we have effective campaign finance reform, so that special interests no longer have such a big influence on policy-makers.

The Plot Against Medicare, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

The plot against Social Security failed: President Bush’s attempt to privatize the system crashed and burned when the public realized what he was up to. But the plot against Medicare is faring better: the stealth privatization embedded in the Medicare Modernization Act, which Congress literally passed in the dead of night back in 2003, is proceeding apace.

Worse yet, the forces behind privatization not only continue to have the G.O.P. in their pocket, but they have also been finding useful idiots within the newly powerful Democratic coalition. ... There’s no nice way to say it: the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens have become patsies for the insurance industry.

To appreciate what’s going on, you need to know what has been happening to Medicare... The 2003 Medicare legislation created Part D, the drug benefit for seniors... Medicare, Part D isn’t provided directly by the government..., you can get it only through a private ... insurance company. At the same time, the bill sharply increased payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which also funnel Medicare funds through insurance companies.

As a result, Medicare — originally a system in which the government paid people’s medical bills — is becoming, instead, a system in which the government pays the insurance industry to provide coverage. And a lot of the money never makes it to the people Medicare is supposed to help.

In the case of the drug benefit, the private drug plans add an extra, costly layer of bureaucracy. Worse..., they have much less ability to bargain for lower drug prices than government programs like Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration. ...

Meanwhile, those Medicare Advantage plans cost taxpayers 12 percent more per recipient than standard Medicare. In the next five years that subsidy will cost more than ... it would cost to provide all children ... with health insurance. ...

With the Democratic victory..., you might have expected these things to change. But the political news over the last few days has been grim.

First, the Senate failed to end debate on a bill — in effect, killing it — that would have allowed Medicare to negotiate over drug prices. ...[I]n spite of overwhelming public support..., 42 senators, all Republicans, voted no...

If we can’t even establish the principle of negotiation, a true repair of the damage done in 2003 ... seems politically far out of reach.

At the same time, attempts to rein in those Medicare Advantage payments seem to be running aground. Everyone knew that reducing payments would be politically tough. What comes as a bitter surprise is the fact that minority advocacy groups are now part of the problem, with both the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens sending letters to Congressional leaders opposing plans to scale back the subsidy.

What seems to have happened is that both groups have been taken in by insurance industry disinformation, which falsely claims that minorities benefit disproportionately from this subsidy. It’s a claim that has been thoroughly debunked...— but apparently the truth isn’t getting through.

Public opinion is strongly in favor of universal health care, and for good reason: fear of losing health insurance has become a constant anxiety of the middle class. Yet even as we talk about guaranteeing insurance to all, privatization is undermining Medicare — and people who should know better are aiding and abetting the process.

Wolfowitz Scandal Takes Bank Hypocrisy to New Heights

Sameer Dossani | April 20, 2007

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco, IPS

Foreign Policy In Focus

Wolfowitz wants to stay put but it’s hard to believe he can weather this storm of his own making

Over the years, the World Bank’s hypocrisy has been so extreme as to be taken for granted. The ironies of talking about ending global poverty, interest rates and export policies while staying at five-star hotels and attending lavishly catered meetings do get a bit tiresome for Bank-watchers like me to keep pointing out. But the latest developments involving World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz and his former partner, Shaha Riza, take this everyday hypocrisy to new heights.

When Paul Wolfowitz was appointed to head the World Bank group in 2005, he faced a problem. No, his problem was not that he would be facing the repercussions of his disingenuous arguments in favor of the illegal invasion of Iraq when he was in the State Department. Nor was his problem that other countries were opposing the appointment of a leading U.S. neoconservative close the Bush administration with no development experience to what is arguably the most important position in development financing. Rather, Wolfowitz’s problem was that others knew about his relationship with Shaha Riza, a World Bank employee. According to World Bank policies, your boss cannot be your lover.

Seconded

When the World Bank board ethics committee met to discuss the issue, they recommended that Riza be “seconded” to somewhere else. In other words the World Bank would continue to pay her tax-exempt salary but she would work for another organization. Within a few months, she was working at the U.S. State Department.

All of this has been public information for years. What has not been public is the fact that just prior to Riza’s departure to the State Department, Wolfowitz himself authorized a significant pay raise – roughly $40,000 – for her. Combined with another raise, Riza now receives a salary of $193,000 per year. That’s more than the $186,600. her current boss, Condoleezza Rice earns before taxes. And, it’s the equivalent of about $270,000 if she were not to enjoy the ludicrous World Bank privilege of tax-free status.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not World Bank employees should continue to receive outrageous perks including tax-free income, subsidized education for children and so on, the conflict of interest and nepotism are so glaring in this case, that even restrained foreign government officials and media are demanding that something be done.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Free Disk Wipe - Data Shredding Software available online:
Thank you for your interest in the the CBL Data Shredder program.
To download your free copy please click on the following link:

WINDOWS Version http://www.cbltech.com/software/downloads/CBL_Data_Shredder-XP-en.zip
DOS version http://www.cbltech.com/software/downloads/CBL_Data_Shredder-DOS-en.zip (bootable floppy disc maker)
DOS version http://www.cbltech.com/software/downloads/CBL_Data_Shredder-DOS-CDR-IMAGE-en.zip (CD-ROM ISO for burning a bootable cd)

Monday, April 16, 2007

BEEN TELLING EVERYONE THESE FACTS FOR AT LEAST 3 STRAIGHT YEARS:

"A promotional spot for the National Association of Realtors came on the radio the other day. The spot, introduced as something called "Newsmakers," was supposed to sound like a news report, with the association's president offering real estate advice.

"This is the best time to buy," Pat Vredevoogd Combs, the president, said cheerfully. "There's a lot of inventory in the marketplace. Interest rates are low. It's a wonderful tax deduction."

By the Realtors' way of thinking, it's always a good time to buy. Homeownership, they argue, is a way to achieve the American dream, save on taxes and earn a solid investment return all at the same time.

That's how it has worked out for much of the last 15 years. But in a stark reversal, it's now clear that people who chose renting over buying in the last two years made the right move. In much of the country, including large parts of the Northeast, California, Florida and the Southwest, recent home buyers have faced higher monthly costs than renters and have lost money on their investment in the meantime. It's almost as if they have thrown money away, an insult once reserved for renters.

Most striking, perhaps, is the fact that prices may not yet have fallen far enough for buying to look better than renting today, except for people who plan to stay in a home for many years.

With the spring moving season under way, The New York Times has done an analysis of buying vs. renting in every major metropolitan area. The analysis includes data on housing costs and looks at different possibilities for the path of home prices in coming years.

It found that even though rents have recently jumped, the costs that come with buying a home — mortgage payments, property taxes, fees to real estate agents — remain a lot higher than the costs of renting. So buyers in many places are basically betting that home prices will rise smartly in the near future.

Over the next five years, which is about the average amount of time recent buyers have remained in their homes, prices in the Los Angeles area would have to rise more than 5 percent a year for a typical buyer there to do better than a renter. The same is true in Phoenix, Las Vegas, the New York region, Northern California and South Florida. In the Boston and Washington areas, the break-even point is about 4 percent.

"House prices have to fall more before housing becomes a clear buy again," says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, a research company that helped conduct the analysis. "These markets aren't as overvalued as they were a year ago or two years ago, but they're still unfriendly. And that's one of the reasons the market is still soft — people realize it's not a bargain."

There is obviously no way to know what home prices will do in the next few years. But there are two big reasons to doubt the real estate boosters who insist that it's once again a great time to buy.

The first is history. After the last big run-up in house prices, in the 1980s, a long slump followed. In the New York area, prices peaked in early 1989 and then fell 9 percent over the next three years, according to government data. (Adjusted for inflation, the drop was much bigger.) Not until 1998 did prices pass their earlier peak.

Keep in mind that the 2000-5 boom was even bigger than the '80s boom and that house prices on the coasts, according to the official numbers at least, have fallen only slightly so far. So it is hard to imagine that prices will rise 5 percent a year, or another 28 percent in all, over the next five years.

The second reason for skepticism is that buying has never been quite as beneficial as Realtors — and mortgage brokers, home builders and everybody else who makes money off home purchases — have made it out to be. Buyers have to pay property taxes on top of their mortgage, while renters have the taxes included in their monthly rent bill. Buyers also face thousands of dollars in closing costs (and, in Manhattan, co-op charges). Renters, meanwhile, can invest what they would have spent on closing costs and a down payment in the stock market, which hasn't exactly delivered a bad return over the last 20 years.

And that famous mortgage-interest tax deduction? Yes, it reduces the borrowing costs that come with a mortgage, but it doesn't eliminate them. Renters don't face any such borrowing costs."

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Mystery Commentator: Guess Who...

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have."

From the book: Where Have All the Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | April 06, 2007
It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.

The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up, by Robert Frank, Economic Scene, NY Times:

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” The same logic explains the call by John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, for higher taxes on top earners to underwrite ... universal health coverage.

Providing universal coverage will be expensive. With the median wage, adjusted for inflation, lower now than in 1980, most middle-class families cannot afford additional taxes. In contrast, the top tenth of 1 percent of earners today make about four times as much as in 1980, while those higher up have enjoyed even larger gains. ... In short, top earners are where the money is. Universal health coverage cannot happen unless they pay higher taxes.

Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth. ... On close examination, however, this claim is supported neither by economic theory nor by empirical evidence.

The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the ... belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less... As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.

If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal. If lower real wages induce people to work shorter hours, then the opposite should be true when real wages increase. According to trickle-down theory, then, the cumulative effect of the last century’s sharp rise in real wages should have been a significant increase in hours worked. In fact, however, the workweek is much shorter now than in 1900.

Trickle-down theory also predicts shorter workweeks in countries with lower real after-tax pay rates. Yet here, too, the numbers tell a different story. ...

Trickle-down theory also predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet ... researchers ... find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising.

The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. ... Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

The trickle-down theorist’s view of the world ... bears little resemblance to reality. In the 1950s, American executives earned far lower salaries and faced substantially higher marginal tax rates... Yet most of them competed energetically for higher rungs on the corporate ladder. The claim that slightly higher tax rates would cause today’s executives to abandon that quest is simply not credible.

In the United States, trickle-down theory’s insistence that a more progressive tax structure would compromise economic growth has long blocked attempts to provide valued public services. Thus, although every other industrial country provides universal health coverage, trickle-down theorists insist that the wealthiest country on earth cannot afford to do so. Elizabeth Edwards faces her battle with cancer with the full support of the world’s most advanced medical system, yet millions of other Americans face similar battles without even minimal access to that system.

Low- and middle-income families are not the only ones who have been harmed by our inability to provide valued public services. For example, rich and poor alike would benefit from an expansion of the Energy Department’s program to secure stockpiles of nuclear materials that remain poorly guarded in the former Soviet Union. Instead, the Bush administration has cut this program, even as terrorists actively seek to acquire nuclear weaponry.

The rich are where the money is. Many top earners would willingly pay higher taxes for public services that promise high value. Yet trickle-down theory, which is supported neither by theory nor evidence, continues to stand in the way. This theory is ripe for abandonment.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Another Episode of Interjecting Private Enterprise into Federal Systems

The Real Scandal of Student Loans, by Robert Reich: The emerging scandal over student loans – and financial aid administrators that have cozy relationships with lenders – is only the tip of a scandalous iceberg.

Consider: The Federal government subsidizes college loans in two different ways, giving colleges and universities the option of which way to go.

The first way is for the federal government to lend students the money directly. ... The alternative is for the federal government to subsidize student loans indirectly by guaranteeing banks and other private lenders that if a student doesn’t repay the loan, the government will. The government also gives banks and private lenders additional subsidies to ensure they get a profitable return on any student loan they make.

Obviously, this second alternative is a great deal for ... lenders. Hey, a guaranteed return on a no-risk loan! But it’s a lousy deal for American taxpayers. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, taxpayers pay about $7 more for every $100 lent by the private lenders than they do on direct government loans.

That amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars each year ... that could be saved if the direct loan program was the only program. Billions of savings that could be put, for example, into Pell Grants for needy students.

So here’s the multi-billion-dollar question. Why does the federal government continue to provide colleges and universities the option of going with the more expensive program when the government can offer direct loans more cheaply? Why is it that some fifteen years after the direct student loan program was first established, more than three-quarters of student loans still come through the more expensive system?

Let me hazard a guess. Because the banks and other private lenders have enormous political clout in Washington. They also have clout within colleges and universities.

This is the real scandal of student loans, and it’s got to stop. There’s no good reason for the federal government to waste taxpayer money by subsidizing banks and other private lenders when government direct loans are cheaper.

A Modest Proposal:

Enlisting Iraqis to rebuild their country, by Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Commentary, Boston Globe: Four years, more than 26,600 American casualties, more than 100,00 Iraqi casualties, 2 million refugees, and $410 billion later, large parts of Iraq and a vast majority of Iraqis are stuck in an unmitigated hell, with no end in sight. The routine massacres of scores of innocent people, the bombings of schools, hospitals, mosques, and universities, the grizzly tortures, and now the gas attacks and use of children as bomb delivery systems are resulting in the mutual assured destruction of the Iraqi people.

If Iraqis are engaged in competitive genocide, the United States is engaged in staticide -- the maintenance of a suicidal status quo. The United States has not committed and will never commit enough troops to achieve security given its tactics.

Many Americans and Iraqis suspect that the presence of US soliders is making the security situation worse and exacerbating whatever carnage our inevitable departure will engender. This is why the majority of both Americans and Iraqis think it's time for the United States to withdraw.

In the meantime, the Iraqi government should implement a policy that will put an end to its Armageddon.

The Iraqi government should institute a draft of all Iraqi men between the ages of 18 and 35. This is the demographic most responsible for the violence. The removal of these 3 million men from the cities and countryside to army barracks would likely bring an immediate end to Iraq's horrific nightmare. Any men older than 35 suspected of involvement in terrorist or insurgent acts would also be enlisted...

The role of the enlarged Iraqi army would not involve bearing arms or training in the use of arms. Rather the role would be to reconstruct the country. All army units would be assigned specific reconstruction tasks and be jointly commanded by a Shia, a Sunni, and a Kurd who would make unanimous decisions. If any threesome can't agree, they would be replaced by a threesome that can.

Inductees would be taught the skills needed for their assigned reconstruction tasks..., and learn respect for diversity and human rights. They would be paid well, by the United States, for their national service. Annual per capita income in Iraq is now roughly $3,000. ...

Were the United States to pay 3 million Iraqi soldiers $10,000 yearly, the bill would be $30 billion. This is a small amount relative to the savings it would accrue from leaving the country. It would also make service in the Iraqi army highly desirable...

Eventually, the country's oil revenue would be used to cover these premium payments to Iraqi soldiers and provide a precedent for distributing oil revenues directly to Iraqis -- something that is long overdue and would eliminate much of the basis for the sectarian violence. ...

Instituting a draft is hardly a radical proposal. Scores of countries, including many in the region, have compulsory military service.

Enlisting young Iraqi men to rebuild their country would permit Iraqi children to attend school in safety, let the country rebuild its infrastructure, and let Iraqi women and older men work, shop, and pray in peace. And it would let the US military leave Iraq with a real sense of mission accomplished.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

There is just no end to the multiple avenues of disinformation we are subject to now:

A front page New York Times story tells us that some boldface names in the blogosphere are talking about

"creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about. Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself."
Makes you wonder what it would be like if the mainstream media voluntarily agreed to its own set of principles, accompanied by corresponding badges of approval.

HE SAID/SHE SAID: Story contains pairs of contradictory quotes with no indication of which side is factual and which side is gaming the system via disinformation.

DRUDGE MATCH: Story assigned because a GOP talking point planted in Drudge convinced an editor or producer that it had to be covered.

LIES 'R' NOT US: No matter what outrageous falsehoods were uttered by a source in this story, the words "lie" or "liar" do not appear.

FRAME GAME: Story uses terms like "slow bleed strategy," "nuclear option," "death tax," "pro-life" etc. as though they were neutral descriptors rather than GOP coinages.

[SIC] JOKE: Front groups like "Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse," "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," "Americans for Sensible Estate Tax Solutions," "Alliance for Better Medicare," "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," etc. are cited in this story without the use of [sic] after their names.

FAKE THINK TANK
: Story quotes the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and other corporate-sponsored GOP meme factories as if they were legitimate scholarly research centers.

FALSE EQUIVALENCE
: Story "balances" an inflammatory Heritage Foundation press release with a dull Brookings Institution report, as though a centrist scholarly analysis were the lefty equivalent of a radical right-wing screed. On a talk show, Orrin Hatch is "balanced" by Joe Lieberman.

ACCESS ALL AREAS
: Story grants anonymity to an official source whose purpose is to defame a political opponent or selectively leak misleading classified information.

SOME SAY: Attempts by operatives and apparachiks to plant defamatory stories are laundered as routine reporting on inside buzz, Beltway rumors and Georgetown dinner party anecdotes.

THAT'S OLD NEWS
: Previous inadequate reporting is used as a justification not to revisit an important story when significant new information surfaces.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT
: A high-stakes moral battle in the public sphere is covered as if it were a theatrical performance with no consequences for ordinary people and no stakes for American democracy.

EYE CANDY ALERT
: Because news is now a profit center in corporate conglomerates, this story about Anna Nicole Smith [Sanjaya, the Runaway Bride, etc.] is taking up valuable news-hole real estate that might otherwise be devoted to covering the occupation of the United States by an army of religious zealots and incompetent ideologues determined to destroy confidence in government, eradicate civil liberties, squelch dissent, transfer wealth from the middle to the top, establish an oil empire in the Middle East, and amuse the American population to death.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Trinity UCC & The Far Right Attack Campaign: (Several Views)
<------------------------------------->
From Martin Marty's latest column in "Sightings"
"In 2000 I was in Chicago for an Ecunet Board meeting and the RCC(Religious Communicators Conference) meeting. That Sunday Pam Webb and I attended worship at Trinity UCC and it was one of the most fabulous experiences I've had. We were SO warmly welcomed! The ushers took us to a pew & introduced us to the people sitting around us and they made sure we felt comfortable and included throughout the service. I think the service lasted about 2 hours, but I never even noticed the time! I went home and told my congregation that Trinity's choir was bigger than
our whole membership!!!!

Why does being in politics mean everything in your life gets dragged
through the mud?"
<------------------------------------->
Obama: America needs to hear more-moderate, more-inclusive religious voices



Ryan Beiler photo

By Barb Powell - UC News
Aug - Sept 06

More-moderate religious perspectives "do not have voice" within the media, says U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and it's something he's working to change.

"I think it is unfortunate any time the media does not accurately portray the true beliefs of the American people," Obama, a member of Trinity UCC in Chicago, told United Church News. "There are millions of religious Americans who are offended when their faith is used as a tool to attack and divide, and who see a positive role for the church in solving both social and moral problems.

"To the extent that media programmers do not give voice to these Americans, I am disappointed and hopeful of change."

Interviewed on June 28 on the heels of a major address on the connection between religion and politics at the "Pentecost 2006: Building a Covenant for a New America" gathering in Washington, D.C., Obama cited the welcome he received by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the teachings of the UCC as an important underlying factor in his public service.

"Just as my pastor welcomed me as a young man years ago, UCC churches across the country open their doors to millions of Americans each Sunday, and they accept, love and counsel all who enter," Obama said. "This spirit of inclusiveness has served as a model for me in my time in the Senate, and the love for one's fellow man that the UCC stands for is the foundation of my work."

Reconciling faith and pluralism

Obama used his speech at the Pentecost 2006 event — sponsored by Sojourners / Call to Renewal — to call for continued dialogue and bridge-building between religious conservatives and progressives, reminding his audience that each had work to do to achieve meaningful discourse.

Obama spoke of his own faith story, and likened his path to becoming a member of Trinity UCC to that trod by "millions upon millions of Americans."

"It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values," Obama said. "And that is why, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at — to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own … we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."

"I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy," said Obama. "… If we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway."

After Obama's speech, the crowd of about 500 gave Obama a standing ovation.

Jim Wallis, Sojourner's editor-in-chief and host of the event, took the stage following Obama's speech. "I hope you realize what you've heard here," Wallis told the audience. "This will be an address that will be quoted for years to come."

Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund and a speaker at the conference, described Obama's address as "very, very, very thoughtful."

Respectful, fair-minded dialogue

Obama told United Church News that religious principles can be drawn upon to help shape both national security and social justice concerns.

"I believe that democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values," Obama said. "Social justice and national security are both universal values, values that may originate for some in their religious beliefs, but are shared by us all."

"I think it is up to individual pastors and faith leaders to help guide religious Americans in prioritizing what is in their own holy books," he added. "But when these priorities come to the Senate floor, I can tell you that the universal values of both security and justice for all motivate my work."

During his speech, Obama said dialogue must continue between all people of faith, but United Church News later asked Obama how one knows when dialogue is no longer fruitful and when we must — as Jesus said — "shake the dust from our feet."

"In the political arena, there is almost always time for dialogue," Obama replied. "Even if you've lost on a given issue, it will likely come up again in the future. So I'm always open to engage with others, even those who disagree with my positions, as long as the dialogue remains fair-minded and respectful."

"When it strays from those principles," he concluded, "there may have to be a little 'dust-shaking.'"

<------------------------------------->

JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama's school Video)

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."

Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.

The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs. (Watch how the Obama "gossip" spread Video)

<------------------------------------->

As a member of the United Church of Christ, Obama's denomination, I reject the remarks made by Ms. Eaton and then echoed by pundit Tucker Carlson.

If anything, the UCC - which includes Obama's church - is one of the most inclusive Christian denominations out there; everyone is welcome.

I'm a little suspect about the objectivity of this article, seeing as Ms. Eaton just happens to be a former worker from the Alan Keyes campaign against Barack Obama for Senate in 2004. It sounds to me that she mashed her sour grapes into a bitter-tasting wine of distortions.

The remarks that Ms. Eaton made and Mr. Carlson echoed, stating that Obama's church - my denomination - the United Church of Christ, is "Anti-Christian" is severely flawed.

First, I would like to know what Ms. Eaton and Mr. Carlson consider "Christian". For them to consider something "Christian" does it have to be their version of Christianity? Is it only "Christian" to them if it falls directly in-line with their theology, their doctrine, their denomination? If that's the case (and it certainly appears to be), what does that say for fellow Christian believers outside of their denomination? Are Methodists "Anti-Christian"? Are Epsicopalians "Anti-Christian"? Are Presbyterians "Anti-Christian"?

I can recall another spokesman who defined Christianity in such a narrow and exclusivist way, stating that any denomination that didn't fall in line with his theology was "the work of the Anti-Christ." That spokesman was televangelist, and regular espouser of inane comments, Pat Robertson.

Perhaps Fran Eaton and Tucker Carlson should refrain from talking about a denomination they obviously know nothing about.

A final thought:

Barack Obama often refers to his Christian church in interviews and is proud of his faith. Are the statements of Fran Eaton and Tucker Carlson not somehow "Anti-Christian" in and of themselves?

I would encourage Ms. Eaton to be a little more responsible in her journalism. I would also encourage Mr. Carlson to be a little more responsible in searching for credible sources and "news" to report.

But many of us have been waiting for Mr. Carlson to be a responsible pundit for quite some time. Slander and anger-mongering seem to be his forte.

As for Fran Eaton, judging from her past employment in the Alan Keyes campaign against Barack Obama and her blatant errors regarding the UCC, it is obvious she has an axe to grind. It is even more evident that she has little regard for honesty and integrity while grinding that proverbial axe.


Thursday, April 05, 2007


Single; but looking?


Recycling: Yes and No

Subject: Couples Golf
{Courtesy of Paul Ward @ Lake Arrowhead}

A husband reluctantly agreed to play in the couples' alternate shot tournament at his club. He teed off on the first hole, a par four, and blistered a drive 300 yards down the middle of the fairway.

Upon reaching the ball, the husband said to his wife, "Just hit it toward the green, anywhere around there will be fine." The wife proceeded to shank the ball deep into the woods.

Undaunted, the husband said "That's OK, Sweetheart" and spent the full five minutes looking for the ball. He found it just in time, but in a horrible position. He played the shot of his life to get the ball within two feet of the hole. He told his wife to knock the ball in. His wife then proceeded to knock the ball off the green and into a bunker.

Still maintaining composure, the husband summoned all of his skill and holed the shot from the bunker. He took the ball out of the hole and, while walking off the green, put his arm around his wife and calmly said, "Honey,that was a bogey, and that's OK, but I think we can do better on the next hole."

To which she replied, "Listen a.......e don't bitch at me, only 2 of those 5 shots were mine."

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The Authoritarians
- a free PDF book by Prof. Robert Altemeyer available here

"But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office. That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Wiemar Republic and became the Fuhrer. So we need to understand the people out there doing the wave. Ultimately the problem lay in the followers."

Monday, April 02, 2007

Distract and Disenfranchise, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

I have a theory about the Bush administration abuses of power that are now, finally, coming to light. Ultimately, I believe, they were driven by rising income inequality.

Let me explain.

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the White House, conservative ideas appealed to ... Americans ..., we were truly a middle-class nation. To white voters, at least, the vast inequalities and social injustices of the past, which ... gave liberalism its appeal, seemed like ancient history. It was easy, in that nation, to convince many voters that Big Government was their enemy, that they were being taxed to provide social programs for other people.

Since then, however, we have once again become a deeply unequal society. ... The gap between the rich and the middle class is as wide now as it was in the 1920s... And voters realize that society has changed. .... They ... know that wages aren’t going anywhere...

But today’s Republicans can’t respond in any meaningful way to rising inequality, because their activists won’t let them. You could see the dilemma just this past Friday and Saturday, when almost all the G.O.P. presidential hopefuls traveled to Palm Beach to make obeisance to the Club for Growth, a supply-side pressure group dedicated to tax cuts and privatization.

The Republican Party’s adherence to an outdated ideology leaves it with big problems. It can’t offer domestic policies that respond to the public’s real needs. So how can it win elections?

The answer, for a while, was a combination of distraction and disenfranchisement.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were themselves a massive, providential distraction... And they offered many opportunities for further distractions. Rather than debating Democrats on the issues, the G.O.P. could denounce them as soft on terror. And do you remember the terror alert, based on old and questionable information, ... right after the 2004 Democratic National Convention?

But distraction can only go so far. So the other tool was disenfranchisement: finding ways to keep poor people, who tend to vote for the party that might actually do something about inequality, out of the voting booth.

Remember that disenfranchisement in the form of the 2000 Florida “felon purge,” which struck many legitimate voters from the rolls, put Mr. Bush in the White House in the first place. And disenfranchisement seems to be what much of the politicization of the Justice Department was about.

Several of the fired U.S. attorneys were under pressure to pursue allegations of voter fraud — a phrase that has become almost synonymous with “voting while black.” Former staff members of the Justice Department’s civil rights division say that they were repeatedly overruled when they objected to Republican actions, ranging from Georgia’s voter ID law to Tom DeLay’s Texas redistricting, that they believed would effectively disenfranchise African-American voters.

The good news is that all the G.O.P.’s abuses of power weren’t enough to win the 2006 elections. And 2008 may be even harder for the Republicans, because the Democrats — who spent most of the Clinton years trying to reassure rich people and corporations that they weren’t really populists — seem to be realizing that times have changed.

A week before the Republican candidates trooped to Palm Beach to declare their allegiance to tax cuts, the Democrats met to declare their commitment to universal health care. And it’s hard to see what the G.O.P. can offer in response.

Windows animated cursor flaw--150 sites infected
By Robert Vamosi, ZDNet Reviews
Published on ZDNet News: April 2, 2007, 6:30 AM PT

    There's a new Microsoft Windows vulnerability being exploited across the Internet on over 150 Web sites. The vulnerability is caused by an unspecified error in the way Windows 2000, XP, and Vista handles animated cursors.

    Animated cursors allow a mouse pointer to appear animated on a Web site. The feature is often designated by the .ani suffix, but attacks for this vulnerability are not constrained by this file type so simply blocking .ani files won't necessarily protect a PC. Successful exploitation can result in memory corruption when processing cursors, animated cursors, and icons. To become infected, users must be using Internet Explorer 6 or 7; there is no need to click, just visiting an infected site is enough for an infection. The flaw does not affect Firefox or Opera Internet Browsers. Microsoft will release a patch on April 3, 2007.

    Until a patch is released, users should browse the Internet using a non-Internet Explorer browser.

    Additional Resources

    Microsoft: Advisory 935423

    NIST: CVE-2007-0038

    Sunday, April 01, 2007

    Progression: We Hope Not !!
    The U.S.S. Maine - Gulf of Tonkin Incident - Iranian/Royal Navy Seizure

    China's Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris Cloud Circles Earth
    By Leonard David
    Senior Space Writer
    posted: 2 February 2007
    1:39 pm. ET

    The flotsam created by China’s anti-satellite test last month is on the radar screens of space debris analysts, as well as space policy experts.

    The intentional destruction on Jan. 11 of China’s Fengyun-1C weather satellite via an anti-satellite (ASAT) device launched by the Chinese has created a mess of fragments fluttering through space.

    The satellite’s destruction is now being viewed as the most prolific and severe fragmentation in the course of five decades of space operations.

    Lobbed into space atop a ballistic missile, the ASAT destroyed the weather-watching satellite that had been orbiting Earth since May 10, 1999 [image]. The result was littering Earth orbit with hundreds upon hundreds of various sizes of shrapnel.

    Debris cloud

    NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office at the Johnson Space Center is now at liberty to discuss the characteristics and consequences of the debris cloud created by the fragmentation of the Fengyun-1C spacecraft.

    As of today, the U.S. military’s Space Surveillance Network has cataloged nearly 600 debris fragments, according to NASA’s Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the space agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

    However, more than 300 additional fragments are also being tracked, bringing it to a total of more than 900 bits of clutter. “These will be cataloged in due course,” Johnson added.

    “The total count of tracked objects could go even higher. Based upon the mass of Fengyun-1C and the conditions of the breakup, the standard NASA model for estimating the number of objects greater than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in size predicts a total about 950 such debris,” Johnson advised SPACE.com.

    Most prolific and serious fragmentation

    Johnson said that the debris cloud extends from less than 125 miles (200 kilometers) to more than 2,292 miles (3,850 kilometers), encompassing all of low Earth orbit. The majority of the debris have mean altitudes of 528 miles (850 kilometers) or greater, “which means most will be very long-lived,” he said.

    The number of smaller orbital debris from this breakup is much higher than the 900-plus being tracked. NASA estimates that the number of debris larger than 1 centimeter is greater than 35,000 bits of riff-raff.

    “Any of these debris has the potential for seriously disrupting or terminating the mission of operational spacecraft in low Earth orbit,” Johnson pointed out. “This satellite breakup represents the most prolific and serious fragmentation in the course of 50 years of space operations,” he said.

    Also put in harm’s way by the rain of junk from the Chinese ASAT test is the International Space Station (ISS).

    “The collision risk between the Fengyun-1C debris cloud and the International Space Station peaked shortly after the breakup and has been declining since. The risk of collisions between ISS and hazardous objects in Earth orbit is now once again dominated by the background debris population existing prior to the breakup of Fengyun-1C,” Johnson said.

    Collision of coincidences

    Last year’s signing by U.S. President George W. Bush of a new U.S. National Space Policy addressed the topic of orbital debris. The document flagged the progress made both nationally and internationally regarding proliferation of orbital debris over the past decade – but also underscored the worrisome nature of space junk.

    “Orbital debris poses a risk to continued reliable use of space-based services and operations and to the safety of persons and property in space and on Earth,” the White House document stated. “The United States shall seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris by government and non-government operations in space in order to preserve the space environment for future generations.”

    In a collision of coincidences, the 25th meeting of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) is slated for April 23-26 and is hosted by the China National Space Administration. The meeting is to be held at the China Academy of Space Technology in Beijing.

    IADC is an international governmental forum for the worldwide coordination of activities related to the issues of human-made and natural debris in space.

    Also, reactions spurred by China’s ASAT actions are sure to surface later this month at a meeting of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in Vienna.

    On the UN agenda is the potential approval of draft Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines that were hammered out last year.